Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Healthcare: Your mom is a public option (abortions void where prohibited)

werehippywerehippy Registered User regular
edited November 2009 in Debate and/or Discourse
There've been some developments on the healthcare front and there are going to be a lot more coming fast and furious in the near future, so it seemed time to kick of the next iteration of the perpetual healthcare thread.

For those of you just joining us: The House has three committees who have jurisdiction over healthcare, all three of which worked together and passed nearly identical bills months ago. The Senate has two committees involved; HELP, a more liberal committee that passed a bill before the summer recess, and Finance, a more conservative committee that just finally passed a bill recently.

Since the last thread closed: The Senate has been working to combine the bills in closed door meetings between Reid, Sen Harkin (from HELP, representing the 30 odd progressive Democrats), Baucus (from Finance, representing the 10-15 conservative Dems), and a few members of the White House Team in a hands off roll. Things are moving extremely well there, with Snowe (the one Republican vote that has been courted) being shunted off a bit, the public option becoming a matter of what kind not will it exist at all, and brand new and fantastic, insruance companies being stripped of their antitrust exemption.

On the House side Pelosi has been coming out absolutely full bore in favor of a robust public option. She's up to 210 of the 218 votes she needs for a robust public option, and she submitted a request to the CBO to get the various options fully scored out, hoping for a big saving from the public option to push the last few votes she needs off the fence.

From here we need to wait and see how Pelosi's play works out and just what exactly the Senate brings to the floor out of this first round of closed door negotiations. That should likely play out within the next two weeks, at which point the House will vote relatively and the Senate will drag a fair bit as the republicans have explicitly planned to do everything possible to drag out the proceedings. There are almost certainly enough votes to break a filibuster and pass a bill, so after another couple weeks of foot dragging both chambers will have bills, at which point everything goes into a closed door reconciliation with representatives of the House, Senate, and White House. Ideally we'll see final deal and a bill up for a vote before mid-December.

werehippy on
«13456752

Posts

  • big lbig l Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Okay, I lost the link and am a lazy Googler, but apparently Ben Nelson is onboard with the states-opt-out PO, so it sounds like that will be the minimum we get out of this.

    big l on
  • Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Alexandria, VARegistered User regular
    edited October 2009
    I can live with an opt-out, as long as it's difficult to do so.

    Captain Carrot on
  • AegisAegis Not Quite TorontoRegistered User regular
    edited October 2009
    I can live with an opt-out, as long as it's difficult to do so.

    Well, it's basically built into the idea. Collective action and all when you're the only one (or one of few) opting out while the rest of the country goes for it and gets better care.

    Is the stripping anti-trust thing really sticking? I'd have thought the insurance companies would be fighting tooth and nail to get it removed.

    Aegis on
    We'll see how long this blog lasts
    Currently DMing: None :(
    Characters
    [5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
  • DarkWarriorDarkWarrior __BANNED USERS
    edited October 2009
    Can someone explain to me why this isn't passing easily? I thought the Democrats owned both houses now and with a majority enough to stop Republicans fucking it up. Are democrats voting against it to or is there some other process going on?

    DarkWarrior on
    ...it's in the shape of a giant c**k.
  • AegisAegis Not Quite TorontoRegistered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Can someone explain to me why this isn't passing easily? I thought the Democrats owned both houses now and with a majority enough to stop Republicans fucking it up. Are democrats voting against it to or is there some other process going on?

    There's a bunch of committees each versions of the bills have to go through, then reconciled, then reconciled between Senate and House so...process time.

    Aegis on
    We'll see how long this blog lasts
    Currently DMing: None :(
    Characters
    [5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
  • Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Alexandria, VARegistered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Conservative Democrats are being either enormous pussies in countering Republican efforts/flat out lies, or really stubborn against the rest of the party. I hate Ben Nelson, Max Baucus, and Evan Bayh so goddamn much.

    Captain Carrot on
  • werehippywerehippy Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    big l wrote: »
    Okay, I lost the link and am a lazy Googler, but apparently Ben Nelson is onboard with the states-opt-out PO, so it sounds like that will be the minimum we get out of this.

    Haha, me too actually. That was one of the links I read today that made me want to start up the thread, and once I was home I couldn't find it to save my life. I'm pretty sure it wasn't in TMPDC, just because I checked pretty thoroughly. Do you read Ezra Klein or Tapped? There's got to be an overlap somewhere.

    werehippy on
  • DocDoc Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited October 2009
    Can someone explain to me why this isn't passing easily? I thought the Democrats owned both houses now and with a majority enough to stop Republicans fucking it up. Are democrats voting against it to or is there some other process going on?

    A few conservative Democrats realized how many political IOUs they could get by pretending to be on the fence.

    Doc on
  • werehippywerehippy Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Aegis wrote: »
    Is the stripping anti-trust thing really sticking? I'd have thought the insurance companies would be fighting tooth and nail to get it removed.

    The problem is the insurance industry tried unloading their big guns, and promptly got curb stomped. So they're really going to eat the short end of the stick on this one, both because they've got nothing left to negotiate with and because the democrats really wanted to kick their ass anyway to bring a scalp back to the voters.

    No idea if it'll really go the distance, but the fact it's a legitimate possibility at this point is noteworthy enough. When they're fighting for your lives they aren't going to be doing much undermining elsewhere in the bill.

    werehippy on
  • AegisAegis Not Quite TorontoRegistered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Oh I recall them being completely demolished, but I'd have thought such an industry would have recovered and still trying to exert pressure to mitigate the damage from the anti-trust removal rather than letting it (seemingly) continue in full swing.

    Aegis on
    We'll see how long this blog lasts
    Currently DMing: None :(
    Characters
    [5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
  • SavantSavant Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Can someone explain to me why this isn't passing easily? I thought the Democrats owned both houses now and with a majority enough to stop Republicans fucking it up. Are democrats voting against it to or is there some other process going on?

    The Democrats have no where near the discipline and uniformity of the Republicans, which has its benefits and, as we are seeing now, its costs. Also, there are two members of the Democratic caucus who are independents: Sanders and Lieberman. Sanders is a socialist though (a real one), so we don't have to worry about him nearly as much Lieberman in joining a filibuster from the right.

    So there are a few members in the Democratic caucus that threaten to derail things if they join the Republicans in filibustering, but there's probably a safe buffer if they just vote against the bill after voting for cloture. However Harry Reid is an invertebrate, so it is an open question whether he will be able to keep the conservadems in line without completely selling out on the bill. Some people are growing very cynical about it.

    Savant on
  • HenroidHenroid Radio Demon Internet HellRegistered User regular
    edited October 2009
    By "robust public option," does that mean full on balls to the wall public option where anyone can get into it if they want, and not the conditional thing Obama proposed at the big address he gave like a month and a half ago?

    Henroid on
    Centrism is just the cowardly way to be a bigot w/o being explicit about it.
    American politics isn't 4D chess, it's just if you give a shit about other people or not.
  • DarkWarriorDarkWarrior __BANNED USERS
    edited October 2009
    Savant wrote: »
    Can someone explain to me why this isn't passing easily? I thought the Democrats owned both houses now and with a majority enough to stop Republicans fucking it up. Are democrats voting against it to or is there some other process going on?

    The Democrats have no where near the discipline and uniformity of the Republicans, which has its benefits and, as we are seeing now, its costs. Also, there are two members of the Democratic caucus who are independents: Sanders and Lieberman. Sanders is a socialist though (a real one), so we don't have to worry about him nearly as much Lieberman in joining a filibuster from the right.

    So there are a few members in the Democratic caucus that threaten to derail things if they join the Republicans in filibustering, but there's probably a safe buffer if they just vote against the bill after voting for cloture. However Harry Reid is an invertebrate, so it is an open question whether he will be able to keep the conservadems in line without completely selling out on the bill. Some people are growing very cynical about it.

    Sounds...fun.

    DarkWarrior on
    ...it's in the shape of a giant c**k.
  • AegisAegis Not Quite TorontoRegistered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Henroid wrote: »
    By "robust public option," does that mean full on balls to the wall public option where anyone can get into it if they want, and not the conditional thing Obama proposed at the big address he gave like a month and a half ago?
    The Congressional Progressive Caucus has been tallying support for a public insurance option tied to Medicare reimbursement rates over the last several weeks. According to people in the room Tuesday night, Pelosi told her members that the caucus is close to the 218 votes needed to pass the bill.

    Best I could find describing it. If it's submitted to the CBO I'd imagine we'd get more details of it.

    Aegis on
    We'll see how long this blog lasts
    Currently DMing: None :(
    Characters
    [5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
  • SavantSavant Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Henroid wrote: »
    By "robust public option," does that mean full on balls to the wall public option where anyone can get into it if they want, and not the conditional thing Obama proposed at the big address he gave like a month and a half ago?

    Whenever they talk about "robust public option" they are talking in code about how claims pricing is handled. Unless they are Senator Wyden, that is.

    Basically, they want to set payment rates to piggyback on the Medicare pricing for a "robust public option", and pay out the same amount plus a small percent higher (5% in the house bill, 10% in the HELP committee bill I believe). This means that the claims will be lower, theoretically pushing down premiums. The potential problem is doctors bristling against being paid less and refusing to accept the patients covered under the public option. Also, insurance companies could be run out of business due to the price competition, though there probably aren't too many people here who will feel too bad about that.

    Savant on
  • HenroidHenroid Radio Demon Internet HellRegistered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Bah, that's really confusing. This is the first I've seen talk of a "robust" public option and it makes me think, "Wait, so it's even BETTER?" If Pelosi can pull it off, I might end up liking her.

    Henroid on
    Centrism is just the cowardly way to be a bigot w/o being explicit about it.
    American politics isn't 4D chess, it's just if you give a shit about other people or not.
  • werehippywerehippy Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Aegis wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    By "robust public option," does that mean full on balls to the wall public option where anyone can get into it if they want, and not the conditional thing Obama proposed at the big address he gave like a month and a half ago?
    The Congressional Progressive Caucus has been tallying support for a public insurance option tied to Medicare reimbursement rates over the last several weeks. According to people in the room Tuesday night, Pelosi told her members that the caucus is close to the 218 votes needed to pass the bill.

    Best I could find describing it. If it's submitted to the CBO I'd imagine we'd get more details of it.

    That's the one. And it's buried in the links, but Pelosi was within 8 votes of passing it. With a good CBO score and with the wind at the Dems back, it could happen. And if not, the fallback is still something we were reaching to get to a month ago.

    werehippy on
  • MrMisterMrMister A pup must first get in the water to be successful as a seal!Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    I <3 Pelosi

    MrMister on
  • HenroidHenroid Radio Demon Internet HellRegistered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Savant wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    By "robust public option," does that mean full on balls to the wall public option where anyone can get into it if they want, and not the conditional thing Obama proposed at the big address he gave like a month and a half ago?

    Whenever they talk about "robust public option" they are talking in code about how claims pricing is handled. Unless they are Senator Wyden, that is.

    Basically, they want to set payment rates to piggyback on the Medicare pricing for a "robust public option", and pay out the same amount plus a small percent higher (5% in the house bill, 10% in the HELP committee bill I believe). This means that the claims will be lower, theoretically pushing down premiums. The potential problem is doctors bristling against being paid less and refusing to accept the patients covered under the public option. Also, insurance companies could be run out of business due to the price competition, though there probably aren't too many people here who will feel too bad about that.

    Oh I see. Dropping the claims costs is an idea I've had in mind but I've always figured it wouldn't fly because of the doctors wanting to make money. Like it's one thing to drop administrative costs on asshole companies, but when you get to the people doing the hands on work it gets a little harder (in my opinion, at least).

    If it could be done, I will be amazed.

    Henroid on
    Centrism is just the cowardly way to be a bigot w/o being explicit about it.
    American politics isn't 4D chess, it's just if you give a shit about other people or not.
  • KanamitKanamit Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    I can live with an opt-out, as long as it's difficult to do so.
    Agreed. Only the legislatures should have the power to opt-out, otherwise you'd end up with wannabe Presidential candidate Governors opting-out to build right-wing cred and the health insurance industry spending millions on referendums to opt out.

    Kanamit on
  • AegisAegis Not Quite TorontoRegistered User regular
    edited October 2009
    It mentioned Howard Dean was going around as a whip for the Democrats. He any better than Pelosi or Reid...well, scratch the second one, a jellyfish would be better as a whip.

    Aegis on
    We'll see how long this blog lasts
    Currently DMing: None :(
    Characters
    [5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
  • HachfaceHachface Not the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking of Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    If a lot of states (say, Red America) opted out, how much of an impact would that have on the public program's power to negotiate prices?

    If the hit on bargaining power isn't that bad, keeping the public option out of the loser states might actually help it stay solvent.

    Hachface on
  • AegisAegis Not Quite TorontoRegistered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Hachface wrote: »
    If a lot of states (say, Red America) opted out, how much of an impact would that have on the public program's power to negotiate prices?

    Guess it would depend on the population differences between the opted-in and opted-out. Don't the Blue states (California in particular) account for quite a bit of the population of the US?

    Aegis on
    We'll see how long this blog lasts
    Currently DMing: None :(
    Characters
    [5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
  • HachfaceHachface Not the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking of Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Aegis wrote: »
    It mentioned Howard Dean was going around as a whip for the Democrats. He any better than Pelosi or Reid...well, scratch the second one, a jellyfish would be better as a whip.

    To the best of my knowledge, Dean is considered pretty fearsome.

    Hachface on
  • SavantSavant Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Aegis wrote: »
    Hachface wrote: »
    If a lot of states (say, Red America) opted out, how much of an impact would that have on the public program's power to negotiate prices?

    Guess it would depend on the population differences between the opted-in and opted-out. Don't the Blue states (California in particular) account for quite a bit of the population of the US?

    Yeah, the states that wouldn't opt out of it would represent a pretty hefty majority of the population. There are only a handful of the really populous states, like say Texas and Florida, that I would consider it even remotely likely of opting out.

    I don't think the states opting out would be enough to seriously effect the negotiating clout of the public option. Those states might run into some trouble due to uncompetitive markets though.

    Savant on
  • werehippywerehippy Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Hachface wrote: »
    Aegis wrote: »
    It mentioned Howard Dean was going around as a whip for the Democrats. He any better than Pelosi or Reid...well, scratch the second one, a jellyfish would be better as a whip.

    To the best of my knowledge, Dean is considered pretty fearsome.

    He really wasn't ready to be a presidential candidate, but since then he's kicked ass. I'm so looking forward to watching him kick Rove's ass up and down a stage next week.

    werehippy on
  • DarkWarriorDarkWarrior __BANNED USERS
    edited October 2009
    Savant wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    By "robust public option," does that mean full on balls to the wall public option where anyone can get into it if they want, and not the conditional thing Obama proposed at the big address he gave like a month and a half ago?

    Whenever they talk about "robust public option" they are talking in code about how claims pricing is handled. Unless they are Senator Wyden, that is.

    Basically, they want to set payment rates to piggyback on the Medicare pricing for a "robust public option", and pay out the same amount plus a small percent higher (5% in the house bill, 10% in the HELP committee bill I believe). This means that the claims will be lower, theoretically pushing down premiums. The potential problem is doctors bristling against being paid less and refusing to accept the patients covered under the public option. Also, insurance companies could be run out of business due to the price competition, though there probably aren't too many people here who will feel too bad about that.

    See here we have the public option and theres a private option for those that want fancier, faster treatment which they pay for themselves. Theres no reason the companies will go out of business, just that they won't be able to gouge and grow fat on the lives of ordinary people anymore.

    DarkWarrior on
    ...it's in the shape of a giant c**k.
  • SavantSavant Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Also, there has been word going around that the House might to try to sell the public option as Medicare Part E.

    Maybe, you know, they should have thought about doing that...months ago?

    Savant on
  • HenroidHenroid Radio Demon Internet HellRegistered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Savant wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    By "robust public option," does that mean full on balls to the wall public option where anyone can get into it if they want, and not the conditional thing Obama proposed at the big address he gave like a month and a half ago?

    Whenever they talk about "robust public option" they are talking in code about how claims pricing is handled. Unless they are Senator Wyden, that is.

    Basically, they want to set payment rates to piggyback on the Medicare pricing for a "robust public option", and pay out the same amount plus a small percent higher (5% in the house bill, 10% in the HELP committee bill I believe). This means that the claims will be lower, theoretically pushing down premiums. The potential problem is doctors bristling against being paid less and refusing to accept the patients covered under the public option. Also, insurance companies could be run out of business due to the price competition, though there probably aren't too many people here who will feel too bad about that.

    See here we have the public option and theres a private option for those that want fancier, faster treatment which they pay for themselves. Theres no reason the companies will go out of business, just that they won't be able to gouge and grow fat on the lives of ordinary people anymore.

    They can lower their costs too, and still get fucking rich. Just not as quickly or as much as they'd like. They don't have to go out of business at all though.

    Henroid on
    Centrism is just the cowardly way to be a bigot w/o being explicit about it.
    American politics isn't 4D chess, it's just if you give a shit about other people or not.
  • werehippywerehippy Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Savant wrote: »
    Also, there has been word going around that the House might to try to sell the public option as Medicare Part E.

    Maybe, you know, they should have thought about doing that...months ago?

    Seriously, this. I can't even remember what blog it was (Klein or Yglesias, I think), but some random internet guy brought it up when the public option was supposedly on it's last legs and started bitching about how it should have been Medicare Part E for Everyone and I had a face palm moment, it was that perfect.

    werehippy on
  • MazzyxMazzyx Comedy Gold Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    If the House was smart they would of started with single payer, moved to medicare for all and then finally ended on a public option instead of going with the last resort first. I swear they started from the central position instead of the most extreme option first.

    Mazzyx on
    03x29di.png
  • HenroidHenroid Radio Demon Internet HellRegistered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Mazzyx wrote: »
    If the House was smart they would of started with single payer, moved to medicare for all and then finally ended on a public option instead of going with the last resort first. I swear they started from the central position instead of the most extreme option first.

    The problem with baby steps is that if a babystep passes, a lot of people in the government will set the entire thing on the back burner.

    Edit - Unless you mean proposal. In which case I don't know.

    Henroid on
    Centrism is just the cowardly way to be a bigot w/o being explicit about it.
    American politics isn't 4D chess, it's just if you give a shit about other people or not.
  • SavantSavant Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Mazzyx wrote: »
    If the House was smart they would of started with single payer, moved to medicare for all and then finally ended on a public option instead of going with the last resort first. I swear they started from the central position instead of the most extreme option first.

    The House hasn't really been the main threat to derailing this thing though, even though there were some periods where some of the Blue Dogs have been puffing up their chests trying to water things down. It's the Senate that has been the truly dysfunctional part of the equation, especially with all of the BS in the Finance Committee.

    The Senate in its current form is pretty awful on an institutional level.

    Savant on
  • BarcardiBarcardi All the Wizards Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    werehippy wrote: »
    There've been some developments on the healthcare front and there are going to be a lot more coming fast and furious in the near future, so it seemed time to kick of the next iteration of the perpetual healthcare thread.

    For those of you just joining us: The House has three committees who have jurisdiction over healthcare, all three of which worked together and passed nearly identical bills months ago. The Senate has two committees involved; HELP, a more liberal committee that passed a bill before the summer recess, and Finance, a more conservative committee that just finally passed a bill recently.

    Since the last thread closed: The Senate has been working to combine the bills in closed door meetings between Reid, Sen Harkin (from HELP, representing the 30 odd progressive Democrats), Baucus (from Finance, representing the 10-15 conservative Dems), and a few members of the White House Team in a hands off roll. Things are moving extremely well there, with Snowe (the one Republican vote that has been courted) being shunted off a bit, the public option becoming a matter of what kind not will it exist at all, and brand new and fantastic, insruance companies being stripped of their antitrust exemption.

    On the House side Pelosi has been coming out absolutely full bore in favor of a robust public option. She's up to 210 of the 218 votes she needs for a robust public option, and she submitted a request to the CBO to get the various options fully scored out, hoping for a big saving from the public option to push the last few votes she needs off the fence.

    From here we need to wait and see how Pelosi's play works out and just what exactly the Senate brings to the floor out of this first round of closed door negotiations. That should likely play out within the next two weeks, at which point the House will vote relatively and the Senate will drag a fair bit as the republicans have explicitly planned to do everything possible to drag out the proceedings. There are almost certainly enough votes to break a filibuster and pass a bill, so after another couple weeks of foot dragging both chambers will have bills, at which point everything goes into a closed door reconciliation with representatives of the House, Senate, and White House. Ideally we'll see final deal and a bill up for a vote before mid-December.

    i love the idea of the insurance companies losing their antitrust exemption, npr had a particularly nice explanation of it as i didnt really understand it until today. Bonus because you could hear the snark in the reporter basically shouting "hell yes." (donate to npr :P)

    Barcardi on
  • MazzyxMazzyx Comedy Gold Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Savant wrote: »
    Mazzyx wrote: »
    If the House was smart they would of started with single payer, moved to medicare for all and then finally ended on a public option instead of going with the last resort first. I swear they started from the central position instead of the most extreme option first.

    The House hasn't really been the main threat to derailing this thing though, even though there were some periods where some of the Blue Dogs have been puffing up their chests trying to water things down. It's the Senate that has been the truly dysfunctional part of the equation, especially with all of the BS in the Finance Committee.

    The Senate in its current form is pretty awful on an institutional level.

    It is more my annoyance that single payer was thrown out before this even started. I put this on the house, senate and a bit on Obama. The Senate though is more with a few conservative Democrats who just seem to be doing because they are bought (Bacaus) or because they have no spine (Reid). To tell the truth Pelosi and the house have actually made me rather happy recently. If they do go with a Medicare E idea I will be very happy with them.

    Mazzyx on
    03x29di.png
  • Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Alexandria, VARegistered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Aegis wrote: »
    It mentioned Howard Dean was going around as a whip for the Democrats. He any better than Pelosi or Reid...well, scratch the second one, a jellyfish would be better as a whip.

    A jellyfish would be a pretty good whip, if you used the stingers.

    Captain Carrot on
  • HenroidHenroid Radio Demon Internet HellRegistered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Aegis wrote: »
    It mentioned Howard Dean was going around as a whip for the Democrats. He any better than Pelosi or Reid...well, scratch the second one, a jellyfish would be better as a whip.

    A jellyfish would be a pretty good whip, if you used the stingers.

    Portuguese Man O' War ring any bells? :P
    Barcardi wrote: »
    i love the idea of the insurance companies losing their antitrust exemption, npr had a particularly nice explanation of it as i didnt really understand it until today. Bonus because you could hear the snark in the reporter basically shouting "hell yes." (donate to npr :P)

    I love the removal of the anti-trust exemption too, but I don't quite understand how it fits into the reform exactly. Not in terms of costs and lowering them and such. I mostly love it because it's a kick to the nuts to the assholes who abuse the system as it stands, and if anyone knows me I'm all for dicking over the abusive rich.

    Henroid on
    Centrism is just the cowardly way to be a bigot w/o being explicit about it.
    American politics isn't 4D chess, it's just if you give a shit about other people or not.
  • MazzyxMazzyx Comedy Gold Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Henroid wrote: »
    Barcardi wrote: »
    i love the idea of the insurance companies losing their antitrust exemption, npr had a particularly nice explanation of it as i didnt really understand it until today. Bonus because you could hear the snark in the reporter basically shouting "hell yes." (donate to npr :P)

    I love the removal of the anti-trust exemption too, but I don't quite understand how it fits into the reform exactly. Not in terms of costs and lowering them and such. I mostly love it because it's a kick to the nuts to the assholes who abuse the system as it stands, and if anyone knows me I'm all for dicking over the abusive rich.

    Removing the exemption allows us to break up the monopolies producing more insurance companies thus more competition and lower pricing. At least that is the idea, also it is a kick in the balls to assholes who run these things.

    Mazzyx on
    03x29di.png
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Hachface wrote: »
    Aegis wrote: »
    It mentioned Howard Dean was going around as a whip for the Democrats. He any better than Pelosi or Reid...well, scratch the second one, a jellyfish would be better as a whip.

    To the best of my knowledge, Dean is considered pretty fearsome.

    Dean also (mostly) has the simple position of Medicare for everyone wooooo.

    enlightenedbum on
    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
  • KanamitKanamit Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    I can't decide if Howard Dean is the unluckiest politician in the US or the luckiest. On the one hand, everything worked against him in Iowa. He would have been the nominee if it weren't for a few factors that weren't his fault at all. On the other hand, if he had been the nominee he'd probably have lost (not necessarily by any more than Kerry) and would have to endure the Lieberman faction making him into the new McGovern.

    He's awesome either way, of course.

    Kanamit on
«13456752
This discussion has been closed.