Nice response, I hear you, especially your last sentence, which is true, this bill is a small step towards meaningful coverage, progress, and cost and quality control.
OTOH, I would say that this is an enormous victory for people that have had loved ones die because their coverage was dropped, or to those that have lost their savings due to an uncovered illness. If you've never had this experience, then you probably cannot fully appreciate the value of these safeguards this bill provides.
I understand that over the year the American people have developed a bad taste in their mouth for this debate, it is nauseating. But this wasn't a fight that lasted one long monotonous year, we've always had this fight. We have to continue fighting.
As for momentum, once you increase coverage and access to healthcare, and people become accustomed to it, rolling back is not going to happen. For one, it would be political suicide. It's like talking about rolling back social security, it wont happen, nor will the people support a move.
That is where the momentum helps us.
I would suggest that although we've given more customers to the insurance companies, the companies now have to actually pay for the care and not just reap the premiums and deny coverage any longer. Plus, there is a reason why many people are uncovered right now, they have costly illnesses, and this isn't the client base the insurance companies were hoping for. They did spend a good deal against this bill, too, so I don't consider it a corporate giveaway.
Medicare reimbursement - hopefully dealing with the massive fraud will help - I am at a loss as to how to fix this problem beyond that.
You make excellent points, my only criticism is that I see a laundry list of items that need improvement, and a call for more educated national dialogue, but where are the solutions?
pie in the sky is right - UHC was never going to pass. So, what would you propose? Begin the laborious path of incremental progress, or just wait and hope for the day that progressives controlled Congress so we could just easily, and without breaking a sweat, convert to UHC?
Defeatism is unreasonable if you never had the opportunity to achieve it. So I find your diatribe about the new bill to be unfounded.
I don't consider it perfect, but this is the path to UHC. It will not be pretty, nor easy. Though once people start to obtain better coverage and enjoy this as a right and not a privilege, American's perspectives will change. Once Americans start to become less anxious about the fear of losing their entire financial security from an illness, they will start to truly appreciate the benefits of coverage, even if controlled by the government. In due time, there won't be cries against soclialism, there will be demands for socialized medicine.
This bill is a first step towards UHC. You can say it's not, but then you'd be ignoring the main point for the republicans' and insurance industries' objection to the bills - slippery slope to UHC.
Even the legal defense argument of the break-in is the same:
"It was poor judgment,” Robert Flanagan’s lawyer, Garrison Jordan, said in a brief interview outside the courthouse. “I don’t think there was any intent or motive to commit a crime.”
As to your question, we'll see, but so far it's only the G Gordon Liddy and Cubans portion of it. Investigate the money trail (who paid for those snazzy telephone repair man outfits!) , look at campaign contributions, etc., any plans to kidnap too?
Obama never branded himself as anti-war, one of his positions or "brands", if you want to call it that, was anti-Iraq.
If he stated he was against afghanistan, you would actually see those statements, everywhere, and any decent journalist would point to those statements to show the flip flop. These don't exist because there was no flip flop, so please, stop taking away credibility from the argument against further pursuit in afghanistan by posting blatant history re-writing.
"I have a lot of critics in the United States who can say all kinds of things about me, I actually think that that makes our democracy stronger and it makes me a better leader because it forces me to hear opinions that I don't want to hear. It forces me to examine what I'm doing on a day-to-day basis to see, am I really doing the very best that I could be doing for the people of the United States."
Criticize all you want, just make sure he hears you and knows what you want. MyDD isn't going to do it. I'd join in a march for single payer in a heartbeat
I did, Cotto looked doomed after the second or third round, kind of sad to see in someones eyes the realization that he is overmatched by a long shot. Paquiao might have the requisite speed and power to contend with FMJr, the only one thus far that I've seen that could give him a run for his money. That bout better happen, in fact it must, the Gods of Money and Battle demand it.