ObamaCare - exchanges ,report your states options!

[PLAYER57832]

greekdog, you are smarter than that. Sure, we do not need to go by what China thinks, but for you to deny that the right is using erroneous definitions and quite intentionally is disengenuous at best.

We are not talking about opinions here. We are talking about definitions of English language words. The US has no more a lock on those terms than any other English-speaking nation. When the Republicans try to redefine Liberal to mean totalitarian, it serves only to disinform. It is criminal.

I'm not smarter than that.

We're not talking about definitions of English words. We're talking about comparative politics in the United States. In the United States there are two political parties, one generally leans to a more liberal (or left) view, one generally leans to a more conservative (or right) view. On the issue of, for example, gun control, the Democrats are "left" and the Republicans are "right." We... are... talking... about... American... politics. We're not talking about whether President Obama is left of the Canadian prime minster. We're talking about whether President Obama is left of Senator McCain or former President Bush or GabonX or thegreekdog. We're not talking about whether President Bush is right of Kim Jong Il. So, when someone says "President Obama is not a leftist whacko because he's right of center" it's a pointless exercise and, to be cynical, is just a way for our non-US brethren to take a holier than thou attitude with those they don't agree with. So, while we in the US don't have "a lock on those terms," we certainly have a lock on those terms WHEN DISCUSSING U.S. POLITICS!!!

When you lable the Democrats Fascists, you are not talking comparisions, you are using a term that has a standard English definition and, whether you like or dislike any particular policy of the Democrats, saying they are fascist is ridiculous. In fact, the Democrats are not even truly liberal, they are just a bit further to the left than the EXTREMELY right-winged (at present) Republicans.

As for gun control, etc, the issue at hand is socialized healthcare. Claiming that wanting everyone to have coverage cheaper, which is the Democratic "plan", means everything from euthanizing seniors to a fascist or communistic takeover of the US is plain silly.

If you want to say that the Democrats are more liberal than the Republicans, I agree. If you claim that the Democrats are more fascist than the Republicans, you would be wrong, but could say it was about US politics. If you say that the Democrats are communist or socialist or fascist, then you need to show how the party identifies with the commonly accepted English language definitions

There's an irony here. The Republican party was founded by a guy who thought slavery made no economic sense. Now, I am in favor of this bill because our current health care system, letting insurance companies take profit without limit and dictate who they do and do not cover, the terms of our entire medical system (essentially), does not make sense. I suspect the founder of the Republican party would find much more kinship with myself than with most of the current Republican leadership.

It makes no economic sense to have tax-payor funded emergency care and the tax-payor funded Medicaid programs as the only practical alternatives to employer-provided insurance. It makes no economic sense that we let insurers profit from the healthy, while leaving the more expensive truly sick people to be funded by taxpayers. It makes no sense that employers have to lay people off who have sick family members because if they did not, their insurance premiums would get too high. It makes no sense that bankruptcy is the only way that many Americans can hope to get medical coverage for serious illnesses.

Oh, and regarding those credit charges and healthcare... Let me tell you. I pride myself in being honest, but if the only way I could get care for my kids was to declare bankruptcy and divorce my husband so our income was low enough for Medicaid, I would not hesitate to charge up those cards and file! I would feel guilty, sure, but I would do it if I had no other legitimate choice.

[thegreekdog]

Political belief is not relative.

Oh, sure it is. It's absolutely relative, especially when we're talking about one discrete issue in one country between two political parties who each identify with one particular side. I remember a couple of Brit threads about politics, which I read, that talked about socliaist and right and left. I didn't presume to say "hey, Party X isn't a right wing party..." Why? Because I'm not that much of a pretentious asshole.

I mean, it's all well and good to type these little posts in grand terms and show off how the United States is provincial and all that bullshit; how we don't understand how are labelling of "lefty" or "right" or "whacko conservative" or "socialist" are out of touch with the rest of the world. But when we're talking about American politics, we're not talking about European politics; so let's leave the definitional differences out of it.

[thegreekdog]

What GabonX and others are saying by calling President Obama's administration "fascist" is that they are using political clout and threats to drive home their own agenda. I don't call them fascist because I think it's a democratic (little "d") political tactic, but I can understand GabonX's point. As for your other comments, I've address them elsewhere and this circular argument is making me annoyed and tired.

[PLAYER57832]

Political belief is not relative.

Oh, sure it is. It's absolutely relative, especially when we're talking about one discrete issue in one country between two political parties who each identify with one particular side. I remember a couple of Brit threads about politics, which I read, that talked about socliaist and right and left. I didn't presume to say "hey, Party X isn't a right wing party..." Why? Because I'm not that much of a pretentious asshole.

I mean, it's all well and good to type these little posts in grand terms and show off how the United States is provincial and all that bullshit; how we don't understand how are labelling of "lefty" or "right" or "whacko conservative" or "socialist" are out of touch with the rest of the world. But when we're talking about American politics, we're not talking about European politics; so let's leave the definitional differences out of it.

Political belief is relative, sure. However, there are also set definitions. Things like "Fascist", "Liberal" and "Socialist" have definitions that should be commonly understood.

[PLAYER57832]

What GabonX and others are saying by calling President Obama's administration "fascist" is that they are using political clout and threats to drive home their own agenda. I don't call them fascist because I think it's a democratic (little "d") political tactic, but I can understand GabonX's point. As for your other comments, I've address them elsewhere and this circular argument is making me annoyed and tired.

I understand why he uses the term, but he still does not understand it or use it correctly.

[thegreekdog]

The problem is that both labelling and criticizing labelling has no real argumentative value... none at all. Is universal healthcare socialist? Absolutely, so are public schools. Instead of talking about whether it is socialist or not, let's talk about whether it's good or not. I'll leave the "socialist" and "whacko conservative" labelling to those people who are so ignorant about the issue they need to use those labels.

[PLAYER57832]

The problem is that both labelling and criticizing labelling has no real argumentative value... none at all. Is universal healthcare socialist? Absolutely, so are public schools. Instead of talking about whether it is socialist or not, let's talk about whether it's good or not. I'll leave the "socialist" and "whacko conservative" labelling to those people who are so ignorant about the issue they need to use those labels.

I agree.

Which is one reason I was surprised that you bounced in to the defense of folks who were simply throwing out terms -- (we can agree to disagree on whether they understand those terms or not).

[Snorri1234]

greekdog, you are smarter than that. Sure, we do not need to go by what China thinks, but for you to deny that the right is using erroneous definitions and quite intentionally is disengenuous at best.

We are not talking about opinions here. We are talking about definitions of English language words. The US has no more a lock on those terms than any other English-speaking nation. When the Republicans try to redefine Liberal to mean totalitarian, it serves only to disinform. It is criminal.

I'm not smarter than that.

We're not talking about definitions of English words. We're talking about comparative politics in the United States. In the United States there are two political parties, one generally leans to a more liberal (or left) view, one generally leans to a more conservative (or right) view. On the issue of, for example, gun control, the Democrats are "left" and the Republicans are "right." We... are... talking... about... American... politics. We're not talking about whether President Obama is left of the Canadian prime minster. We're talking about whether President Obama is left of Senator McCain or former President Bush or GabonX or thegreekdog. We're not talking about whether President Bush is right of Kim Jong Il. So, when someone says "President Obama is not a leftist whacko because he's right of center" it's a pointless exercise and, to be cynical, is just a way for our non-US brethren to take a holier than thou attitude with those they don't agree with. So, while we in the US don't have "a lock on those terms," we certainly have a lock on those terms WHEN DISCUSSING U.S. POLITICS!!!

No actually we're talking about comparative politics taking into account the whole spectrum of possible beliefs people can hold. The United States is big enough to have people from all political beliefs. By calling the Democratic Party "far left" you're associating them with communists and socialists, which is completely absurd.


Also, the term "Left" is associated with socialism by those who say the stuff Popeben says and the people who listen to that kind of stuff. Hell, it's even used by them.



To call Obama a socialist or far left is absurd even within US politics.

[thegreekdog]

The problem is that both labelling and criticizing labelling has no real argumentative value... none at all. Is universal healthcare socialist? Absolutely, so are public schools. Instead of talking about whether it is socialist or not, let's talk about whether it's good or not. I'll leave the "socialist" and "whacko conservative" labelling to those people who are so ignorant about the issue they need to use those labels.

I agree.

Which is one reason I was surprised that you bounced in to the defense of folks who were simply throwing out terms -- (we can agree to disagree on whether they understand those terms or not).

I defend those who cannot defend themselves...

Seriously though, today's United States (and probably yesterday's United States too) gets by on a lot of rhetoric and nonsensical soundbites. As I've indicated previously, both sides do it. I'm sure I've done it. I'm definitely sure you've done it. The real challenge is to get past all the bullshit rhetoric and down to the real issues. I'm fairly convinced that no politician (Republican or Democrat) wants that to happen; because an educated and rational populace is one that will be more scrutinizing.

[Nobunaga]

... I propose to write my congressman, to persuade him to draft a bill and get it moving. House Resolution 3200.1

... This legisalation will be only one page long, two sentences, and may (or my not) fix the health care crisis in the United States. It would certainly be less expensive than what is presenly proposed and won't drive us further into the debtor's hole.

... HR 3200.1

...All state or federal regulation concerning policy coverage of health insurance is voided.

... All US citizens may opt to purchase coverage from any private insurance company within the United States.

... No state mandates for covereage will mean those companies that believe they can compete with the baldness cures and Viagra as standard will still be allowed to compete. Other companies can trim down to the basics - cold, flu, cancer, arthritis, and the like... can customize coverage to what customers desire. I say, "Hey, I'm not so vain. Acne and balding? I couldn't care less". And no state authority can force my insurance company to wedge such coverage in and jack up the costs.

... And I could fish for policies from Wisconsin-based companies, or New York, or Hawaii... It can't be done now.

... No state regulation, anywhere nor federal, at least as pertains to policy coverage mandates and charges.

... NOBUNAGA 2012! CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN! (for real this time)...

[MeDeFe]

... I propose to write my congressman, to persuade him to draft a bill and get it moving. House Resolution 3200.1

... This legisalation will be only one page long, two sentences, and may (or my not) fix the health care crisis in the United States. It would certainly be less expensive than what is presenly proposed and won't drive us further into the debtor's hole.

... HR 3200.1

...All state or federal regulation concerning policy coverage of health insurance is voided.

... All US citizens may opt to purchase coverage from any private insurance company within the United States.

... No state mandates for covereage will mean those companies that believe they can compete with the baldness cures and Viagra as standard will still be allowed to compete. Other companies can trim down to the basics - cold, flu, cancer, arthritis, and the like... can customize coverage to what customers desire. I say, "Hey, I'm not so vain. Acne and balding? I couldn't care less". And no state authority can force my insurance company to wedge such coverage in and jack up the costs.

... And I could fish for policies from Wisconsin-based companies, or New York, or Hawaii... It can't be done now.

... No state regulation, anywhere. No federal either, at least as pertains to policy coverage and charges.

... NOBUNAGA 2012! CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN! (for real this time)...

What about medical conditions already present before someone gets insurance? Are they covered? afaik they currently aren't.

[Nobunaga]

... I propose to write my congressman, to persuade him to draft a bill and get it moving. House Resolution 3200.1

... This legisalation will be only one page long, two sentences, and may (or my not) fix the health care crisis in the United States. It would certainly be less expensive than what is presenly proposed and won't drive us further into the debtor's hole.

... HR 3200.1

...All state or federal regulation concerning policy coverage of health insurance is voided.

... All US citizens may opt to purchase coverage from any private insurance company within the United States.

... No state mandates for covereage will mean those companies that believe they can compete with the baldness cures and Viagra as standard will still be allowed to compete. Other companies can trim down to the basics - cold, flu, cancer, arthritis, and the like... can customize coverage to what customers desire. I say, "Hey, I'm not so vain. Acne and balding? I couldn't care less". And no state authority can force my insurance company to wedge such coverage in and jack up the costs.

... And I could fish for policies from Wisconsin-based companies, or New York, or Hawaii... It can't be done now.

... No state regulation, anywhere. No federal either, at least as pertains to policy coverage and charges.

... NOBUNAGA 2012! CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN! (for real this time)...

What about medical conditions already present before someone gets insurance? Are they covered? afaik they currently aren't.

... That is not for me to decide. Existing conditions could be a very competitive market when you get the thousands of companies competeing across state lines for those dollars without hindrance.

...

[Nobunaga]

... Amazing.

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama's push for a national health care overhaul is providing a financial windfall in the election offseason to Democratic consulting firms that are closely connected to the president and two top advisers.

Coalitions of interest groups running at least $24 million in pro-overhaul ads hired GMMB, which worked for Obama's 2008 campaign and whose partners include a top Obama campaign strategist. They also hired AKPD Message and Media, which was founded by David Axelrod, a top adviser to Obama's campaign and now to the White House. AKPD did work for Obama's campaign, and Axelrod's son Michael and Obama's campaign manager David Plouffe work there.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090819/ap_ ... onsultants

...

[PopeBenXVI]

Canada's health care system is imploding? I thought the single payer run by the Gov was the best so why are they looking at ADDING private companies to the program now?

http://blogs.abcnews.com/johnstossel/20 ... ntrys.html

European countries systems are failing too?

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/P ... 7hvjdk.asp

Obama is Left of Kim Jong il

[PLAYER57832]

I'm fairly convinced that no politician (Republican or Democrat) wants that to happen; because an educated and rational populace is one that will be more scrutinizing.

Seems pretty much the truth... and its also what I was taught x years ago in college political science classes. Except, we were taught that this is why we need to be educated and do our best to educate others.

Obviously, I have pretty well failed on that front.

[PLAYER57832]

Obama is Left of Kim Jong il

And the sky really is falling.

[thegreekdog]

I'm fairly convinced that no politician (Republican or Democrat) wants that to happen; because an educated and rational populace is one that will be more scrutinizing.

Seems pretty much the truth... and its also what I was taught x years ago in college political science classes. Except, we were taught that this is why we need to be educated and do our best to educate others.

Obviously, I have pretty well failed on that front.

Well, it's not like the average U.S. citizen has been educated in prior times in our history. Back in college I had to do a research project for a professor which involved me looking through old 1860s and 70s newspaper articles. There was some pretty nasty b.s. and namecalling in there too. Kind of made me think they were just as uneducated about issues and more concerned with soundbites as we are today.

[Nobunaga]

You refer to the grandfathered section. Fine. I can explain it again...

This says that people will be able to keep their existing policies. When those policies expire or are canceled, which will be as the insurance companies and the folk's employers decide just like now, except for those very few who do have individual policies, then they will have the OPTION of either taking the government plan (assuming that option is not stricken from the final bill) OR they will be able to get one of the new insurance-industry offered policies that meet the new guidelines.

... OK, I can understand this. What are those guidelines? You don't need to type a page in response, just give us the appropriate page numbers from the resolution.

Right now, if you lose your job or your insurance company drops you (which they can do for pretty much any reason right now), you have 3 alternatives

1.If you lose your job (only), you can continue with COBRA coverage (which begin at around $600 a month for the very basic policies and more often cost over $1000 dollars.... the terrible policy to which I have referred costs, in COBRA, around $800 for a family of 4). Of course, if you really need that insurance then employers can use that as reason not to hire you.

If you get cancelled -- usually because you have used too much insurance or have for another reason become "too much of a risk". You can:

2. get a private plan, which is expensive and often offers poor coverage.

3. If you are poor (ONLY) go on Medicaid

Oh, in PA and a couple of other states, you can, once you have NO insurance, opt into the CHIP plan for a fee. .. hmm that sounds an awful lot like the public option presented in this bill, EXCEPT you can ONLY get CHIP if your employer offers NO insurance.

... These alternatives suck. See thread we have running on alternatives.

... Player on definitions, calling the right, fascist, the left communist:

In other words, the far RIGHT. The far LEFT means true communism or fully populist rule (in theory), though in reality Communism usually winds up being rule by committee with economic and social policies dictated by a few.

Both are looney, but to call someone the far left and fascist is a contradiction in terms. I am neither, anyway.

... Were not the Nazis fascist? Were they not socialist? ... But we are digressing to irrelevant points.

... The definition of fascism included the silencing of opposing voices, thus this:

I don' t know a thing about it (Obama getting his unions to shout down and assault protestors) and am certainly not a spokesperson for Obama. What, exactly does that have to do with socialized healthcare anyway?

... It's part of the definition of fascism, see. Control, and shut the opposition up. That is what the man is trying to do. I am amazed you haven't heard about this going on.

... Isn't it utterly amazing how folks have become so enslaved by the labels "Democrat", or "Republican"? So much so that people claiming to support the good of the people or individual liberty (consciously?) ignore corruption and graft, intimidation of the electorate with physical violence, massive power grabs and blatant payoffs to backers by those elected.

...

[Nobunaga]

... Death panels not necessary, says the author of this WSJ article.

... The "Death Book", second link, is being used in VA hospitals, according to the author, as a "push toward death". A push against the vulnerable to say something like, "I'm in a bed all day... I can't take a sh*t by myself... I got pain... F*CK IT! PULL THAT PLUG ALREADY!"


... The use of this "Death Book" was halted by Bush, reinstated by Obama ... (That is certainly not intended as compliment of Bush but rather an observation on Obama).


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 81718.html

http://www.rihlp.org/pubs/Your_life_your_choices.pdf

... Personally, I rather like the publication, though it does lean rather heavily toward the "pull the plug" option.

... Just throwing it out there.

...

[PLAYER57832]

In other words, the far RIGHT. The far LEFT means true communism or fully populist rule (in theory), though in reality Communism usually winds up being rule by committee with economic and social policies dictated by a few.

Both are looney, but to call someone the far left and fascist is a contradiction in terms. I am neither, anyway.

... Were not the Nazis fascist? Were they not socialist? ... But we are digressing to irrelevant points.

Yes, ahunda gave a very complete answer to this in greekdog's recent thread. Here is a link:
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=94850&start=15

That and greek's original post do a pretty good job of clairifying this.

... The definition of fascism included the silencing of opposing voices, thus this:

I don' t know a thing about it (Obama getting his unions to shout down and assault protestors) and am certainly not a spokesperson for Obama. What, exactly does that have to do with socialized healthcare anyway?

... It's part of the definition of fascism, see. Control, and shut the opposition up. That is what the man is trying to do. I am amazed you haven't heard about this going on.

That's like saying that "buying and selling" are included in the definition of both Communism and capitalism and so communism and captilasm must be alike.


Again, read the other thread. That's a better place to discuss this part.

... Isn't it utterly amazing how folks have become so enslaved by the labels "Democrat", or "Republican"? So much so that people claiming to support the good of the people or individual liberty (consciously?) ignore corruption and graft, intimidation of the electorate with physical violence, massive power grabs and blatant payoffs to backers by those elected.

...

I am not enslaved to any group or ideology. And, when people try to label me, they tend to be wrong.

[PLAYER57832]

... I propose to write my congressman, to persuade him to draft a bill and get it moving. House Resolution 3200.1

... This legisalation will be only one page long, two sentences, and may (or my not) fix the health care crisis in the United States. It would certainly be less expensive than what is presenly proposed and won't drive us further into the debtor's hole.

... HR 3200.1

...All state or federal regulation concerning policy coverage of health insurance is voided.

... All US citizens may opt to purchase coverage from any private insurance company within the United States.

... No state mandates for covereage will mean those companies that believe they can compete with the baldness cures and Viagra as standard will still be allowed to compete. Other companies can trim down to the basics - cold, flu, cancer, arthritis, and the like... can customize coverage to what customers desire. I say, "Hey, I'm not so vain. Acne and balding? I couldn't care less". And no state authority can force my insurance company to wedge such coverage in and jack up the costs.

... And I could fish for policies from Wisconsin-based companies, or New York, or Hawaii... It can't be done now.

... No state regulation, anywhere. No federal either, at least as pertains to policy coverage and charges.

... NOBUNAGA 2012! CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN! (for real this time)...

What about medical conditions already present before someone gets insurance? Are they covered? afaik they currently aren't.

... That is not for me to decide. Existing conditions could be a very competitive market when you get the thousands of companies competeing across state lines for those dollars without hindrance.

...

In fact, this IS what occurs. This has nothing to do with state lines, really. (that is another issue). In fact, Insurance companies DO compete, but they do so with large employers who often do cross state lines. Indidivuals cannot buy across state lines and each company has to offer plans for that state, but they generally do deal with one company, not one for each state.

AND, there is no way competition will increase Insurance companies' desire to insure people who will lose them money. THAT is the issue. Insurance companies have the legal right to simply drop whomever they wish. So, they drop those who cost them too much. This is masked a little in large companies, where the pool of employees is large enough that a few sick employees don't take away too much from the "bottom line" (though in some cases they do even then!).

Small companies absolutely cannot afford to hire anyone who has a sick family member OR they will hire them, but not insure the sick member.

And then we are back to the PUBLIC option today -- Medicaid and no care until its an emergency.

[stahrgazer]

You refer to the grandfathered section. Fine. I can explain it again...

This says that people will be able to keep their existing policies. When those policies expire or are canceled, which will be as the insurance companies and the folk's employers decide just like now, except for those very few who do have individual policies, then they will have the OPTION of either taking the government plan (assuming that option is not stricken from the final bill) OR they will be able to get one of the new insurance-industry offered policies that meet the new guidelines.

Right now, if you lose your job or your insurance company drops you (which they can do for pretty much any reason right now), you have 3 alternatives

1.If you lose your job (only), you can continue with COBRA coverage (which begin at around $600 a month for the very basic policies and more often cost over $1000 dollars.... the terrible policy to which I have referred costs, in COBRA, around $800 for a family of 4). Of course, if you really need that insurance then employers can use that as reason not to hire you.

If you get cancelled -- usually because you have used too much insurance or have for another reason become "too much of a risk". You can:

2. get a private plan, which is expensive and often offers poor coverage.

3. If you are poor (ONLY) go on Medicaid

Oh, in PA and a couple of other states, you can, once you have NO insurance, opt into the CHIP plan for a fee. .. hmm that sounds an awful lot like the public option presented in this bill, EXCEPT you can ONLY get CHIP if your employer offers NO insurance.

You forgot something... almost no plan except Medicare will cover treatment for a condition that was diagnosed before the new insurance plan took effect; in some cases, that "pre-existing condition" exclusion means a woman who was pregnant before the latest insurance policy takes effect (say, she switches jobs for a promotion, and in switching jobs switches health insurance) cannot get prenatal care or her delivery covered. Much less the problem someone who's ever had cancer can have getting insurance.

One of the reforms is to universally require covering even pre-existing conditions.

[PLAYER57832]

You refer to the grandfathered section. Fine. I can explain it again...

This says that people will be able to keep their existing policies. When those policies expire or are canceled, which will be as the insurance companies and the folk's employers decide just like now, except for those very few who do have individual policies, then they will have the OPTION of either taking the government plan (assuming that option is not stricken from the final bill) OR they will be able to get one of the new insurance-industry offered policies that meet the new guidelines.

Right now, if you lose your job or your insurance company drops you (which they can do for pretty much any reason right now), you have 3 alternatives

1.If you lose your job (only), you can continue with COBRA coverage (which begin at around $600 a month for the very basic policies and more often cost over $1000 dollars.... the terrible policy to which I have referred costs, in COBRA, around $800 for a family of 4). Of course, if you really need that insurance then employers can use that as reason not to hire you.

If you get cancelled -- usually because you have used too much insurance or have for another reason become "too much of a risk". You can:

2. get a private plan, which is expensive and often offers poor coverage.

3. If you are poor (ONLY) go on Medicaid

4. You go without. This is what most people who get cancelled must do.

One more option--- In PA and a couple of other states, you can, once you have NO insurance, opt into the CHIP plan for a fee. .. hmm that sounds an awful lot like the public option presented in this bill, EXCEPT you can ONLY get CHIP if your employer offers NO insurance. So, again, employed (tax-paying) people with moderate and low incomes get the short stick.

You forgot something... almost no plan except Medicare will cover treatment for a condition that was diagnosed before the new insurance plan took effect; in some cases, that "pre-existing condition" exclusion means a woman who was pregnant before the latest insurance policy takes effect (say, she switches jobs for a promotion, and in switching jobs switches health insurance) cannot get prenatal care or her delivery covered. Much less the problem someone who's ever had cancer can have getting insurance.

One of the reforms is to universally require covering even pre-existing conditions.

I mention this in the first paragraph. However, I did leave out the option to just go without. That is what most people who lose insurance have to do.

[Nobunaga]

... Here's a valid question. The Dems have such majorities in both houses right now, why not just pass the wretched thing and have done? If it is going to help so many and do such much to fix present problems... Just pass it already.

...

[Frigidus]

... Here's a valid question. The Dems have such majorities in both houses right now, why not just pass the wretched thing and have done? If it is going to help so many and do such much to fix present problems... Just pass it already.

...

The Democrats have no interest in doing that, as their campaign contributors and lobbyists in the insurance industry would not be pleased. They talk about passing the bill so as to garner votes from those that would like to see changes made.