Public Option Rejected by Senate Finance Committee

[Sasquatch]

This is change we can believe in, no doubt.


~sarcasm~

[Lunar]

One of my favorites:

Alan Grayson is a complete FF. It's a shame he probably won't be re-elected.

lol, he doesn't care, he's one of the few people in Congress that doesn't actually need the job.  He got elected in a swing district that voted for Bush twice and like one of the first things he does is join the Progressive Caucus.

Smart man though, is what I hear.

[Lunar]

One of my favorites:

Alan Grayson is a complete FF. It's a shame he probably won't be re-elected.

lol, he doesn't care, he's one of the few people in Congress that doesn't actually need the job.  He got elected in a swing district that voted for Bush twice and like one of the first things he does is join the Progressive Caucus.

Smart man though, is what I hear.

In comparison, Michelle Bachmann got her main law degree to the school Ned Flanders went to.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The DSCC decided that today would be a good day to hit me up for money. They sure are some real geniuses.

[Democratic Hawk]

Glad to see common sense still shines in some parts of Congress.

Why must America remain so far behind other Western nations?

You mean, why are we so far ahead? 

The one thing the U.S. relative to other developed nation, is ahead in is the cost of healthcare that has 1) suppressed wages and 2) prohibited job growth. I'm not surprised median incomes have fallen under Bush and I'm not surprised he has the worst job creation record, for any full-term president, since Herbert Hoover. So much for "trickle-down"

The Democratic Party owns economic growth, job creation, prosperity AND reducing the federal debt as a % of GDP. The last Republican to accomplish the latter was Nixon - in his first term. The President signs the bills

As a 'Democrat' you should be proud of your party's record

Healthcare, right now, is economically and fiscally unsustainable. It's a moral issue, as much as anything else

[Lunar]

The DSCC decided that today would be a good day to hit me up for money. They sure are some real geniuses.

end of quarter finance blasting always yields $$ no matter what the circumstances.  you're lucky if it was only the DSCC that hit you up, I've been hit up by like twenty-five candidates haha

[Meeker]

One of my favorites:

Alan Grayson is a complete FF. It's a shame he probably won't be re-elected.

Further evidence: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IuCFhpc_q-Q&feature=player_embedded

[Badger]

Finance committee isn't important, it was never going to pass there, because the Finance committee is incredibly conservative. What's important is the budget committee, where the HELP and Finance bills are combined. We absolutely need a public option to come out of there, or bad things are going to happen.

But if we approve a public option, it will be worse Lief. 

My Congressman was on the radio just Monday talking about how the "Democrat scheme" will promote euthanasia, force handicapped children to give up their wheelchairs because of "hidden wheelchair tax" and require school children to receive socialist-athiestic indoctrination about sex and other risky behaviors.

(And people wonder why I so loathe the little weasel.)

But those wingnuts are always going to say that regardless, Sojourner. Just think how people will react when none of these things occur, people keep their choice of health insurance and doctor, and the only things to happen are covering the tens of millions of uninsured and (regardless of what Obama says) the deficit increases. Pretty tough for all the Republicans running on this kind of overkill to be taken too seriously in 2012, or even 2010.

[anvi]

Finance committee isn't important, it was never going to pass there, because the Finance committee is incredibly conservative. What's important is the budget committee, where the HELP and Finance bills are combined. We absolutely need a public option to come out of there, or bad things are going to happen.

The Budget Commitee is chaird by Conrad, and Nelson is on it to.  If they both cast the same no votes on the public option they did on the Finance Committee, no public option will come to the Senate floor.  (Byrd's vote is a problem too, he is ill, and as far as I know, he has made no declaration on where he stands on a public option).  Don't get me wrong Lief, I think we need a public option too.  But it doesn't look good at all.

[The Age Wave]

I knew I supported Hillary Clinton for a good reason.

[Sbane]

I knew I supported Hillary Clinton for a good reason.

Yeah she would probably have the balls to get this through congress.

[President Mitt]

Perhaps he does exist!

[Sbane]

Perhaps he does exist!

What would you rather have? Hopefully you understand the current system is not working and it actually makes American businesses uncompetitive.

Of course we already do have universal healthcare. Just go down to the local ER to see what I'm talking about.

[President Mitt]

Am I denying the system needs repair? No.

But the answer is not forcing Taxpayers to pay for everybody's health. Just please explain why I should pay for my Neighbor's visit because she has the sniffles? I also loathe the idea of forcing businesses to pay for all of their employee's insurance, especially during a time of recession. Not to mention, a Emergency Room can't deny care anyway, so America already has a "de facto" Universal Health System.

[Vepres]

Maybe this will get them to realize that a public option and employer mandates (this in particular) are unsustainable, both politically and economically. I agree we need reform, but the constant political maneuvering won't help anybody.

If anything, we need to move away from employer based insurance, prevent insurance companies from dropping people's coverage or denying customers for medical conditions, and so on. Let's face it, at this point most Democrats are fighting for the public option as a matter of political pride, not political pragmatism or "to help the American people". Hopefully a partisan deadlock is created, thus forcing them to compromise. So yeah, I'm happy for now.

[Sbane]

Maybe this will get them to realize that a public option and employer mandates (this in particular) are unsustainable, both politically and economically. I agree we need reform, but the constant political maneuvering won't help anybody.

If anything, we need to move away from employer based insurance, prevent insurance companies from dropping people's coverage or denying customers for medical conditions, and so on. Let's face it, at this point most Democrats are fighting for the public option as a matter of political pride, not political pragmatism or "to help the American people". Hopefully a partisan deadlock is created, thus forcing them to compromise. So yeah, I'm happy for now.

I agree that we need to get away from employer based healthcare and the democrats don't seem to be changing that. But I do support a non subsidized, not for profit public option that competes fairly with private health insurance companies and negotiates fairly with hospitals and doctors. Those who can't afford healthcare should get subsidies and they should be able to choose the public option or private health care depending on who can provide the lowest price.

[Torie]

Maybe this will get them to realize that a public option and employer mandates (this in particular) are unsustainable, both politically and economically. I agree we need reform, but the constant political maneuvering won't help anybody.

If anything, we need to move away from employer based insurance, prevent insurance companies from dropping people's coverage or denying customers for medical conditions, and so on. Let's face it, at this point most Democrats are fighting for the public option as a matter of political pride, not political pragmatism or "to help the American people". Hopefully a partisan deadlock is created, thus forcing them to compromise. So yeah, I'm happy for now.

I agree that we need to get away from employer based healthcare and the democrats don't seem to be changing that. But I do support a non subsidized, not for profit public option that competes fairly with private health insurance companies and negotiates fairly with hospitals and doctors. Those who can't afford healthcare should get subsidies and they should be able to choose the public option or private health care depending on who can provide the lowest price.

"I agree that we need to get away from employer based healthcare and the democrats don't seem to be changing that. But I do support a non subsidized, not for profit public option that competes fairly with private health insurance companies and negotiates fairly with hospitals and doctors. Those who can't afford healthcare should get subsidies and they should be able to choose the public option or private health care depending on who can provide the lowest price."

And there is the rub, sbane. The bold assumes away what is in play.

[Sbane]

Maybe this will get them to realize that a public option and employer mandates (this in particular) are unsustainable, both politically and economically. I agree we need reform, but the constant political maneuvering won't help anybody.

If anything, we need to move away from employer based insurance, prevent insurance companies from dropping people's coverage or denying customers for medical conditions, and so on. Let's face it, at this point most Democrats are fighting for the public option as a matter of political pride, not political pragmatism or "to help the American people". Hopefully a partisan deadlock is created, thus forcing them to compromise. So yeah, I'm happy for now.

I agree that we need to get away from employer based healthcare and the democrats don't seem to be changing that. But I do support a non subsidized, not for profit public option that competes fairly with private health insurance companies and negotiates fairly with hospitals and doctors. Those who can't afford healthcare should get subsidies and they should be able to choose the public option or private health care depending on who can provide the lowest price.

"I agree that we need to get away from employer based healthcare and the democrats don't seem to be changing that. But I do support a non subsidized, not for profit public option that competes fairly with private health insurance companies and negotiates fairly with hospitals and doctors. Those who can't afford healthcare should get subsidies and they should be able to choose the public option or private health care depending on who can provide the lowest price."

And there is the rub, sbane. The bold assumes away what is in play.

How exactly is that? And I admit I don't know the ins and outs of the plan. To me it's more important that hospitals, doctors and even pharmaceuticals get paid fairly (after negotiations of course). As for Health insurance companies...meh. I certainly would not support a plan where the public option was being subsidized. That to me strikes as unfair. But if it's able to provide the same service at a lower cost without additional help from the government, I don't see what's so wrong with that.

[anvi]

I knew I supported Hillary Clinton for a good reason.

Yeah she would probably have the balls to get this through congress.

You all seem to have short memories.  Hillary Clinton bungled and failed to even get congressional votes of any kind on a much milder health care reform package than the one in front of Congress now.  She would have never thought ahead to negotiate with providers before legislation was drafted like the Obama people did.  She would have shoved another fully crafted bill at Congress, and they, under pressure from both providers and insurance companies, would have done the same thing they did in '94, throw the bill back in her face without a vote and say "you lose, Madam President."

[anvi]

Am I denying the system needs repair? No.

But the answer is not forcing Taxpayers to pay for everybody's health. Just please explain why I should pay for my Neighbor's visit because she has the sniffles? I also loathe the idea of forcing businesses to pay for all of their employee's insurance, especially during a time of recession. Not to mention, a Emergency Room can't deny care anyway, so America already has a "de facto" Universal Health System.

Emergency rooms can and do deny care all the time.  Emergency rooms are under EMTALA only legally obligated to deliver care to patients who cannot pay if those patients are 1. in severe risk of immediate death or 2. in labor.  In every other case, unless patients prove they can pay for emergency services, emrgency rooms may legally deny care, and they do.  There is no "de facto" universal health care in the U.S; not even close.  And, if those emergency rooms do deliver care to patients who cannot afford it, the taxpayers and premium payers end up footing that whole bill, instead of a bill that would be paid by an insurance company under the actual universal coverage that you loathe.

Why should you support some form of universal coverage?  Well, if you're moved by econmic reasons, because the longer the present fragmented system that doeasn't provide universal coverage stays in place, the more health care costs will rise for buisnesses, the more GNP will get eaten up every year on health care expenditures, and the quicker businesses will go broke.  "If I have to choose between financing health care with something called a premium and something called a tax, my only question will be: which one is cheaper?"  But, you don't have to pay taxes to finance health care costs for your neighbor's sniffles if you don't want to.  We don't have to use the "single payer" Beverage model like they use in Great Briton (or in the American VA).  We can have private, non-profit insurance companies do it on the Bismarck model, like they do in Germany, Japan and many other countries.

If you are moved by moral reasons, then because allowing for-profit insurance companies to finance health care costs is immoral.  A private health care company treats the payment of a medical bill as a cost.  Private companies, in order to satisfy Wall Street and stock-holders, have to cut costs and increase profits.  That means that, if you are a for-profit health insurance company, cutting costs means denying coverage.  And denying coverage means that people's children, parents, siblings, relatives and friends will either go broke paying for or suffer and maybe die from treatable diseases.   That's immoral; it's disgracefully immoral. 

If you're not moved by economic or moral reasons, then there is no point even asking about it.

[Sbane]

Not to mention, a Emergency Room can't deny care anyway, so America already has a "de facto" Universal Health System.

ER treatment is extremely expensive. It's much more cost effective to treat people for "sniffles" and test them regularly and give them generic pills to prevent diseases, heart attacks and so forth. And if you think you aren't paying for their care you must be dreaming. In the end all of us are paying for their care through increased hospital costs, ambulance costs etc.

[opebo]

But I do support a non subsidized, not for profit public option that competes fairly with private health insurance companies and negotiates fairly with hospitals and doctors.

What's the point of it then?  Why create it except to eventually get rid of the 'private' 'insurers'?

[Ebowed]

Just please explain why I should pay for my Neighbor's visit because she has the sniffles?

Do you favor abolishing Medicare?

[Stampever]

Glad to see common sense still shines in some parts of Congress.

Why must America remain so far behind other Western nations?

You mean, why are we so far ahead? 

The one thing the U.S. relative to other developed nation, is ahead in is the cost of healthcare that has 1) suppressed wages and 2) prohibited job growth. I'm not surprised median incomes have fallen under Bush and I'm not surprised he has the worst job creation record, for any full-term president, since Herbert Hoover. So much for "trickle-down"

The Democratic Party owns economic growth, job creation, prosperity AND reducing the federal debt as a % of GDP. The last Republican to accomplish the latter was Nixon - in his first term. The President signs the bills

As a 'Democrat' you should be proud of your party's record

Healthcare, right now, is economically and fiscally unsustainable. It's a moral issue, as much as anything else

Never said otherwise.  What I did say, and have been saying, is that the public option is a failed path that will only result in a government take over of the system under the proposed legislation since companies would opt to pay the penalty rather than pay for health care plans since it would be cheaper for the company's bottom line.  That, in turn, would create a systematic and financial boondoggle for an government that can't fund it's already near-bankrupt welfare programs.  If Congress can't get Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid's financial houses in order first, they shouldn't be taking on a public-option, especially when there are sensible methods to achieve a greater field of insurance coverage while lowering costs and not adding to the federal deficit.

[President Mitt]

Just please explain why I should pay for my Neighbor's visit because she has the sniffles?

Do you favor abolishing Medicare?

Yes.