Democrats’ health bill passes key Senate vote

It doesn't work in reverse. You may have read the bill (doubt it) in its entirety, but you didn't understand it in its entirety. That doesn't mean you're stupid that you wouldn't understand. They word it so that they can get away with many things like giving things to states so that they can have that congress person's vote.

Oh, I think it works pretty well in reverse. And expect I've made my point.

You and I can agree that some of the compromises negotiated by certain Senators were absolutely ridiculous. I hope their state constituents hold them responsible...but I won't hold my breath. Some people don't give a shit about the baby...and therefor are more than willing to throw it out with the bath water. And some people just want to keep fighting to make the bill as effective as possible by the time it get's to the Presidents desk (it still has a way to go). But this is why Obama won last year and this is why this legislation has to pass now...and not get kicked down the road...again.

It doesn't work well. Why? because even with the bill millions will still be without insurance. They won't fix it enough to help everyone. So no more lying on that account. And just because Obama promised and it's getting done(stretch that word out to make it work)doesn't mean it's right. That is not ok to justify via that.

lmao. So if it doesn't cover everyone, then it's not worth doing. I'm guessing some of the 30 million people who are getting healthcare under this plan might quibble with that tortured logic jammer.

And I'm not justifying anything...simply pointing out that Obama ran on this policy and, if memory serves me, he won. And not by a little bit. So it would seem that no matter your opinion, the majority of Americans want this kind of reform. I think you're smart enough to follow that logic.

And when will this plan start? Not when it's passed. How many years will it take to make it take affect? So using any numbers now to promise greatness isn't anything but a carrot in front of people....teasing them with something they can't have or even promised to have. And he ran on a promise, this wasn't it.

I couldn't hear you as you ride the merry-go-round of Obama. Maybe if your thoughts sprang from your own brain it might stick. Let's see how the reverse works for you. I think mine is way better thought out than your revers. Yours just replaced words, I actually used wit.

You keep telling yourself that jammer.

Meanwhile you keep setting 'em up and I'll keep knocking 'em down.

Have a good day.

I don't have to keep telling myself anything. Having the correction information is good enough. You have a better day sans your condescension.

Ha...what correction (sic) information is that?

But I guess somebody who has to resort to congratulating himself on his own wit isn't going to be too keen on self reflection. Oh well.

Isn't it funny when people do that? IE: YOU. Leaving and assuming you're right over me. That couldn't possibly be the same thing as you're condemning. Nope. /sarcasm.

Who's leaving? I'm just waiting for you to make another point that isn't about your own superior wit jammer. And I don't see where I've condemned anything. I'm simply refuting your points. That's sort of how it works here. Rather than getting upset try making a better argument.

Or don't. Up to you.

You refuted nothing to any satisfaction. And you said good day. That's a good bye. Otherwise why say it? I have no problem with you, apparently you cannot say the same. A bill that is to help everyone have insurance (the selling point) isn't going to and yet you still argue it as good.

With all the serious issues that are facing us...do you really think arguing whether "have a good day" means I'm leaving is a good use of our time? Who cares.

I don't have a problem with you at all. I just think the points you're trying to make are flawed, either logically or from a basis of fact. That's all. Like your repeated notion that if the bill can't cover every single person who is uninsured then it's somehow not worth doing at all. That would be like saying that if you can't save every person in a burning building...you shouldn't try to save any. It's illogical. Would it be better if it covered every single person? Sure. But that's not possible. 30 million people with insurance is better than 45 million without it. People not being denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition is better than people not being able to get health care for no other reason than they NEED it. Insurance companies not being allowed to drop people because they got sick is better than insurance companies being allowed to put their profits ahead of the people who have been paying their premiums. And a cap on what the average American has to pay to his insurance company is a whole HELL of a lot better than a limit on the amount the insurance company has pay out when someone they were more than happy to take money from when they were healthy gets sick.

If you disagree with any of this, by all means jammer...tell me why. I'd love to hear how adding 30 million paying customers to these insurance companies in exchange for these modest concessions is somehow a bad deal. Or do you want to argue some more about the meaning of "have a good day"?

If it's not worth discussing then it shouldn't have been said to begin with. Higher taxes is not worth it. It'll just be passed on to those that have been paying regularly and who are healthy. Also I've been saying, for quite a while, that Japan's way of doing insurance is far better than Europe's or Canada's. Problem solved.

Yeah...telling someone to have a good day is so out of line. I'll try to rein it in next time. lmao.

Funny how raising taxes on the rich always seems to trickle down to the little guy, but when we give them a tax break they just keep it. How'd Bush's tax cuts (which went disproportionately to the wealthiest 2% of Americans) work out for us? When he said it would result in more jobs and a stimulated economy...is that how things turned out? I guess we'll just have to disagree about the funding. But if what you say is true, and the insurance companies bypass the state oversight and raise rates over the cap...then I'd agree with you that would certainly argue for federal intervention in the form of stronger regulation and a public option to give people an honest option. I guess we'll see if the insurance companies will be satisfied with the billions they'll be making from the expansion of coverage. Who knows...maybe some will. And in a free market exchange...those should thrive. Right? Or do you guys not really stand behind that whole free market thing?

Japan has better idea on how to handle the insurance industry. They would have enough money for this stupid idea if they got all tax money. As of right now $300 billion in taxes not paid. And stop earmarks. I am not a conservative just because I disagree with you.

I didn't say you were. But I've read enough of your posts to know from roughly what part of the political spectrum you're coming from.

I don't know the Japanese model, but I'll look into it. Thanks.

That's a good way to justify judging.

Yes, look into the Japanese Health Care. They are doing very well. They only issue they are having is not having enough younger people to pay for the aging old. Otherwise they'd have the best health care system in the world. Or so I think.

JJamer-
If this is true- "look into the Japanese Health Care. They are doing very well. They only issue they are having is not having enough younger people to pay for the aging old" -could you say a health care system set up like this is just another ponzi set-up.
Shouldn't the contributions of those receiving benefits more equal the pay out to them, rather than relying on contributions from those paying in and not receiving benefits?
Just asking.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2...

Why so defensive jammer? I'm just basing my opinion on comments you've posted here. Words you've written. Based on how confidently you make your proclamations...you'd think you'd be proud to stand by them. Oh well.

As for Japanese Health Care, they have a very interesting system...thanks jammer for pointing it out. In many ways, it sound superior to our system (not exactly hard to do), but it's hardly a panacea.

"Half a world away from the U.S. health-care debate, Japan has a system that costs half as much and often achieves better medical outcomes than its American counterpart. It does so by banning insurance company profits, limiting doctor fees and accepting shortcomings in care that many well-insured Americans would find intolerable."

I'm wondering if you'd be in favor of banning insurance company profits here in the States? That's an incredibly progressive point of view and WAY closer to socialism than where we're headed here. Interesting.

Banning or capping cost. It's just like the gas companies. They get together and set prices so that they can get the maximum profit. That's not capitalism. That's control of a situation and being allowed to do so because everyone looks the other way.

When a child doesn't play well with others it's not because the rules are harsh. It's because the child is getting away with it and therefore won't stop until corrected.

Who is going to do the correcting?

Congress wants to be in control but they are just as bad with money as any insurance company. The problem is who will tell the insurance companies they are behaving badly?

And you may justify your judging. It is what you're doing since your evidence is slim.

As for the question asked by Resolute....you're going to have to reword your question. I am not really getting it.

Yup...and even reconciliation is not the end of the line. The full meaning of the bill will not be clear until the agencies that administer large parts of it have made their interpretations as to its meaning and until there are results from the litigation over parts of it. THEN we will have amendments to the law from future sessions of Congress. The world will not end...sorry to disappoint most of you...

And then I could choose a different insurer from the exchange who by law CAN'T deny my family coverage just because my wife has a pre-existing condition. In fact...I wouldn't have to leave my job to do it. Right now, my only option would be to go on COBRA which is 3 to 4 times the cost of what I pay now. I get that you don't like the bill and that it's far from perfect. But how can you not see that this is a major step forward? Maybe you're fortunate enough to not be in the same situation I am...but let me tell you, this will make a HUGE difference for my family.

I hope you continue to be lucky enough to be able to wait another 60 years for a better bill.

Just how bad is Obamacare? Here are some of the proposal's most important flaws, as described by one of the proposal's most passionate critics:

* It forces you to pay up to 8 percent of your income to private insurance corporations -- whether you want to or not.
* If you refuse to buy the insurance, you'll have to pay penalties of up to 2 percent of your annual income to the Internal Revenue Service.
* After being forced to pay thousands in premiums for junk insurance, you can still be on the hook for up to $11,900 a year in out-of-pocket medical expenses.
* Many of the taxes to pay for the bill start now, but most Americans won't see any benefits -- like an end to discrimination against those with pre-existing conditions -- until 2014 when the program begins.
* It allows insurance companies to charge older people 300 percent more than other customers.
* The cost of medical care will continue to rise, and insurance premiums for a family of four will rise an average of $1,000 a year -- meaning in 10 years, you family's insurance premium will be $10,000 more annually than it is right now.

Care to guess the name of the Obamacare critic who pointed out these and many more flaws in the bill? Try Jane Hamsher of the very liberal blog, Fire Dog Lake, who called Obamacare "a con job."

And it follows in the next paragraph that the government would decrease them by 56%

http://tinyurl.com/ykqkzba

How many times are you going to desperately cut and paste that list from Jane Hamsher? Here's a point by point response that show she's full of shit.

Jane is not a credible source. Just point to the CBO report. There is plenty there to be concerned about.

This is a perfect example of the brain dead bigotry you're joining in opposition of this legislation. If that doesn't give progressives pause...then nothing will.

Thanks for once again demonstrating the staggering ignorance of the fringe right.

This is a great read. Thanks neocongo.

As hard as it is to argue with such thoughtful commentary as "this is a big flying steaming pile of horseshit", but I'd have to agree with Paul Krugman who wrote the following in an OpEd titled Pass the Bill:

"But let’s all take a deep breath, and consider just how much good this bill would do, if passed — and how much better it would be than anything that seemed possible just a few years ago. With all its flaws, the Senate health bill would be the biggest expansion of the social safety net since Medicare, greatly improving the lives of millions."

"At its core, the bill would do two things. First, it would prohibit discrimination by insurance companies on the basis of medical condition or history: Americans could no longer be denied health insurance because of a pre-existing condition, or have their insurance canceled when they get sick. Second, the bill would provide substantial financial aid to those who don’t get insurance through their employers, as well as tax breaks for small employers that do provide insurance."

"The result would be a huge increase in the availability and affordability of health insurance, with more than 30 million Americans gaining coverage, and premiums for lower-income and lower-middle-income Americans falling dramatically. That’s an immense change from where we were just a few years ago: remember, not long ago the Bush administration and its allies in Congress successfully blocked even a modest expansion of health care for children."

I guess one person's steaming pile horse shit is another person's "biggest expansion of the social safety net since Medicare". Of course one of these people is a Nobel prize winning economist and the other isn't.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/18/opinion/18krugman.html

It is a pile of steaming horseshit. Who do you left wingnuts think pay for this bullshit. The tooth fairy is not real!

Another county heard from.

Mind if I see your Nobel Prize in economics Moon?

I have a PHD, "In There is No Free Lunch". Followed by a Masters Degree in "Get your theiving hand out of my pocket"! Followed by a Bachelors Degree in, "Blowing Smoke up our Ass, results in an Ass full of Smoke". If anyone supports this without regards to the payment plan, they are afflicted with a stupidity gene beyond cure.

So the professor of Economics and International Affairs at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University and Centenary Professor at the London School of Economics thinks this is a great step forward. But an uneducated wing nut from the Limbaugh school of chicken fried steak thinks it's a bad idea.

Who's advice should we take? Man...this is a tough one.

Morons in the academic sphere are the reason for our current problems. Any idiot in America or London( give me a break, he got his ass spanked every day at Eton and begged for more), that suggests that higher taxes are good for an economy are inflicted by the socialism gene, supposing that workers are capable of earning a salary, but are not capable of spending their own money. Academics teach for two reasons; they are insulated from performing in the real World and they seek tenure, thus insulating them from their own stupidity.

$50 Billion is spent every year on SSI and dumbass Obama is suggesting that we now throw more money at these failures and leeches on society. This fact does not require me to get an advanced degree or confer with a punk in a Professors robe to understand what is going on.

Oh...it's the "morons in the academic sphere" who are to blame. Of course. Lmao.

You really are adorable moon. Keep the crazy coming...it's hilarious.

You are cute Krag, not too bright, but mildly entertaining. Do you have a job?

No moon. I'm one of those unemployed, overweight, drug addicted, welfare moms who had children out of wedlock and so I'm clearly ruining the country. Do you have a job? God I hope so, that way you can afford to pay for my health care.

Seriously...you should really read a book.

Considering that the "decline" started either under Reagan or Nixon, depending on what you think the primary factor is, and that you haven't provided a reason for what makes Obama so special, yes, I'd say there's enough room for some doubt.

Of course, it is the height of irony for a corporatist "conservative" to talk about the decline of the American Republic. You need only look in the mirror for the reason our economy is tanking, all our jobs are overseas and our government is now interchangeable with private industry.

Lad you do not know what you are talking about! You have been 'spun' by some ignorant ass liberal/socialist Proff or teacher, Research this travesty they call a "Health-Care Bill"!
It was done by pure BRIBERY & LIES!!!! You do not realize the path Obama & Reid, Pelosi, etc..are trying to steer this Nation down!

They caved to conservative Democrat demands, not Republican demands. I know this bothers you. It bothers me too. But I can recognize reality and I wonder if you can too. What should they have done? The fact of the matter is that 60 votes are needed and there are not 60 progressive Senators. The Republican and Democrat labels don't matter as much as their ideology.

The 60th most progressive Senator is Ben Nelson. He doesn't believe in government solutions or a woman's right to choose. What can you do? Rather than put together a good bill and let it fail, they put together the most progressive bill that Ben Nelson can agree with. That turns out to be somewhat shitty.

If you want something to change, don't complain about Harry Reid. Replace Ben Nelson and a dozen other conservatives with real progressives and you'll get real reform.

Why not take the vehicle we have now and try to make it better, instead of trashing it completely and starting over with something with which we have absolutely no idea whether it will work or not?

How exactly is this trashing the current system John? How is it "completely starting over"? If anything this legislation leaves too much of the current system unchanged.

We don't have a vehicle now. I find it frankly amusing in the extreme that the possibility of using Medicaire is even being discussed when the Republicans have been telling us for decades that it is a creaky old fraud-ridden piece of shit that should be carted off to the junkyard before it bankrupts us all...

You make a good point. This bill is incredibly complex. It is over 2000 pages I think.

History teaches us that complex things like this fail. You can bet that with this bill being written by insurance industry lobbyists that there are plenty of loopholes. The one ray of hope is that Republicans are so dead set against it that there may be something worthwhile there.

But if this bill is passed we have to remain hard and fast on the case to bring about universal healthcare for all, Medicare for all, not just part of the 50 million who don't have coverage. If this bill is passed will that happen? No. People will become complacent and believe something has changed when in reality it is just a few breads crumbs of reform off the fat cats plate that we feed on.

So I think we need people to stand up and run for office as independents. If you believe what you write here then run for office. Give people an alternative.

Well said cztheday.

Bull.

There is no fucking way that if this is voted down we won't hear about for a month, let alone 20 years. This is a pressing issue. As Obama said, our deficit will break the government if we don't get Medicare under control. 'Our healthcare problem IS our deficit problem...' - Obama in his speech to the joint session.

Healthcare is all about money in this country. So you can bet, come hell or high water, it will be dealt with, in this bill or the next, and it will be dealt with very soon.

The attitude that we have to accept THIS bill is blackmail. It is total bull. We don't have to accept anything and plenty of thinking people will not, and do not accept it.

The real danger is that of we do accept it, the government will have it as an excuse to say they did health care reform, when in actuality they made it worse. Thus opening the door for Republicans to blame Democrats for failed healthcare.

Your position is to accept whatever you can get. You are a beggar, a street scrounge, a bottom feeder. You eat the crumbs off the fat cats' cake. Be brave. Be honest. Admit to who you are, scrounge.

Sorry Jon, but history just doesn't support your hypothesis.

Health care reform has been a priority for the democratic party for 60 years and it simply hasn't happened. So when you say kill the bill and deal with it later...what's your plan? When do you imagine there will be a more favorable time? The democrats are losing seats in 2010, you can take that to the bank. So if you think this bill is weak...wait a year and see what you get. A year from now this bill wouldn't make it out of committee.

The more favorable time will be the day after it is killed. As Howard Dean said, it can go back to the House for reconciliation, now! We don't have to accept this crap.

Keep dreaming.

I respect Howard Dean and his voice is an important one because this bill isn't yet in the final form that will reach the Presidents desk. But if you think there's any way you could kill the bill in the Senate as it stands and somehow get this back on track before the 2010 elections...then you're completely out of touch with reality.

John, if you would like a couple dozen more examples of major legislation that failed to pass and then was not addressed again for a decade or three, I would be happy to provide them. But this idea is not mine. It was explained to me by a long-time senator. He told me that Congress simply does not have the appetite for that kind of controversy year after year.

Think about how much of a hornet's nest this has been for candidates on both sides of this issue with the public. Politicians...especially INCUMBENT politicians simply don't like that kind of uncertainty. They like calm. Calm means reelection. Hornet's nest means an opportunity for somebody to come in and knock them out of office. I realize, of course, that you will not believe one word of what I am saying...but maybe someone else will...

Just how bad is Obamacare? Here are some of the proposal's most important flaws, as described by one of the proposal's most passionate critics:

* It forces you to pay up to 8 percent of your income to private insurance corporations -- whether you want to or not.
* If you refuse to buy the insurance, you'll have to pay penalties of up to 2 percent of your annual income to the Internal Revenue Service.
* After being forced to pay thousands in premiums for junk insurance, you can still be on the hook for up to $11,900 a year in out-of-pocket medical expenses.
* Many of the taxes to pay for the bill start now, but most Americans won't see any benefits -- like an end to discrimination against those with pre-existing conditions -- until 2014 when the program begins.
* It allows insurance companies to charge older people 300 percent more than other customers.
* The cost of medical care will continue to rise, and insurance premiums for a family of four will rise an average of $1,000 a year -- meaning in 10 years, you family's insurance premium will be $10,000 more annually than it is right now.

Care to guess the name of the Obamacare critic who pointed out these and many more flaws in the bill? Try Jane Hamsher of the very liberal blog, Fire Dog Lake, who called Obamacare "a con job."

http://tinyurl.com/ykqkzba

Yes, but here's deaniac83 on dailykos eviscerating Jane Hamsher's points one by one. This was posted just a few comments up point for point on this very thread. Might help to read though this in order to get a better grip on the facts.

Best of luck.

Hey man, I PAY ROAD TAXES. Dont tell me not to use the roads I pay for. I dont send kids to public schools even though I pay school taxes through property taxes. Do you pay property taxes? I pay far more in fuel taxes for the trucks I own then you ever will so get off your high horse bud!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Way to completely miss the point mall. lmao.

http://tinyurl.com/ykqkzba

deaniac83 on dailykos takes on these talking points, which were written by Jane Hamsher, one by one.

-Forces you to pay up to 8% of your income to private insurance corporations -- whether you want to or not

What? Really? 8%? That's incredible! If American families could get health insurance for only 8% of their income, you could bet a lot more of us would have it. In 2008, the average family premium for health insurance was $12,298. In 2003, the median income of a family of 4 was $67,019. So, umm... a typical family of 4, in the status quo is paying, let's see, over 18% of their income in health insurance premiums. Put it another way, a typical family of four would see their premiums reduced from $12,298 under the status quo to $5361.52. And remember that incomes over about $66,000 a year are not provided premium subsidies by the government, and still cannot be charged more than 8% by law - indicating a real and overall significant reduction of premiums going to insurance companies. Wow. This is fantastic!

Oh and by the way, the 8% cap is also an improvement over the House bill, which has a cap of 12% on premiums. It is also improved from the previous senate version, which had a 9.8% cap (link). This is real insurance reform.

http://tinyurl.com/ykqkzba

deaniac83 on dailykos takes on these talking points, which were written by Jane Hamsher, one by one.

-If you refuse to buy the insurance, you'll have to pay penalties of up to 2% of your annual income to the IRS

Yes, yes you will. That is, if your premiums aren't entirely covered by subsidies. Let's see. If you have the means to, but refuse to purchase insurance (these are the only people subject to this penalty, since there is a hardship exemption), you are going to use emergency rooms as your primary health care center. And we, as taxpayers, will be paying for you. Don't you think it's fair for you to pay a little bit in so that when you do come to the emergency room, they are not all closed down?

-After being forced to pay thousands in premiums for junk insurance, you can still be on the hook for up to $11,900 a year in out-of-pocket medical expenses.

Where is she getting this $11,900 number? Out of pocket expense cap? If that's where she is getting it, I would like to compare this to the out of pocket expenses under the status quo. There are no caps. You can have a "deductible" per incident of $1000 or more. If you have "good" insurance, maybe your insurance covers 80% of your hospital care up to 30 days every year. That's the status quo. Under the senate bill, it caps your out-of-pocket expenses. That's supposed to be worse than the status quo? I'm at a loss over here.

Jane is also a little misleading. The Senate bill's out-of-pocket cap of $11,900 is on a family plan. An individual plan would have a $5,950 cap. What's more, not everyone would be subject to this high cap. The cap is actually 10% of one's income, and no more than the dollar amounts capped.

So in simple terms - the Senate bill is limiting the total amount of health care expenses to 18% of your income - whereas it is more than that for simply your premiums today, and all your out-of-pocket expenses (may include your home) is extra. If someone wants me to believe that this is not progress, I am going to need to see the dictionary definition of progress changed first.

-Massive restriction on a woman's right to choose, designed to trigger a challenge to Roe v. Wade in the Supreme Court

Just when she was about to get one right, she screws up. Yes, the bill places disgusting restrictions on a woman's right to choose. That's deplorable. But it is not, in any way, shape or form, designed to "trigger a challenge to Roe v. Wade." That's insane. Roe makes abortions legal, and nothing more. The Supreme Court has always been regrettably deferential to Congress and legislatures about whether public dollars may fund, or contribute to any plans that fund, abortion services. That's stupid and it's nuts, but to say that this bill is set up to challenge Roe is nonsense.

-Paid for by taxes on the middle class insurance plan you have right now through your employer, causing them to cut back benefits and increase co-pays [sic]

Yes, because your employer isn't already cutting back your benefits and increasing your co-pays. And middle class insurance plans? The so-called Cadillac tax applies to individual plans costing over $8500 (and only to the amount over $8500) and family plans costing over $23,000 (and only to the amount over $23,000). It's a steep 40% tax, and I would rather not have it, but it is not by far what most health insurance premiums cost.

-Allows insurance companies to charge people who are older 300% more than others

Finally, something she gets completely right. 7th point out of 10. Bravo.

-Grants monopolies to to drug companies that will keep generic versions of expensive biotech drugs from ever coming to market.

And which bill would have allowed this, Jane? The House bill does not have a re-importation clause nor a quicker way to bring generics to the market.

-No reimportation of prescription drugs, which would save consumers $100 billion over 10 years

Ding ding! Correct, but see above. The House bill doesn't do it either. It's not like Jane would be falling over everyone to pass this bill if a simple reimportation clause was included. By the way, the Dorgan amendment, which I support vigorously, got a vote in the Senate. Sadly, it was defeated.

-The cost of medical care will continue to rise, and insurance premiums for a family of 4 will rise an average of $1000 a year -- meaning in 10 years, you family's insurance premium will be $10,000 more annually than it is right now.

This is sheer baloney. First she argues that the out-of-pocket caps and the premium caps aren't strong enough, and then now she seems to be saying there aren't any caps at all! Your premium expenses are capped at 8% of your income, which is too high, but your premium will also go up by $10,000 even if your income doesn't rise comparatively. $10,000 is 8% of $125,000, i.e. for your health insurance premiums to rise by $10K, your income would have to rise by $125,000 under the Senate bill. She can't have it both ways. There can't both be a 8% "too-high" cap on premiums, and your premium go up $10K over 10 years.

Why are you working so hard to refute this? It is still a bad bill. A lot of people cannot afford it. It is an insurance industry bailout. The authors of this bill are concerned about insurance companies as number one. They don't give two shits about the people who have to pay.

8% of income is a lot of money and a lot of people can't afford it. But the real kicker is that insurance companies can still raise rates on the elderly by 300%! There's nothing to stop rates from rising in the future. Insurance companies have plenty of loopholes in this incredibly complex bill.

This bill was written by and for the insurance industry lobbyists. You trust insurance lobbyists? This is total bullshit. It is better to kill this bill than to succumb to the insurance industry blackmail we see here.

What's bullshit is the status quo.

I know it's not perfect. But it can be improved over time and sitting on our hands and doing nothing just because there aren't enough votes to get a perfect bill is insane. If you need proof, just read the comments on this very site. You and I both know that this bill gives too much to the insurance industry yet it's STILL being called socialism and economic tyranny by the right. Imagine if it were a single payer or even had a public option. If you don't like the bill, fine. God knows there's plenty not to like in it. But if you can't see the good that's there too...then I'm guessing you don't fall in the 30 million who don't have any insurance at all or who can't ever leave their job because they'll never get insurance again because of a pre-existing condition.