This from Raw Story:

The leader of the Progressive Caucus Policy Foundation, Darcy Burner, released a video speaking out against the Stupak amendment. "Women who find they have cancer while they are pregnant won't get the choice of how to proceed, but those choices will instead be made by politicians in Washington, DC," Burner said. "The idea that we would throw women under the bus in the process of doing health care reform is completely unacceptable."

You remember Darcy Burner from the 2008 election against Reichert don't you Kari? How do you like what the people you work for have done? Cat got your tongue that you're just spinning here to hide from denouncing them on this post? They could have stopped it by voting down this version of the bill and kept working on it, but in the end all Blumenauer, DeFazio, Wu, and Shrader really cared about was the politics of winning.

And one big correction Kari, this is not a bill that provides universal health insurance in any honest meaning of that phrase (and the your little trick of using the term "approving" results in a statement which has no meaning, but you are just PR whore for these guys who specialty is creative lying). What is does is require virtually everybody to give their money to the private health insurance industry. Big difference and you continue to be overtly dishonest about that. Trying to wring some credit for Democrats out of this abomination is disgusting.

At this point, if the final bill has the essential elements of this bill, there is a fair chance Democrats will lose the House and the Senate in a populist backlash. Republicans probably will repeal the mandate and leave the Stupak amendment in place. They'll do it as part of some bill that Obama really will want. The battle moves to the Senate now where we will get another shot after 2010 at fixing health care right if the mandate is stripped out of this failed bill now.

And by the way Kari, the last I checked two weeks ago Merkley was against the mandate. So which client are you going to talk up for and against now: Wyden who is for a mandate and or Merkley who is against?

There are aspects of this bill that are gold. 100% beautiful. There are also big problems with this bill. But I watched it on C-SPAN live and it did seem historic. You know those giant snakes at the zoo that never move? This was like one of those but worse - this was a constipated snake coming to life long enough to take a massive crap. Frankly, I was impressed. Talking about trying later and fixing things after 2010...sure, keep trying but the big snake doesn't move that often. It may be many years before it moves again.

I guess this legislation could be called "historic" in that the U.S. says it's attempting to get to universal coverage while continuing to mainly rely on for-profit insurance for primary care.

Ain't never been done before. And I don't think it will be, either. Seems to me that with new regulations that will inhibit profitability (no more pre-existing-condition denials, cap on out-of-pocket expenses paid by consumers), the private carriers will seek to maintain profitability by raising premiums (even more), which means that even with subsidies the individuals and families who make 150%-400% of the poverty level will still not be able to afford insurance.

Bill - I think you miss my point. If the Senate goes with the House, the prospects are that not only do Democrats lose the majority but parts of it get rolled back. If Democrats change course now they just might hang on and get a chance after 2010 to continue what they've started. I watched the debate too and what came to mind were several other momentous debates and votes from the last many decades and how this seemed like a disgusting caricature of those.

There was really something utterly disgusting as they cheered and Pelosi took credit for what actually isn't the kind of thing most mature adults would be making a big public deal of taking credit for --- making your snake analogy quite appropriate.

I agree with you too Stephen. There is little reason to thing what Democrats have given us here is going to do much except make matters far worse. Guaranteed issue despite per-existing conditions (which I support) is not going work without stringent price controls that aren't in this bill, or a genuine publicly owned option that has massive enrollment and therefore real buying power (which is what I support over an easily corrupted system of price controls).

Not going to say --- you apparently don't actually understand what the real import of the bill is. This bill doesn't provide any additional coverage. It only mandates that everybody buy insurance or pay a penalty. While there is going to be an exchange and subsidies, the costs are still going to be very unaffordable of that mandate. So people are either going to flout the law, or actually decrease their standard of living to bear this cost. Either way they are going to feel very real negative economic consequences. These are "subsidies" that many can't afford to use and that others will pay a high price to use.

(And be clear, here, this is not a Republican anti-reform argument. I am for a strong publicly-owned option or single national health insurance system which forces the industry out of the game entirely.)

The real import of this bill is to bring a windfall to the insurance industry and to bring some economic benefit to privileged whose insurance premiums had previously also subsidized the uninsured emergency room and pro-bono physician care. They will see some relief in upward price pressure on their premiums without a corresponding tax hit, despite claims of subsidies, because we are going to borrow to pay for those subsidies.

So your point is pitiful and somewhat obnoxious. In fact, it actually reads as a very elitist defense of what the privileged in Congress have passed here since your words and tone hardly convey a close identification and empathy with what this really will mean for working and poor people who have been victimized by the health insurance industry in this country. This bill embodies a cynical betrayal of the noble values our party once stood for, and the NW delegations, to a member economically quite well off, were right there taking the lead doing it.

The latest details on this case: www.35energy.com

Greg Walden doesn't want government making health care decisions for us -- except when it comes to the decision to have an abortion. Consistency has never been the strong suit of the wingnuts.

Dennis Kucinich voted NO. Why he voted No. Considering the senate will very likely degrade a very limited house bill in conference there isn't really that much to cheer.

Its HUGELY better than what we have now and compared to that mess that Boehner tried to float earlier this week it's a triumph. It's not perfect, but bills this complex rarely are.

Carla, just continue to be you typical egotistical self, who simply has to say something, not matter how stupid it is, because you can't abide that the fact you are shown to be such a loser who defends the indefensible.

First, Darcy Burner is a hell a lot more credible talking about what is wrong with this bill and your dancing around proves that. Minimizing just how much of an attack this is on women's reproductive rights the electeds you're obviously desperate to defend in the elitist way you do undermines your own credibility.

Second, pathetically trying to justify this as good by contrasting it with what Boehner offered also demonstrates just how you don't have a credible argument or a principled position.

Third, rationalizing and excuse-making we still have the Senate, when in fact there is almost no chance the Senate will be more progressive than the House on the Stupak issue or the mandate issue shows just how uncredible you are.

Finally, by what measure is this better than what we have now? I actually don't see a lot of serious arguments out there from much more intelligent people than you make this case about this bill. The nit-wit blogosphere where anybody with an ego can make their name a domain by buying it doesn't cut it as serious argument. There are a lot of claims about guaranteed issue despite pre-existing conditions BUT that is going to come at such a high cost in premiums that the result is predicted to be people flouting the law or finding lower-cost alternatives that doesn't actually increase access to services.

Thanks Carla for providing us with yet another ugly example of the haughty, egotistical, dull-witted, trite pack of laughing hyenas who have chewed out the soul our party and made a mockery of anything progressive, principled, or even Democratic.

Calling in Opposition, I'm still not clear on one thing: Do you like the bill or not?

Stephen Amy:

which means that even with subsidies the individuals and families who make 150%-400% of the poverty level will still not be able to afford insurance.

Bob T:

You mean (like it has for many years already) they won't be able to afford the kind of insurance the government allows. Do yoi really think that we've had anything close to free enterprise health care (with and without insurance in the middle?). That would be like saying that a city with a government-protected taxi-cab monopoly with $10 minimum fares is free enterprise in action. But then, I never expect progressives to know anything about this.

Bob Tiernan Portland

Not going to say = another typical pathetic, snarky NW moron who couldn't buy a clue if it was put in one of his/her hands and the money to pay for it was put in the other.

And Carla:

So do you believe that what Boehner offered is superior to what passed the House yesterday?

when you can't help yourself from saying patently ridiculous things like this because you really don't have any argument, we just see how all you can do is dig yourself into a deeper hole. That would be the hole of trying to rationalize how you and Kari and the rest got punked into being cheerleaders for what people with half a brain saw in the last several days and certainly the last 24 hours before the vote was quickly become a bad fraud of reform. And the cost now is defending this attack on women's reproductive rights and trying to argue that welfare for the health insurance industry (and requiring working people to pay for it) is somehow good for working and poor people.

Frankly, Dennis Kucinich, Robert Reich, Taylor Marsh (HuffPo), and even Ezra Klein have made the case over the last 72 hours why this is so bad for women and working and poor people, based on far stronger values and arguments (and I generally find Klein to be a typical 30-something mentally lightweight and twit.) I suppose, they are just "red operatives opposed to any healthcare reform at all", or "simply enthusiastically misguided and pompous?".

"Everything else you said at the end there was so inflammatory, it does not deserve an adult response. "

It does deserve one adult response. Blue Oregon, while not perfect (whatever that might be), has a lot going for it. How participants act will determine its future - up or down. The response, therefor, should be that name calling and other forms of personal attacks are not acceptable and will be ignored.

So... My 20 something nieces and nephews will be forced to buy health insurance. Employment is down and underemployment is soaring, so they will most likely have to find individual insurance. My nephew will have all his needs covered - including viagra if he wants. But my nieces will not have reproductive needs covered, no basic pelvic exams, no contraception, no domestic violence screening. They will be allowed to purchase ADDITIONAL insurance to cover their basic needs. If the need for an abortion comes up it will impact the women, and no abortion will be covered except if they are going to die from the pregnancy or if they can prove they were raped.

So health care will cost more for the women and provide less. I thought democrats were supposed to have women's rights as a core value.

I could be missing something, but it looks to me like the Stupak amendment didn't even gain support from opposition Democrats or Republicans. Prior to the vote CNN was reporting that there were 40 Democrats prepared to vote with the Republican caucus against the bill. At the end of the day, only one Democrat out of those 40 voted for it (39 still voted against) and only one Republican supported the bill.

Two votes gained in exchange for this attack on reproductive rights?

Considering Democrats only needed 218 voted to pass (and got 220 including those two swung by the Stupak amendment), it looks like Pelosi let this one pass for no reason.

I agree that this bill isn't perfect, but it's a huge step forward. As a college student low on funds and high on medical needs, I look forward to the speedy passage of health care reform, but I am solidly disappointing with Pelosi's end game on this one.

"So... My 20 something nieces and nephews will be forced to buy health insurance. "

We are all forced to buy something for the supposed benefit of the nation. Most of these payments are called taxes that Justice Holmes said were what we pay for a civilized society. That isn't quite right when we have to pay taxes to support a bloated military for expansion of empire or pay people in Congress to indulge in a life of corruption and hypocrisy. But as another old saying has it, a nation gets the kind of government it deserves. Some of us may believe we deserve better, but overall this latter saying seems to be perfectly valid. As for buying insurance for health care through a government option, most people would surely agree that could be much better than buying drones, bombs and depleted uranium to destroy other societies.

Pat, I love your sarcasm.

"One fun conclusion that we can all draw here is that (at the literal End of the Day) the iron willed and uncompromising Dennis Kucinich voted against the bill, while wobbly and insufficiently doctrinaire Dems like Kurt Schrader wound up supporting it, but only due to the diligence of our own heroic Keyboard Kommandos."

"As for buying insurance for health care through a government option, most people would surely agree that could be much better than buying drones, bombs and depleted uranium to destroy other societies."

Huh? Was this the choice?

And it is not correct to equate paying taxes to being forced to purchase for-wall-street-profit insurance, or buy into a public option where the basic needs of a portion of the population are not covered.

You Democrats are so wonderful. You really care about women and children, peace and justice, health care and wars/occupations. I want to have your babies.

In a comprehensive executive summary at the Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP) website, Kip Sullivan, JD writes: "Both the Senate and House versions of the proposed ‘public option' require that corporations with expertise in health insurance administer the option." Sullivan believes this is very bad news for the public.

He warns that private sector firms will likely play a role "that closely resembles the role that defense contractors play in the production of weapons for the Pentagon. Just as Northrop Grumman carries out all tasks necessary to create a fighter plane, so private corporations (not public employees) will carry out all tasks necessary to create the ‘option' health insurance programs." This function, he says, "is obviously very different from, and more significant than, merely processing claims."

The options in the current Senate and House bills, writes Sullivan, "will not resemble the traditional Medicare program but will in fact consist of numerous insurance programs (or plans) functioning at the level of individual insurance markets, that is, at the level of states and regions within states. Once you understand this, you begin to grasp what it means to say that private corporations will ‘administer' the option program. You begin to comprehend that the multiple local option programs might actually be owned by, or administered by privately owned corporations, possibly health insurance companies."

(Public Option is Just Another Private Party – and We’re Not Invited, http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/11/06-7)

Get past the total lack of self awareness "Calling" displays when calling someone else immature or a mental lightweight, and you might notice that he is totlally backward on the political implications of passing this bill (not to mention on most of his substantive critiques).

Last November Americans elected Barack Obama and strengthened Democratic majorities in both the House and Senate. Largely on the promise to do something about healthcare. Passing a bill will not endanger these majorities. Not passing one will.

I can take ideological idiocy. I can take substantive idiocy. But idiocy on political matters really gets me.

I am sure that this list of US Senators would not vote for cloture on this version of health care reform:

Blanche Lincoln (D-Arkansas) Joe Lieberman (I-Connecticut) Tom Carper (D-Delaware) Bill Nelson (D-Florida) Mary Landrieu (D-Louisiana) Max Baucus (D-Montana) Ben Nelson (D-Nebraska) Kent Conrad and Byron Dorgan (D-North Dakota)

Remember, you need 60 votes out of the US Senate's 100 members to bring cloture on debate.

I don't see this version ever reaching 55 votes.

Out of that list, Mary Landrieu is the most conservative. Look her up.

Does anyone with a better understanding know why Mary Landrieu has flown completely under the radar, while Lieberman has been in the magnifying glass of the media?

She is one of the, if not the most conservative Democrat in the US Senate.

"And it is not correct to equate paying taxes to being forced to purchase for-wall-street-profit insurance, or buy into a public option where the basic needs of a portion of the population are not covered."

In other words, forget the limited progress in this bill and deny coverage to the relatively few the house bill would help. I'm with you completely on opposing for-profit insurance plans, but the government could and should do something half-decent like a properly funded version of Medicare or an extension thereof.

bill, "In other words, forget the limited progress in this bill and deny coverage to the relatively few the house bill would help" where do you get that I said THAT??

I am extremely disappointed with democrats. We voted in huge majorities. They've done more damage to 'choice' than republicans have, and now to not cover contraception or pelvic exams for women? The bill is so flawed it might be best to just start over. If health insurance costs just keep rising and people are mandated to buy into insurance, and women's basic reproductive health not covered, then the democrats will not be looked on favorably at the polls.

t.a., It's my understanding that parts of the bill like the pre-existing conditions protection would begin right away while other parts like the exchanges would start in 2013.

"I am extremely disappointed with democrats."

I believe you mean the Democrats. Big difference. I gave up on the Democratic Party a long time ago; although, I respect a few of its members and people in Congress. So, I'm not disappointed. That comes from expecting them to do a good job and being let down when it is business as usual.

"The bill is so flawed it might be best to just start over."

I wouldn't put up much of an argument with you on this, but I lean towards taking any improvement, no matter how slight, to help some people even if others are ignored. But keep pushing for more.

To be fair, it is not only Democrats. The Republicans are just as bad, if not worse.

I think I'll be blowing a kiss to Brian Baird every time I cross the bridge to work in Vankyville, and certainly congratulating my Clark County-resident coworkers for having such a fine species of Demo-RAT as their representative.

what torrid joe said

History will record that the Democratic Party pissed away this historic opportunity. Last night I felt shame and disappointment about what might have been.

We (I haven't changed my affiliation yet) have become the Whig party of the late 1840s-early 1850s, unable to appease irreconcilable parts of themselves. Our officeholders (Kari's clients) are convinced they need to remain in the good graces of insurance companies and banks to stay viable. Large portions of their base feel strongly that insurance companies, banks, and corporations in general have entirely too much power in America and have to be brought to heel.

If, in the wake of Obama's victory and Bush's handing him the Great Recession, Obama would have simply said we can only afford the obvious answer, single payer, I am convinced America would have rallied around him. But we have all found out that is not who we elected and this is not our party.

Now we're going to kill another few thousands in Afghanistan, throw a trillion to the banks and insurance companies from the middle class, and crush the remaining embers of the union movement by backing away from card check. No Republican could have done this to us. Only a weak-tea Democratic (read: late stage collapse Whig) administration that has agreed to stand for little, and to fight for that little with Fox News.

America will always wonder what would have happened if we would have fought for what we said we believed in. Now it's over.

"The bill is so flawed it might be best to just start over."

By the time the insurance corporation agents in the senate degrade what is in the house bill, throwing "reform" out and starting over may be the way to go. Along with throwing out the people in Congress who will have betrayed the people.

Congratulations! Now you can work full time on killing, er, passing Measure 66. Really wish that was Measure 69, the way you blow it's horn!

I said right here, a week ago or so, that the religious right control the US, not liberals. Here's proof. Imagine a conservative cause like a flag burning bill. What are the odds that some wilderness protection would be tacked on? Impossible, eh? Here's something just as near and dear to liberals' hearts, and it contains a pro-life rider. We are always present. If you want to escape that, move to France.

Wake up and acknowledge your masters! Then you won't be surprised when health care isn't different in 5 years. This is "plan b". Let a feckless Dem Congress pass it, then make damned sure it don't work. The idea will be discredited for ever. And making this not work will be easy. Meanwhile, we've kept you busy and off foreign policy, haven't we?

One more sticky issue, then an international crisis. Or an assassination attempt. Not suggesting, but contoversial Presidents are more often targets. Hope and change is going to look like Old Glory after the storm, in the next Presidential cycle!

Congratulations! Now you can work full time on killing, er, passing Measure 66. Really wish that was Measure 69, the way you blow it's horn!

I said right here, a week ago or so, that the religious right control the US, not liberals. Here's proof. Imagine a conservative cause like a flag burning bill. What are the odds that some wilderness protection would be tacked on? Impossible, eh? Here's something just as near and dear to liberals' hearts, and it contains a pro-life rider. We are always present. If you want to escape that, move to France.

Wake up and acknowledge your masters! Then you won't be surprised when health care isn't different in 5 years. This is "plan b". Let a feckless Dem Congress pass it, then make damned sure it don't work. The idea will be discredited for ever. And making this not work will be easy. Meanwhile, we've kept you busy and off foreign policy, haven't we?

One more sticky issue, then an international crisis. Or an assassination attempt. Not suggesting, but contoversial Presidents are more often targets. Hope and change is going to look like Old Glory after the storm, in the next Presidential cycle!

Great column

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09305/1009580-149.stm

daring Republicans and whatever Lieberman is to do an old fashioned filibuster.

The details are important, so I mention this. Looking at the graphic, as a graphic, it's nice to see "Independent", acknowledging the possibility, even though there are none. I'm bothered by the heading though.

"Yea" and "Nay"? I know I'm not imagining that either the Senate or House voted, about 5 years ago, to use "yes and "no", not "yea" and "nay". Can't find a reference to it at all. Not readily googleable. I really don't think this is a case of galloping senility. Does anyone have a reference?

Posted by: brandonwinkle | Nov 8, 2009 10:27:50 PM

You can get instant medical insurance at the lowest price from http://bit.ly/39pFJx

Attack spam at the source! This is a "Domain Holding Corp", providing hot domain names to sales groids that pump in content. Nothing like showing up at the office and puking on the desk to get your point across. Ditto signing up for all the spam you can, with their contact info (if they find it so inoffensive, after all). The groidy marketer is: Mark Nipper All Web Leads, Inc. 7801 N. Capital of Tx Hwy Ste 220 Austin, Texas 78731 (888) 522-7355 public (512) 349-7910 fax (512) 349-7900 corporate

The name monkey: Operates as datacommedia.com, out of 800 West El Camino Real Suite 180 Mountain View, CA 94040 Phone: 650-396-7726, [email protected] but is actually registered as a business as Maltuzi, LLC 515 S Flower St, Suite 4400 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: 213-408-0080

Are they sure that if they won the election they can come across to the solution of the problem of the country? I don't think so. A recession doesn't have to be all bad. You'd be surprised what positives can arise from a recession – for instance, in areas that used to be heavily industrial (and therefore polluted), after factories shut down, the environment began to recover and wildlife returned. Some people, cast into unemployment from layoffs, have made new careers and started their own businesses.

here's my favorite sections of the Health Bill: • Section 7203 — misdemeanor willful failure to pay is punishable by a fine of up to $25,000 and/or imprisonment of up to one year.

• Section 7201 — felony willful evasion is punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years.”

Good work Dems - this bill has the teeth it needs.

Allah Akbar!

This article from Slate notes the delicious irony of the squealing over the anti-abortion amendment.

And also deliciously hypocritical is the whining of the left on this thread: "Wah! Wah! If I don't get everything I want I'm going to go sulk in the corner."

Even after the Senate waters down the bill further it's still a huge improvement for OVER 40 MILLION AMERICANS who don't have ANY access to health care now! I say to those whining on this thread - are you willing to let these people CONTINUE to die or needlessly suffer just because you didn't get your way in all matters?

Especially if the Democrats fail to pass health care because of your sabotage and as a result the current majorities in Congress and Obama's Presidency go down the toilet? You think John Boehner and Mitch McConnell are going to resurrect your precious health care bill?

GROW UP!

"A whole lot of Americans don’t like the current health care system, and a whole lot more hate insurance companies. The Democrats might have been able to translate that into some sort of populist support for real change. Instead, they dithered and compromised, and failed to invoke any compelling ideology. Health care ought to have nothing to do with profits. It should be a basic human right in a civilized society. But that’s precisely the kind of statement the Democrats are unwilling to make—so they end up saying nothing at all." More at Health Care: Winning a Battle, Losing the War Change You Can't Believe In

It amazes me how so-called "progressives" are so willing to throw women under the bus. Sick.

Kari:

The vote was 220 in favor and 215 against

Bob T:

Interestingly, that's the same exact vote tally for 2003's Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement an Modernization Act which, by the way, was projected to cost in the area of $400 Billion but now projected to cost about a Trillion.

Bob Tiernan Portland

Is the House Health Care Bill Better than Nothing?. Marcia Angell, M. D., does't think so. She is Senior Lecturer in the Department of Social Medicine at Harvard Medical School. She stepped down as Editor-in-Chief of the New England Journal of Medicine on June 30, 2000.

Yee, this is a great historic achievement. Why? Because thanks to the bloated and ineffectual Democratic Party we are now seeing the restoration of the wire coat hanger to its rightful place in society. Along with white sheet covered protests and lynching. Could not have been done without the supine progressives. Great job.

I missed this before from Kari, so my apologies for my late comment: "CIO called me names - "you are just PR whore" - and..."

I have had my differences with Kari, but this it totally uncalled for. The author of this contemptible comment appears to have taken other hints and removed himself and his expressions from BlueOregon. Let's hope that he and others prone to slinging dirt and name-calling from the gutter will keep their thoughts to themselves in the future.

I love the revisionist history of those who believe the election a year ago was about health care. I know health care was a big issue in the Democratic primary, but the non de plumed 'Nancy Pelosi' and others have completely ignored that Obama ran almost exclusively on the economy in the general. Health care was mentioned during the general election campaign just enough to keep the hard-leftists engaged. Based on the President's handling of the economy, I can see why you want to focus on health care at this time. By all means please encourage the Democrats to keep pushing for bigger and bigger government and stay focused on health care to the exclusion of all other issues. Get government more and more involved with choosing who runs companies, how much money they can make, be sure to make electricity and gasoline a whole lot more expensive, and by all means keep borrowing money to throw at favored segments of the economy.

I had originally thought it would take the Republicans 4-6 years to return to the majority, but I like the timeline of your plan better.

I am one of those who are uninsurable - at least till I got into Oregon's pool of uninsurables. I lost health insurance earlier this year after an accident and surgery and was turned down by insurers 4 times. Thru OMIP I can barely afford catastrophic (I'm self employed) coverage. I'm wondering if I will be fined because my coverage is not 'full' enough. I cannot afford more coverage, so I really can't afford the fines too. Not sure where I will fit into this discriminatory new health insurance regulation.

Joe Hill said, "Only a weak-tea Democratic (read: late stage collapse Whig) administration that has agreed to stand for little, and to fight for that little with Fox News."

You couldn't be more wrong. The DP, Dear Leader stage, is not weak, and it stands for something powerful. Like its more honest cousin, the DP stands for corporate power, militarism, and blinding ideological devotion to "free" markets, American Exceptionalism and rule by the strong.

Fox News, as willing an ally to RP stupidity as it may be, is still not exceptional in the U.S. mainstream media landscape. Enter the memory hole and think about how the "liberal" MSNBC destroyed the far-less than radical Phil Donahue in its zeal to promote war and terror. Now that the DP is in power, MSNBC allows a Maddow so long as it is within the range of acceptable discussion.

It's the corporations, stupid.

Joe Hill:

We have become the Whig party of the late 1840s-early 1850s, unable to appease irreconcilable parts of themselves.

Bob T:

I don't know why the Whigs need to be criticized. So, they decided not to remain a party that was comfortable with slavery (gee, a big tent with pro- and anti-slavery members who agreed to ignore the issue), so those with problems with slavery left and formed the Republican party (which was never a third party, by the way).

Is the model, therefore, the Democratic Party which decided to do as little as possible about slavery (except fight to expand it)? I hope you're not comparing health care reform with slavery. That's pretty silly. Sounds like some people have nothing to do out there.

Bob Tiernan Portland

B. Tiernan, not to be too "inside baseball," but the Whigs didn't choose anything. They collapsed after their disastrous embrace of the "compromise" Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 alienated all sides. That is the comparison with today; the Democratic Party has alienated women, single payer advocates, and, of course, never had a prayer of any support from the teabagging right.

The Democrats will now either pass a very unpopular bill, which will have severe repercussions (the right will hammer them on the pay-or-go-to-jail provisions, and the left is so dispirited by the constant betrayals across an entire spectrum that they won't fight back) or they will fail to do so and demonstrate their utter incompetence. Either way they're screwed, I think.

Woulda, shoulda, coulda. They just couldn't let go of that corporate teat. When Obama needed to stand up, he couldn't find his feet.

And now it's all coat hangers and escalating premiums to beaming insurance executives who will be raking in the dough for the forseeable future via federal mandate. And this is what we marched for, donated to, knocked on doors for, vowed with grim determination that we would have after eight years of the Bush criminalization of politics?

It's beyond disappointing. It's gut-bomb nauseating.

Joe Hill:

B. Tiernan, not to be too "inside baseball," but the Whigs didn't choose anything. They collapsed after their disastrous embrace of the "compromise"....

Bob T:

It's not that they chose anything as a group, but what many members did as individuals, amounting to a large group leaving the party.

Bob Tiernan Portland

Sugar and Spice's post ought to be read (I did). The public option is a joke. I advise everyone to replace the references to the words "public option" with "piece of crap".

And, over ten years' time, they will close the Medicare Part D "doughnut hole"- any progress on not having the government pay retail for the meds? I don't think there is.

Mandates to buy private insurance. Government subsidies to pay for private insurance.

This bill is really bad.

Actually, 3962 does repeal current law and enables the HHS Sectretary to negotiate medication prices. Please excuse my error on that.

Still a bad bill, on balance.

The TEA baggers' take on this is absolutely hilarious!

Posted by: backbeat | Nov 9, 2009 10:03:53 AM

It amazes me how so-called "progressives" are so willing to throw women under the bus. Sick.

And if you wonder why some progressives are not as civil as Dem faithful would like, or even bother to show up and post after swearing this off, that is the reason, first, last and center.

Progressive tried to out Stupak here many moons ago, and a scrum of party faithful, having seen nothing more than a "D" after his name, rushed to his rescue.

Love t.a.'s post when he talks about what "we were doing in 2003", and how the war got started. Seems to overlook the fact that what party faithful were doing was painting progressives as outdated 60s freaks that couldn't handle realpolitk and rationalizing why their party leadership was acting identical to the Great Satan Bush. It really is a toss up which side of the aisle uses more self-validating logic.

What the Democrats fail to mention is the bill leaves millions of people uninsured, allows medical bankruptcies to persist, criminalizes and fines the uninsured, increases the number of underinsured, does nothing to contain the sky rocketing costs, blocks women from their reproductive rights, transfers massive public funds to private insurance companies strengthening their control over care, protects pharmaceutical companies' superprofits at patient expense, fails to reclaim the 31% of waste in our system, expands Medicaid without regard to the state budget crises, discriminates based on immigration status and age, and sets up several levels of care covering less for those without the ability to pay. Those who have coverage will increasingly find care unaffordable and will go without. The whole system will inevitably fail from being fiscally unsustainable.

So is the House bill better than nothing?

I don't think so. It simply throws more money into a dysfunctional and unsustainable system, with only a few improvements at the edges, and it augments the central role of the investor-owned insurance industry. The danger is that as costs continue to rise and coverage becomes less comprehensive, people will conclude that we've tried health reform and it didn't work. But the real problem will be that we didn't really try it. I would rather see us do nothing now, and have a better chance of trying again later and then doing it right.

Posted by: Marcia Angell, M.D. | Nov 12, 2009 2:37:44 PM

What the Democrats fail to mention is the bill leaves millions of people uninsured, allows medical bankruptcies to persist, criminalizes and fines the uninsured, increases the number of underinsured, does nothing to contain the sky rocketing costs, blocks women from their reproductive rights...

Oh, stop right there! TEABAGGER, "M. D." works to get it in, has never supported women's reproductive rights, but shows up to spam a liberal blog with the news that it, "blocks women from their reproductive rights".

Which would explain the made up name. Doesn't want to be quoted later. You know, in the early days of the internet, we just called that hacking. LBB was right. They are cowards. And most BO posters have been right. They are hypocrites.

We don't discuss the sidebar ads, even when completely relevant to the discussion. Why should these link spammers be a part of teh debate any more? Some, like Richard have actually become responsive, but this is just copy and paste, see ya.

It should be noted that the real Marcia Angell, M.D. has exposed the drug companies fraud publicly, and has not bought into any of the Dem/Rep compromises designed to sink implementation. Which is the point of this spam. That poster actually thinks you're stupid enough to believe that because she's progressive, and does hate the rider, you might be encouraged to flip.

I've heard from friends that, as of this week, local health care providers (KP in this case) are seeding employees with stories and telling them to get out an post on blogs like this. Unbelievably, that could be a major VP's assistant, doing her regular work. Meanwhile I recently re-homed family I checked in on is dealing with the fact that one of Dad's teeth disintegrated this morning. No insurance, no way to pay full price or afford coverage, he is just SOL.

Maybe the left has turned a corner with this. In the past that was a "that's just too bad", or "we need a better system, but this is the US...". Now, it's different. We can see that it could be, and it could be now. Between us and that are insurers and providers trying their damnest to see it doesn't happen. Henceforth, there is a face when basic healthcare is denied. The waiting rooms now more resemble auction blocks than treatment facilities. "What am I bid on a heart valve? Come on, now, you could die without it. Is that all? But I know you can afford more, how about..."

True, that's always been the case for any to discover. This has flushed them out of the shadows, penetrated the spin, and will be their legacy pass or fail.

Has everyone here seen Earl's column in the NY Times?

<h2>http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/opinion/15blumenauer.html?_r=1&ref=opinion</h2>