Morning Joe Crew Congratulates Democrats For Passing Health Reform Bill

[Turborama]

Run time: 08:52 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZrtIWcfDPS8   Posted on YouTube: November 09, 2009 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: November 09, 2009 By DU Member: Turborama Views on DU: 1775

 
Definitive proof that MSNBC is the communications arm of the Democratic party!

Just in case... :sarcasm:

[peace13]

1. OMG !

Not a good sign that the bill is good for the people!

[customerserviceguy]

2. Joey Scar's counting on it

On "This Week with George Stephanopoulos", GOP pollster Frank Luntz said that the Repukes are going to use it to bash Democratic candidates in 2010 and 2012, with simply the sheer size of the number of dollars involved. At both of those points, the bill will not have made any positive difference for anyone, and the Rethugs will have an issue.

That's why the Morning Joe crew likes it.

[quark219]

3. Absolutely... This is a MASSIVE gift to the insurance industry

Millions of 20-somethings who have no chronic health conditions and have been cutting corners on insurance will now be forced to buy overpriced, sucky insurance. It's a demographic the insurance corporations have been drooling over: they're virtually all profit, and no expense. CHA-CHING!

Now, if only the industry can figure out a way to get Obama to shepherd in legislation that will MANDATE that the insurance corporations drop the "dogs"--you know, the citizens with the most serious health conditions. What's that, you say? Oh, whoops--that's right--that's already IN this legislation. "Dogs" are shuttled over to the "public" option, where the U.S. taxpayer subsidizes the cost so that the insurance industry's profits aren't tainted by the seriously ill. CHA-CHING, CHA-CHING!

WOOO-HOOOOOO! Change I can believe in!

This "historic" legislation is the NAFTA of the Obama administration. In another 10 years, even the most clueless on this site will recognize that it was a massive gift to the corporations that screwed the American people.

[Hamlette]

5. quark, I believe you have found yourself in the wrong place, try freeperville

unless of course you are a young 'un who hoped to get a free ride on insurance for another 20 years at society's expense. In that case, you might be anti war and green and all that but you're still a republican.

concern troll somewhere else, or try giving a fuck that those who can afford it might pay a bit more to insure the 30 million americans who have no fucking insurance at all and are dying at alarming rates as a result.

[Lil Missy]

7. quark is right, and I'm no freeper.

[tempelton1]

9. Hang on a second Hamlette...

Why is it that everytime I see someone disagreeing with the standard thinking on this site, I also see that person been told to fuck off to Free Republic or some such place?!?! Isn't dissent/disagreement permitted/tolerated or is groupthink mandatory here (as it seems to be on the fascist right)? Seriously, you really ought to stop that kind of nonsense. I come from a country that has healthy political debate. Since moving here a few months ago, I have been alarmed by the irrational and eliminationist insistence on refusing to engage with anyone who disagrees with your POV. It is a disturbing situation and it ought to be rejected.

I'm not sure what you consider a leftwing perspective to be but it is clear to me that Quark's position meets the criteria I personally would apply: an informed mistrust of the gross and uneven centralisation of capital in private hands. That the health bill gives millions more 'customers' to the health insurance machine is undeniable. It is simply a fact. Quark was expressing loathing for this gift to the anti-social health industry machine. Presumably you don't have a problem with it though. However, it is actually possible to oppose certain elements of the bill without disowning the overall purpose of it (as I attempt to do).

Furthermore, from where I am sitting it is you that sounds like the Freeper and conservative, as you seem to be sarcastically expressing your loathing for the idea of getting a 'free ride' at 'society's expense' - that is classic conservatism if you ask me. Do you really think that every working person in their 20's has the ability to pay for the outrageous prices of the health insurance machine? If so, I would suggest you need to see a doctor.

I personally believe in a universal health care system. Sure, where possible we all pay into it but yes, you are covered, even if you can't pay into it - what you call a 'free ride', I call civilised behaviour.

[Hamlette]

10. riddle me this

if all this bill is is a gigantic gift to the insurance companies, why is the GOP fighting it?

I mean, the GOP is a wholly owned subsidiary of insurance companies. You'd think they'd love it.

Haruph.

Looks like the Swiss system to me. Which is not half as bad as ours.

90% of your health care costs are incurred in the last 2 years of life. Don't you think we should be paying into it all along so that there will be funds there when we need it?

Young ppl who resent paying in are the ppl I'll be paying for with my insurance premiums when something goes wrong. Buy health insurance. You have to buy car insurance. What's the diff?

[tempelton1]

11. Riddle me nothing...

I pointed out that I supported much of the bill but also that it is possible to oppose certain parts of it. Specifically, the insistence that young people sign up to health insurance policies against free will and to the massive benefit of the insurance industry. Again, that is simply a fact. I am all for system where we all pay into it, but not one that pours profits into the coffers of a system that overcharges people for policies that it then refuses to honour. A real democrat should be insisting on an Anthony Wiener-style single payer system in which, yes, we all pay into it but then we are all covered in all circumstances. This bill merely tweaks the health insurance racket, it certainly does not end it. It needs to be ended. Clearly, you favour the insurance system (again, you sound like the Republican here IMHO).

As for why the republicans are opposing it - well, frankly, what kind of silly question is that? They oppose everything that challenges their favoured donors. This bill DOES in some ways do this. Again, that is why I already stated I am for the bill (but not every part of it). They, apparently, like yourself, see things in black and white terms: bill is good/bad; profits are protected/destroyed; Obama is a socialist/god.

Nothing is so simple.

[tempelton1]

8. Your points are bang on my friend.

[ProgressOnTheMove]

4. This bill is like a war facing insurgencies from amendments and Liebermans, we must resist, it ...

shouldn't be this hard, it really shouldn't but the fight goes on, the dream endures etc. At least one victory, now we have to be on all member house and senate to correct in conference restricting private insurance funding of women's choice. We'll get there in the end, it'll be worth it you'll see.

In environment where change doesn't come easy people have to get a sample of what government can do for them, then they'll open up to the idea of single payer. It's just letting that bit of sunlight in then the futures far more brighter. Certainly health insurance benefits in the middle of this but that keeps costs down for everyday folk and when they see that they'll get government can do this. They'll then say give me single payer. The susidies to health insurance is a means to an ends, but a means of giving people cheaper insurance, until we reach mission accoplished single payer.

[goclark]

6. I must be missing something ~ MJ said that >

He should be agreeing with all those who voted NO?
I haven't heard many of them offer Congratulations to the Democrats. Their tactic is to say how stupid it is and so much money it will cost.


How much did GW spend on a WAR that got us nowhere?
They were sure all out defending him on that issue, still do.