What are the chances the House health bill will fail to meet its objective

[ProSense]

After Reform Passes

To be sure, Massachusetts isn’t fully representative of America as a whole. Even before reform, it had relatively broad insurance coverage, in part because of a large union movement. And the state has a tradition of strong insurance regulation, which has probably made it easier to run a system that depends crucially on having regulators ride herd on insurers.

So national reform’s chances will be better if it contains elements lacking in Massachusetts — in particular, a real public option to keep insurers honest (and fend off charges that the individual mandate is just an insurance-industry profit grab). We can only hope that reports that the Obama administration is trying to block a public option are overblown.

Still, if the Massachusetts experience is any guide, health care reform will have broad public support once it’s in place and the scare stories are proved false. The new health care system will be criticized; people will demand changes and improvements; but only a small minority will want reform reversed.

What chance do you give it: 0 to 100 percent.

[SIMPLYB1980]

1. It will be good enough for now.

Can't really put a percentage on it right now though.

[MNDemNY]

9. Will you still support it with the Stupak language intact?

[SIMPLYB1980]

10. Yep.

[MNDemNY]

11. Are you anti-choice,...

or are you just OK with tossing 50 years of hard fought gains in womens rights to the curb for a less then mediocre HCR bill? Are there other human rights that you are willing to surrender for this bill?

[SIMPLYB1980]

14. Pro-choice just don't care if it is paid for with

tax dollars or not.

[MNDemNY]

15. So poor women can just suck it up?

And you do know that Stupak goes way beyond that, don't you?

[MNDemNY]

13. poke

[babylonsister]

2. If public option is a main objective, this from Jane Hamsher:

Why the Democrats Can’t Pass A Bill Without a Public Option, By the Numbers

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6995291&mesg_id=6995291

[ProSense]

3. The only way that scenario could play out

is if the bill leaves conference with the Stupak amendment intact. If it's stripped the bill passes. I doubt the Stupak coalition will stand.

[MNDemNY]

8. But you are OK if it stands, right?

[MNDemNY]

7. Is the lack of a "public option" a deal killer for you?

I know that you are OK if the Stupak language stays in, but is there any scenario where you would not support this? Is it not true that all you want is a "win" and a nice rose garden signing ceremony?:shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug:

[MNDemNY]

12. poke

[OHdem10]

4. Is Massachussetts a fair compairison? Mass along with many

differences in the bill, was in good shape when they started
their program. They had money in a rainy day fund which they
used for the poor. Massachussets did not have the comparable
uninsured.

I could be wrong wrong wrong. I do not see the House Bill
being that popular. They have never sold it positively.
People are going to be ready to find everything they can
to complain about. Therefore, it needs to be next to perfect
and it is not. Not even having everyone covered, and making
it impossible for anyone who wishes to join the PO makes
this very weak.

[ProSense]

5. Mass didn't address cost control so they're having issues. n/t

[MNDemNY]

6. Do you mean the objective of destroying 50 years of hard work on womens reproductive rights?

100% if the Stupak language stays. But you are OK with that , are you not?