As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

Health Care Reform: Now With PR Gimmicks! We're Doomed.

1235763

Posts

  • KanamitKanamit Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    moniker wrote: »
    Kanamit wrote: »
    So, this FEHB thing can bypass state regulations? I can't parse it.

    Think of it like banks. You can be chartered in your State or you can be chartered Federally. Some prefer going the state route because its easier regulatory capture and tends to be friendlier other go Federal because they're huge.

    From my reading it's basically that if you want to get into the 'exchange' you have to meet the federal guidelines as setup by OPM. Except they'll still need to have the 51 separate agencies since not everyone can get into the exchange because that would be a good idea.
    My question is if states are forbidden to regulate beyond federal regulations.

    Because if they are I'd rather have plain old for-profit insurance.

    Kanamit on
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Qingu wrote: »
    If the FEHB is nonprofit I am happy.

    If it's not and it's some bizarre caving into the whole "let's sell insurance across state lines" Republicans then may Willow curse them, but then it doesn't sound like that's what's going on.

    I don't really give two shits about the profit motive compared to what they are legally obliged to/are barred from doing.

    moniker on
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Kanamit wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Kanamit wrote: »
    So, this FEHB thing can bypass state regulations? I can't parse it.

    Think of it like banks. You can be chartered in your State or you can be chartered Federally. Some prefer going the state route because its easier regulatory capture and tends to be friendlier other go Federal because they're huge.

    From my reading it's basically that if you want to get into the 'exchange' you have to meet the federal guidelines as setup by OPM. Except they'll still need to have the 51 separate agencies since not everyone can get into the exchange because that would be a good idea.
    My question is if states are forbidden to regulate beyond federal regulations.

    Because if they are I'd rather have plain old for-profit insurance.

    That'd depend on if its like S-CHIP et.al. and administered by the state, I guess? I'm sure we'll find out soon enough, but at the very least OPM mandates would be the worst possible outcome and that doesn't seem too bad.

    moniker on
  • KanamitKanamit Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Kanamit wrote: »
    Oh, and RIP Roe v. Wade, if I'm reading the abortion amendment right.
    Okay, so that's an exaggeration, fortunately.

    I can live with this bill, though I don't see how these idiotic concessions have improved the bill's prospects.

    Kanamit on
  • OtakingOtaking Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    I became disillusioned with the whole health care debate and thereby lost a lot of my Democratic goodwill before it even started. I'll never jump ship though because the opposition just doesn't live in the real world anymore.

    The talk of adding value and efficiency to the whole system by things like nationalized health care database and comparisons of health care reforms to the 1900s meat industry reforms that I was excited about pre-election seem to have been swept firmly under the rug wholly in favor of pie-in-the-sky free health care for all.

    I feel I'm in a position of understanding the problems more intimately than others as I have seen far too much of hospitals and ER visits over the last five years due to my wife's health problems.

    On the one hand there are several people without adequate health care clogging our ERs, but then again there are people who's health concerns are not addressed and helped on the first, seventh, or twenty seventh visits and they keep returning to the ER.

    Non-sharing of information beneficial to the patient in any vetted and coherent fashion between hospitals and lack of accountability for hospitals to patients are things well within our government's capacity to address but still debate focuses only on spreading the taxes around versus insurance over anything else.

    Doctors can drop you as a patient at the drop of a hat, in fact do share information on their own (to protect other doctors) by writing things into your file that will blackball you to other doctors and some are even starting to keep online databases of "problem patients".

    All great escape hatches when medical problems become too difficult to solve. Ultimately they can still bury their mistakes.

    Medical costs need to be attacked directly by adding value and efficiency to the system by doing as much as possible to ensure people are being made well and doctors and staff aren't able to do absolutely nothing for a patient yet still collect a paycheck. Bring down costs by making sure people are getting better and the medical industry is aimed firmly in that direction instead of the direction of keeping people on pills and bringing in the pharma profits.

    The scary stuff of course is hearing about more 'stop needless tests' type of legislation being enacted to drive down costs. What you'll end up with there is people dying of their problems anyway if the problem is not glaringly obvious and advanced enough to be incurable in many cases.

    Otaking on
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    That's stupid and pointless, but could be far, far worse.

    enlightenedbum on
    Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Kanamit wrote: »
    Kanamit wrote: »
    Oh, and RIP Roe v. Wade, if I'm reading the abortion amendment right.
    Okay, so that's an exaggeration, fortunately.

    I can live with this bill, though I don't see how these idiotic concessions have improved the bill's prospects.

    Better than Stupak, but still so fucking stupid.

    moniker on
  • RobmanRobman Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    As an outsider looking into America, one would imagine that the only things that happen in America are welfare, abortion, guns, and dead soldiers.

    Robman on
  • KanamitKanamit Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Robman wrote: »
    As an outsider looking into America, one would imagine that the only things that happen in America are welfare, abortion, guns, and dead soldiers.
    Gays too.

    Oh god, I just gave Nelson an idea, didn't I?

    Kanamit on
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Bullio wrote: »
    Speaker wrote: »
    Qingu wrote: »
    Oh, Willowhoo ackbar (I think)...
    Instead of a public option, the final product would allow private firms for the first time to offer national insurance policies to all Americans, outside the jurisdiction of state regulations. Those plans would be negotiated through the Office of Personnel Management, the same agency that handles health coverage for federal workers and members of Congress.

    If this is actually nonprofit and it's the nonprofit thing Reid was talking about earlier, hooray! Except for the abortion of the abortion coverage, of course.

    I don't think it's non-profit.

    It's a non-profit run by private insurers.

    It's slightly more complicated than that. The way I'm reading things, health insurance companies can offer as many plans through the OPM as they want, but one of them has to be non-profit.

    enlightenedbum on
    Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    OK, so I think I'm very, very lukewarmly back on board. The way I read things is this:

    A lot of the nonsense in denying people care if they have coverage will be prevented.
    A lot more people will have coverage.
    So hooray, we should have near universality of access finally.

    I don't see a whole lot to lower prices though, which is concerning. So either people still go broke when they get sick, or we have a ton new spending that will probably get gutted. There's going to have to be another bill in the next Congress to address cost.

    enlightenedbum on
    Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    edited December 2009
    Otaking wrote: »
    I became disillusioned with the whole health care debate and thereby lost a lot of my Democratic goodwill before it even started. I'll never jump ship though because the opposition just doesn't live in the real world anymore.

    The talk of adding value and efficiency to the whole system by things like nationalized health care database and comparisons of health care reforms to the 1900s meat industry reforms that I was excited about pre-election seem to have been swept firmly under the rug wholly in favor of pie-in-the-sky free health care for all.

    I feel I'm in a position of understanding the problems more intimately than others as I have seen far too much of hospitals and ER visits over the last five years due to my wife's health problems.

    On the one hand there are several people without adequate health care clogging our ERs, but then again there are people who's health concerns are not addressed and helped on the first, seventh, or twenty seventh visits and they keep returning to the ER.

    Non-sharing of information beneficial to the patient in any vetted and coherent fashion between hospitals and lack of accountability for hospitals to patients are things well within our government's capacity to address but still debate focuses only on spreading the taxes around versus insurance over anything else.

    Doctors can drop you as a patient at the drop of a hat, in fact do share information on their own (to protect other doctors) by writing things into your file that will blackball you to other doctors and some are even starting to keep online databases of "problem patients".

    All great escape hatches when medical problems become too difficult to solve. Ultimately they can still bury their mistakes.

    Medical costs need to be attacked directly by adding value and efficiency to the system by doing as much as possible to ensure people are being made well and doctors and staff aren't able to do absolutely nothing for a patient yet still collect a paycheck. Bring down costs by making sure people are getting better and the medical industry is aimed firmly in that direction instead of the direction of keeping people on pills and bringing in the pharma profits.

    The scary stuff of course is hearing about more 'stop needless tests' type of legislation being enacted to drive down costs. What you'll end up with there is people dying of their problems anyway if the problem is not glaringly obvious and advanced enough to be incurable in many cases.

    Well, a number of the efficiency-promoting procedures are already written into the legislation. Some of them (like medical review boards) have been unfortunately defanged at industry insistance.

    But it sounds like the problem you are describing is that hypochondriacs and people who claim ultra-broad-spectrum mystery illnesses don't get as many doctor's notes or attention as they would like to have, or else they don't get their chiropractor or shaman or other sympathetic charlatan reimbursed.

    For people with real-life illnesses, in my experience, they get treated pretty seriously (because they are profitable if for no other reason). My sister-in-law has lupus, which is about as broad-spectrum as you can get without actually getting into mythology, and her doctors milk the shit out of every iota of her marginal health insurance. She gets pretty good care.

    Irond Will on
    Wqdwp8l.png
  • Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Alexandria, VARegistered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Otaking wrote: »
    The talk of adding value and efficiency to the whole system by things like nationalized health care database and comparisons of health care reforms to the 1900s meat industry reforms that I was excited about pre-election seem to have been swept firmly under the rug wholly in favor of pie-in-the-sky free health care for all.

    What the hell are you talking about? Nobody has proposed free health care for everybody. Democrats talk about Medicare and rescission, and Republicans yammer about death panels and socialism.

    Captain Carrot on
  • KanamitKanamit Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Did Sanders ever sign onto the bill? Because I keep seeing "Democrats have 60 votes" stories but never saw anything about Sanders backing down.

    It's weird how liberal Democrats do not exist.

    Kanamit on
  • OtakingOtaking Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    But it sounds like the problem you are describing is that hypochondriacs and people who claim ultra-broad-spectrum mystery illnesses don't get as many doctor's notes or attention as they would like to have, or else they don't get their chiropractor or shaman or other sympathetic charlatan reimbursed.

    Well thank you for your expert hypochondriac diagnosis, but this can also happen with a condition with highly variable symptoms like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endometriosis A condition that a lot of people never heard of and don't understand a lot about.

    Then you can have "Whalesir my aunt so-and-so had that and it didn't bother her a tallnun." because it can definitely affect different women differently.

    Some things are even harder to fully locate and find the full effects on the body than Lupus.

    Getting more back on topic, if you legislate in a belief that everyone is a hypochondriac and a liar before paying for tests to prove the contrary you're a lot closer to Republican ideals than you think.

    Otaking on
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    He got 10 billion for community health centers (it's 14 in the House bill, will probably get adopted by the Senate) and is presumably pretty happy about it. Should provide primary health care to 25 million Americans.

    enlightenedbum on
    Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
  • KanamitKanamit Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    He got 10 billion for community health centers (it's 14 in the House bill, will probably get adopted by the Senate) and is presumably pretty happy about it. Should provide primary health care to 25 million Americans.
    In that case, does anyone know if one of the amendments that allowed states to adopt single-payer is still in the bill? I'm guessing not, but you never know.

    Kanamit on
  • Gnome-InterruptusGnome-Interruptus Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Reading Comprehension check: Critical Failure!

    Gnome-Interruptus on
    steam_sig.png
    MWO: Adamski
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Not to be out-assholed, Bart Stupak's office coordinates with Mitch McConnell to kill poor women.

    Fortunately, he's in the House and Pelosi can tell him to fuck off. Hopefully.

    enlightenedbum on
    Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    edited December 2009
    Otaking wrote: »
    But it sounds like the problem you are describing is that hypochondriacs and people who claim ultra-broad-spectrum mystery illnesses don't get as many doctor's notes or attention as they would like to have, or else they don't get their chiropractor or shaman or other sympathetic charlatan reimbursed.

    Well thank you for your expert hypochondriac diagnosis, but this can also happen with a condition with highly variable symptoms like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endometriosis A condition that a lot of people never heard of and don't understand a lot about.

    Then you can have "Whalesir my aunt so-and-so had that and it didn't bother her a tallnun." because it can definitely affect different women differently.

    Some things are even harder to fully locate and find the full effects on the body than Lupus.

    Getting more back on topic, if you legislate in a belief that everyone is a hypochondriac and a liar before paying for tests to prove the contrary you're a lot closer to Republican ideals than you think.

    Endometriosis is a real condition, with real medical diagnoses and real treatments. OBGYNs study endometriosis, and there are endometriosis specialists. I have never heard of an endometriosis patient being turned away from care, nor have I heard of insurance denying treatment for endometriosis (though I'm sure that, like every other chronic illness, they try to drop patients who have it)

    Now, endometriosis-as-excuse-for-CFS-or-whatever-else is another thing entirely. Seizing upon fringe symptoms of spectrum diagnoses is what hypochondriacs do.

    But I don't know. How do you think that health care reform should address people who present untraceable symptoms of chronic broad spectrum illnesses and demand that their fake doctors be subsidized by the government?

    I mean under the Democrats' bill, those people's demands are helped out immensely, since they can no longer be dropped or charged extra by actual insurance with actual doctors. What more do you want?

    Irond Will on
    Wqdwp8l.png
  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    edited December 2009
    Okay maybe I am using "hypochondriac" when I mean "Munchausen"

    Irond Will on
    Wqdwp8l.png
  • OtakingOtaking Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    What the hell are you talking about? Nobody has proposed free health care for everybody. Democrats talk about Medicare and rescission, and Republicans yammer about death panels and socialism.

    Yeah, free was a bad choice of word. Point I was trying to make was the legislation (as I see it being presented anyway) is all about costs and payment plans and not about accountability and technology.

    I just don't see value being created in shifting costs around. Like I've said though I've largely tuned out of the whole thing. Encouraging blurbs are still up on whitehouse.gov but they don't seem to get any press:

    Computerizing America’s Health Records in Five Years. The current, paper-based medical records system that relies on patients’ memory and reporting of their medical history is prone to error, time-consuming, costly, and wasteful. With rigorous privacy standards in place to protect sensitive medical record, we will embark on an effort to computerize all Americans’ health records in five years. This effort will help prevent medical errors, and improve health care quality, and is a necessary step in starting to modernize the American health care system and reduce health care costs.

    Otaking on
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Not to be out-assholed, Bart Stupak's office coordinates with Mitch McConnell to kill poor women.

    Fortunately, he's in the House and Pelosi can tell him to fuck off. Hopefully.

    Given the margin and rules governing the House she can technically have him bludgeoned with a mace.

    moniker on
  • KanamitKanamit Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    moniker wrote: »
    Not to be out-assholed, Bart Stupak's office coordinates with Mitch McConnell to kill poor women.

    Fortunately, he's in the House and Pelosi can tell him to fuck off. Hopefully.

    Given the margin and rules governing the House she can technically have him bludgeoned with a mace.
    Sounds good to me.

    Kanamit on
  • OtakingOtaking Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Endometriosis is a real condition, with real medical diagnoses and real treatments. OBGYNs study endometriosis, and there are endometriosis specialists. I have never heard of an endometriosis patient being turned away from care, nor have I heard of insurance denying treatment for endometriosis (though I'm sure that, like every other chronic illness, they try to drop patients who have it)

    Well you've heard of it now. Imagine going into an OBGYN who specializes in delivering babies only. She thinks she can deal with an advanced case of endo with a simple laser procedure she learned in a three week course (kind of like a car mechanic or Cisco jock learns the new shop tool/router) only to find out she has scarred the top layer of the endo without removing it at all and has no idea now how to deal with the continuing symptoms and nightly ER visits. She drops you as a patient. If you really think the magical men in the white coats are all created equal and diagnose problems equally then unfortunately you live in the same collective fantasy as a lot of other Americans. An illness a lot worse than hypochondria.
    Now, endometriosis-as-excuse-for-CFS-or-whatever-else is another thing entirely. Seizing upon fringe symptoms of spectrum diagnoses is what hypochondriacs do.

    Surely, and women love to give up their ability to deliver children through the course of multiple surgeries as much as they love their hypochondria. Biological imperatives be damned, I'm sick and you should all feel sorry for me.
    But I don't know. How do you think that health care reform should address people who present untraceable symptoms of chronic broad spectrum illnesses and demand that their fake doctors be subsidized by the government?

    You are still making assumptions detrimental to the health of the less fortunate.

    Assumptions taken out of your statement it's a good argument though. I'd say first off that second opinions are a good thing, perhaps good enough to be a requirement for payment but also that the doctor that missed everything the first time should be put under a review of some sort, or at least remedial training.
    I mean under the Democrats' bill, those people's demands are helped out immensely, since they can no longer be dropped or charged extra by actual insurance with actual doctors. What more do you want?

    Obviously I would want for nothing if I or my loved ones had no real problems. Assuming that they had a real problem, they or I would want to get better. There is a lack of debate on why people keep turning up repeatedly in the medical system. I guess they are all hypochondriacs.

    Otaking on
  • big lbig l Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    A question for people who want to kill the bill because it is too watered down and not liberal enough - if we kill it now, when will we pass a better one?

    big l on
  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    edited December 2009
    Doctors fucking up is not going to be a problem that can really be solved with health care reform. Doctors are sometimes going to screw up, and some doctors are going to be better than others under any kind of system.

    And yes there are some rare conditions that medicine just doesn't know how to cure or even treat very well. People still die of MS and cancer and Parkinsons, and some infertile people are just going to be infertile. Medicine is improving, but there is no way to legislate medical progress.

    Now the reforms proposed even under the extant, compromised bill allow for mobility of both doctors and insurance, and ensure that pre-existing conditions (including being a "problem patient") can't be used to disqualify one from getting insurance.

    It sounds as though part of the problems your wife has (a bad doctor who doesn't want to see her anymore and needing access to a better specialist) would actually be addressed by the democrats' legislation. The other parts (a condition that is apparently not well understood and maybe not fully treatable) won't be addressed under any legislation.

    This assumes that she is actually looking for medical treatment for her specific condition and not just looking for a disability check.

    Irond Will on
    Wqdwp8l.png
  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    edited December 2009
    big l wrote: »
    A question for people who want to kill the bill because it is too watered down and not liberal enough - if we kill it now, when will we pass a better one?

    Matt Taibbi is saying "pass a better one in like eight years." Seems like bullshit to me. This is pretty much the only realistic shot we are going to have in probably 40 years.

    Irond Will on
    Wqdwp8l.png
  • ArgusArgus Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Irond Will wrote: »
    big l wrote: »
    A question for people who want to kill the bill because it is too watered down and not liberal enough - if we kill it now, when will we pass a better one?

    Matt Taibbi is saying "pass a better one in like eight years." Seems like bullshit to me. This is pretty much the only realistic shot we are going to have in probably 40 years.

    Remember how that went last time? Oh, yeah, it's been about 15 years and the greatest economic meltdown since the Great Depression to get close again.

    Argus on
    pasigsizedu5.jpg
  • RustRust __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2009
    Irond Will wrote: »
    big l wrote: »
    A question for people who want to kill the bill because it is too watered down and not liberal enough - if we kill it now, when will we pass a better one?

    Matt Taibbi is saying "pass a better one in like eight years." Seems like bullshit to me. This is pretty much the only realistic shot we are going to have in probably 40 years.

    if health care is anywhere near as pressing an issue as the democrats love making it out to be, then no, that is a lie

    Rust on
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Rust wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    big l wrote: »
    A question for people who want to kill the bill because it is too watered down and not liberal enough - if we kill it now, when will we pass a better one?

    Matt Taibbi is saying "pass a better one in like eight years." Seems like bullshit to me. This is pretty much the only realistic shot we are going to have in probably 40 years.

    if health care is anywhere near as pressing an issue as the democrats love making it out to be, then no, that is a lie

    Senate turnover isn't fast enough for it to matter, barring rules changes. And I'm sure you're as cynical as me about the prospect of that.

    enlightenedbum on
    Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
  • RustRust __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2009
    Rust wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    big l wrote: »
    A question for people who want to kill the bill because it is too watered down and not liberal enough - if we kill it now, when will we pass a better one?

    Matt Taibbi is saying "pass a better one in like eight years." Seems like bullshit to me. This is pretty much the only realistic shot we are going to have in probably 40 years.

    if health care is anywhere near as pressing an issue as the democrats love making it out to be, then no, that is a lie

    Senate turnover isn't fast enough for it to matter, barring rules changes. And I'm sure you're as cynical as me about the prospect of that.

    senate turnover wouldn't be relevant

    the dnc talking points have made it sound like the whole country will go under in a decade if this (atrocious, ineffective) bill doesn't get passed

    the "we may never get another shot" line makes absolutely no sense in light of that, but as with the republicans, talking points don't need to make sense, they just need to freak people out

    Rust on
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Rust wrote: »
    Rust wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    big l wrote: »
    A question for people who want to kill the bill because it is too watered down and not liberal enough - if we kill it now, when will we pass a better one?

    Matt Taibbi is saying "pass a better one in like eight years." Seems like bullshit to me. This is pretty much the only realistic shot we are going to have in probably 40 years.

    if health care is anywhere near as pressing an issue as the democrats love making it out to be, then no, that is a lie

    Senate turnover isn't fast enough for it to matter, barring rules changes. And I'm sure you're as cynical as me about the prospect of that.

    senate turnover wouldn't be relevant

    the dnc talking points have made it sound like the whole country will go under in a decade if this (atrocious, ineffective) bill doesn't get passed

    the "we may never get another shot" line makes absolutely no sense in light of that, but as with the republicans, talking points don't need to make sense, they just need to freak people out

    Without new Senators, how would something better get passed? It's not like Ben Nelson is going to have a sudden change of heart. Or Reid is going to grow a spine and kill the anti-democratic bullshit rules.

    enlightenedbum on
    Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
  • RustRust __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2009
    Rust wrote: »
    Rust wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    big l wrote: »
    A question for people who want to kill the bill because it is too watered down and not liberal enough - if we kill it now, when will we pass a better one?

    Matt Taibbi is saying "pass a better one in like eight years." Seems like bullshit to me. This is pretty much the only realistic shot we are going to have in probably 40 years.

    if health care is anywhere near as pressing an issue as the democrats love making it out to be, then no, that is a lie

    Senate turnover isn't fast enough for it to matter, barring rules changes. And I'm sure you're as cynical as me about the prospect of that.

    senate turnover wouldn't be relevant

    the dnc talking points have made it sound like the whole country will go under in a decade if this (atrocious, ineffective) bill doesn't get passed

    the "we may never get another shot" line makes absolutely no sense in light of that, but as with the republicans, talking points don't need to make sense, they just need to freak people out

    Without new Senators, how would something better get passed? It's not like Ben Nelson is going to have a sudden change of heart. Or Reid is going to grow a spine and kill the anti-democratic bullshit rules.

    again, if the issue is as pressing as the dnc makes it out to be, then of course the senators would really buckle down and not be as capitulating this time around

    and if it isn't, well they by god, i guess the white house was full of shit, what a shock

    either way, the status quo is still better than what the bill has turned out to be, no matter how much doomsaying comes from the democrats who are probably having trouble holding their pants up from all the lobbyist money they've collected during this process

    Rust on
  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    edited December 2009
    Rust wrote: »
    senate turnover wouldn't be relevant

    the dnc talking points have made it sound like the whole country will go under in a decade if this (atrocious, ineffective) bill doesn't get passed

    the "we may never get another shot" line makes absolutely no sense in light of that, but as with the republicans, talking points don't need to make sense, they just need to freak people out

    I don't love the bill.

    But it is significantly better than the status quo, and I think it unlikely that we will ever have the numbers to ban rescission and pre-existing conditions.

    The Senate bill is basically what we have in Massachusetts, and while it is not perfect, it is better than it was before the bill. It also allows for further government action to be taken more easily.

    Irond Will on
    Wqdwp8l.png
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Rust wrote: »
    again, if the issue is as pressing as the dnc makes it out to be, then of course the senators would really buckle down and not be as capitulating this time around

    :lol:
    and if it isn't, well they by god, i guess the white house was full of shit, what a shock

    either way, the status quo is still better than what the bill has turned out to be, no matter how much doomsaying comes from the democrats who are probably having trouble holding their pants up from all the lobbyist money they've collected during this process

    Bullshit.

    moniker on
  • RustRust __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2009
    either make a substantial point or shut up, moniker

    the single-syllable responses got old months ago

    Rust on
  • wobblyheadedbobwobblyheadedbob Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    wobblyheadedbob on
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    again, if the issue is as pressing as the dnc makes it out to be, then of course the senators would really buckle down and not be as capitulating this time around

    What part of Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman are assholes who don't really give a shit about anyone don't you understand?

    Which is why I say you need to move the 60th vote two spots to the left with new Senators so that you have an ass in that slot, but not a completely uncaring ass (Landrieu/Lincoln), or you need to replace Nelson/Lieberman straight out, or you need to install a leader who will change the rules.

    enlightenedbum on
    Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Rust wrote: »
    either make a substantial point or shut up, moniker

    the single-syllable responses got old months ago

    Bullshit is polysyllabic. And the point that I apparently need to spell out is that the bill as presently constituted is superior to the status quo.

    moniker on
This discussion has been closed.