Most of the things you talk about will not happen till 2013, yet we start paying for it right away. By then, we could have had single payer in place for at least 2 years and it would cost NO MORE MONEY than is in the system now. When we already spend 2X what every other developed country pays, is the answer really more money? Is that going to be the ‘uniquely American way’ forever? People are fearing change because they are still too comfortable with the present. That will change in 1-2 years and single payer will look better. If the reforms all took place next year, I could support your idea of ‘better than nothing.” This reform is ‘a PIECE OF SHIT’ and ‘no way jose’ will stand right now. Lives lost are not going to change for 2-3 years what ever happens with this bill. WHen this one fails, the country will be in worse shape and possibly unable to minimally care for the uninsured.

So after digesting the Stupid-Spitt’s amandement, and maybe actually rejecting it, The Senators will do whatever they can to enrich the companies in the health care industry, limit access to people, while mazimizing profits, thus turning a dream into a funtional nightmare.

So, as usual, the only thing that actually passes Congress’s digestive system comes out as a PIECE OF SHIT!

There’s a lot to dislike in this bill, and I guess you agree with the Republicans who demand perfection – a health care solution should satisfy everyone, not cost any money, and be no longer than a page and a half and be easy for a 7-year-old to understand. Look at what the bill WILL acomplish: Provide for a mandate – nearly everyone MUST have insurance (with a few exceptions) provide for subsidies for those who need it — insure about 30 million uninsured, raising the percent of insured to about 96%, reduce the deficit, do away with ‘pre-existing condition’ clauses that allow insurance companies to leave some policy holders on the curb to die. The House version will do away with the anti-trust exemption.

Blow it off and 40,000 Americans per year will die needlessly for lack of medical care. That’s the Harvard estimate, not mine. The odds for a better bill don’t improve with time. Ask Bill Clinton. He took a crack at reform 12 years ago. Can we wait that long again? We will likely lose seats in the 2010. Nobody is predicting we will have a better chance after 2012.

Politics is not about perfect solutions. It’s about trends – trends for the better or trends for the worse. This reform trends to the BETTER. Will the detractors please tell me how NO bill – with the suffering and death that entails – is better than an imperfect bill. OR tell me how no bill improves the chances of a stronger bill before a half million needless deaths happen. OR explain to me what principle is worth a half million lives you will so casually sacrifice.

Unfortunately, the issue is not what works, but what might pass Congress.

But while you and I fret, fume and flail about right vs left, red vs blue, Repub vs Dem, within the incestuous Halls of the Legislatures it’s all about which politicians will enjoy the privilege of representing the interests of the rich. As the bill stands now, we will be thrown a few crumbs to keep us quiet, and the health-care industry will realize millions of new customers, a sharp increase in profits and revenues, all paid for out of our taxes. The health-care industry will get richer, politicians who made it possible will enjoy concomitant status elevation among their colleagues, and you and I?

On second thought I live in a red state w/ a Republican governor who’ll probably opt out (my Democratic representative voted against the bill). That will just leave me where I am today, uninsured. Whew!

Should I be trying to develop a pre-existing condition now to avoid the rush?