Every day senility settles in closer, thankfully.

I am well aware of the point that a bill that may be shit may also save lives. If it does then its the right thing to do. My point has NEVER been to say all or nothing…but that a bill that will wreak havoc in the many ways one reads that it might may be that it is worse than nothing as many are saying.

I think until we can actually understand the ramifications and and its real world applications rather than hollow wishful speculation that something is better than nothing without even understanding what that something is …is a very naive and dangerous way to argue a point.

The insurance industry is about to get another huge pound of flesh bought by Ben Nelson’s vote. Its totally puke making.

I want to know just exactly what will happen with Medicare and just who qualifies for cover and at what cost and what level of cover will be given. If someone can answer those questions we might have something to discuss. So far everyone refuses to deal with the reality of what the bill means. Its amazing…

At the moment, IMHO, it’s a 50-50 proposition if things will be better. I say that because I don’t have confidence or trust in the Democratic Party to do what’s right for the American people and given the complexity of a 2,000 page bill that’s ripe with loopholes for the insurance industry with a never-ending bickering on language. Given this, how can you be sure that people with pre-existing conditions could get more protection right away? You praised Reich for not “taking his marbles off the table” for the public option and I agree with that. But that’s exactly what Obama did- crippling contradictions indeed. The people paying attention see that and especially independent voters that seems to be slipping away by some poles. The Party needs to build trust with the American people, but by endlessly offering up concession after concession they end up not standing for anything the people can hold on to, to vote for. On compromising, how far should that go? No public option? Yes on the Stupak amendment? And when 100s of amendments are offered up by the Republicans in the Senate just to eviscerate what’s left of its half dead carcass, should we find “middle ground” there too? I’ve always been a political pragmatist, but my patience is wearing very thin… while it seems every few days I get mail from the Party pleading for more money.

I have a lot of problems, as I have said earlier, about both major proposals coming out of the House and Senate respectively. I tend to lean more to your side, usually, than I do with others on here with respect to health care. However, if this bill does indeed compel the system to make some reforms, this can save lives, and make things better for those with health problems, and sizable health care bills, like me. As the system stands today, with costs rising steeply each year, a lifetime benefit cap of three, four, even five millions dollars is not going to last a relatively young person like me for a span of the next 30 years. Both bills attempt to put in place important regulations on the insurance industry. There may not be very much difference between the two major parties where health care reform is concerned, but, as Noam Chomsky ironically stated a few years ago, these small differences between the two parties can mean the difference in whether hundreds of thousands of people die or live. It is something that you should think about.

To a large extent, this is a ridiculous discussion at the margins. I’m interested in what Bernie Sanders, Boxer, and the like are trying to do. I’m interested in Bob Reich’s POV and suggestions as to how best proceed. He’s critical, he’s pissed, he’s got suggestions about pushing the public option forward – but he’s not taking his marbles off the table and retreating to his armchair to find satisfaction in…uh…Pablo Nerida. Not in this lifetime. Lefties parachuting in and making the obvious point that the bill is weak, the Dems are bound by crippling contradictions and the legislative process sucks are wasting…uh…their own time more than ours. I’ve known about the agonies of the Democratic Party since before 8-track cartridges (although not before Chevies.) My moment of “Oh shit!” dates back to the 1964 Atlantic City convention when LBJ and Hubert Humphrey refused to seat the entire Mississippi Freedom Democratic delegation. None of this is new, but no strategy that simply wrote liberals, registered Democrats, Democratic primary challenges and critical association with the Party off as too contaminated for “authentic” Leftists to stomach has yielded any more effective results. Pressure from outside is all well and good when it actually exists as something more than figments of imagination, as it did during the civil right movement and when the anti-Vietnam war protests were mass activities – but at some point electoral politics have to be part of the strategy and the Democratic Party owns the (admittedly lame) leftward side of the board in our clumsy system. The Vietnam protests largely lost sight of that until it was too late. The real question – almost always – is can a party have some coherence and unity on key issues and maintain credibility with the actual, electoral center, whether we like that fact or not. Everything else is hot air.

Btw, most of the questions you challenge “us” with are not answerable. (How much “self-employed” will pay depends on age, dependents.) One is, however: premium payments will be limited to 10% of income.

Well I guess Dan-O is willing to wait 3 years until one of these plans kicks in- of course that’s just another compromise. No matter what happens, another 135,000 people will die. After 2013, if a bill passes, it’s anybody’s guess…

“they live next door to you and they play golf.” The tattooed kids in the punk band or the dozens (and dozens) of black families ? Unfortunately none of them play golf – I know because I play golf and never see any of them at the public links. Maybe they secretly belong to country clubs.

You’re so ignorant and full of glib shit, I sort of enjoy your stuff for it’s sheer humor and cluelessness. The arrogance is a bit hard to take, but I assume you enjoy sending missives from Palm Springs fundraisers condemning “limousine liberals” in West Oakland.

Christ, you’re an asshole but not as boring as Woody. Also RailSplitter is the product of Neruda’s irrepressible inner hack – but not as embarrassing as Pablo’s ode to Stalin or saludo a Batista.

Waiting….tap tap tap tap

To a large extent, this is a ridiculous discussion at the margins. I’m interested in what Bernie Sanders, Boxer, and the like are trying to do. I’m interested in Bob Reich’s POV and suggestions as to how best proceed. He’s critical, he’s pissed, he’s got suggestions about pushing the public option forward – but he’s not taking his marbles off the table and retreating to his armchair to find satisfaction in…uh…Pablo Nerida. Not in this lifetime. Lefties parachuting in and making the obvious point that the bill is weak, the Dems are bound by crippling contradictions and the legislative process sucks are wasting…uh…their own time more than ours. I’ve known about the agonies of the Democratic Party since before 8-track cartridges (although not before Chevies.) My moment of “Oh shit!” dates back to the 1964 Atlantic City convention when LBJ and Hubert Humphrey refused to seat the entire Mississippi Freedom Democratic delegation. None of this is new, but no strategy that simply wrote liberals, registered Democrats, Democratic primary challenges and critical association with the Party off as too contaminated for “authentic” Leftists to stomach has yielded any more effective results. Pressure from outside is all well and good when it actually exists as something more than figments of imagination, as it did during the civil right movement and when the anti-Vietnam war protests were mass activities – but at some point electoral politics have to be part of the strategy and the Democratic Party owns the (admittedly lame) leftward side of the board in our clumsy system. The Vietnam protests largely lost sight of that until it was too late. The real question – almost always – is can a party have some coherence and unity on key issues and maintain credibility with the actual, electoral center, whether we like that fact or not. Everything else is hot air.