There is a flip side to the "it's a good foundation" HCR argument...

[phantom power]

If it's possible to build it up, it is equally easy for the GOP and the insurance lobbies to tear it down. Easier, to my way of thinking. Keep the mandate, and weaken the counter-provisions.

I would be interested in any reasoning that predicts otherwise.

[emulatorloo]

1. So work to elect better and more Democrats

It will be only be easy for Repubs to do that if Dems sit home on their fat asses (and yes I have a fat ass) in 2010 while the teabaggers and fundies are out voting.

[WeDidIt]

2. Actually, no it isn't just as easy to tear it down

As was the case with both Social Security and Medicare, once the door was opened it was impossible to close it again. Social Security and MEdicare have both been built upon, but I would argue the original foundations sucked hard.

[phantom power]

4. Perhaps, but neither SS and Medicare had any private-industry component.

This bill has major private industry components. It is structurally dangerous in a way that those previous examples were not. They might have been weakened, but they could not be tweaked and turned into a private industry extortion scheme.

[WeDidIt]

5. No private-industry component?

What the hell do you call bargaining with doctors, hospitals, and other health care providers for medicare payments?

[phantom power]

6. No private industry components to the services they offered...

which were retirement and medical insurance, respectively.

I think you know what I mean.

[Ozymanithrax]

3. This is equally true of all bills

The Civil Rights act of 1964 was a good foundation that was strengthened by the passage of other bill, including Title IX (essentially womens rights) and opposed by those on the right. Because it was imperfect and could be weakened by right wing zealots should we have just voted it down?

Medicare was a good beginning that has been strenghtened by the passage of other bills, and fought by the right. Because it was imperfect and could be weakened by right wing zealots should we have just voted it down?

After the depression, regulations on the banks kept them in check until the 80's. Those regulations were weakened by Republcians and conservatives under Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton. Should we have just not put those regulations into effect at all?

Yes, it is a flawed bill that could be weakened by right wing zealots. Is it better to have done nothing at all? Is our current Health Care system so good we should just have ignored trying to reform it because republicans someday may weaken the bill?

It is a beginning. It can be made better over time. It would have been both immoral and unethcal to have refused to try and reform the system because Republcians might some day weaken the reform.

[jgraz]

7. It's a foundation for "you got yer reform, now STFU"

As soon as the bill passes, the White House and the MSM will declare health care "fixed" and we'll be stuck with the same crappy system we had before.

[JVS]

8. +1. A foundation for "Mission accomplished! Now qwitcherbitchin about not geting a pony"

[phantom power]

9. I think it's worse than that. The next move by the insurance industry will be...

to immediately start angling to strip the consumer protections that are supposedly going to balance out this splendid insurance mandate. The idea that they aren't likely to succeed in that requires that one completely ignore the last 30 years of political history.

Neither SS nor Medicare had any private industry component, and so they were structurally much less dangerous. We have to participate, but the federal govt (which is, after all, us) are in charge, and with public accountability combined with no profit motive.