Well, to be fair, I think that you can morally fault business people for pursuing profit in reprehensible ways, but that gets into complicated ethical and policy issues regarding corporate governance. It's also separate from the point that as long as the system is set up as-is, we can reasonably expect people to pursue profit in said reprehensible ways, which is a pretty good argument for not having the system set up as-is.
Exactly. As the system currently stands, you are under no obligation (unless you're in Massachusetts) to even have insurance, and can pay OOP for whatever you need. Insurance is not bought at gunpoint, nor is it a right, ergo fair practices laws keep insurers from being forced into bad investments. The government can't legally force a company into going out of business, and that's what providing coverage to many people would be tantamount to.
Here's an extrapolation of this argument, though:
Under any public plan, care (at some point) wil be rationed, and likely at the point of severe abuse/overuse. Meaning, at some point, the government will be turning away care for these same people should they continue an at-risk lifestyle, even though those people will likely still be paying healthcare taxes.
I know, I know. But I did have to nip that "hey, lookit! he's a'justifyin' rapery!" bullshit in the bud. All props to you and your firstiness.
Well, you never know. I'm not saying you are, and I'm not saying you're not, but I heard that you might support Glenn Beck. Until you come out and lay these claims to rest, we can't know for sure. And if you didn't support Glenn Beck's actions in 1990, why wouldn't you just say so?
Uh...I'm going to skip what you guys are talking about and just do a summary of stuff that's happened since the last thread was locked.
Both the House and Senate are moving to strip the health insurance industry of anti-trust exemption.
The whip count on support for Medicare+5 is reportedly at 210 in the House. It needs 218 to pass the legislation.
There's some movement among House and Senate Democrats to rebrand the public option as Medicare Part E(veryone).
Public support for the public option is at 57%, and even Michael Steele had to admit that people support it.
Olbermann's call to action to support free clinics in Conservadem states has raised enough money for 3 clinic events.
The "doctor fix" for scheduled doctor's fee reductions, normally a routine passage, was blocked by a mix of Republicans and Democrats who are insisting that the fix be paid for.
CBO scored the House's Medicaid+5 at $879 billion over ten years; Medicaid+5 would actually reduce deficit. Conservadems now have to move the goalposts to explain their opposition.
I'm almost certain I'm missing something, but I think this covers most of it.
There's some movement among House and Senate Democrats to rebrand the public option as Medicare Part E(veryone).
I have to question the wisdom of that move. On the one hand, a lot of people are scared of the "public option" due to plain ignorance. Medicare is (mostly) understood and popular ("keep your government hands..."). So that makes sense.
On the other other hand, consider two main sources of opposition to the public option. First, we have the fiscal hawk/free market types, who worry that it will eventually be a government subsidized entitlement. Medicare (Parts A-D) are government subsidized entitlements. That's a bad association.
Second, you have seniors worrying that HCR in general, or the public option specifically, will cut Medicare. I could see a thought process developing that "Part E" means now everyone will get their precious Medicare, leaving less for the seniors.
On the other other hand, consider two main sources of opposition to the public option. First, we have the fiscal hawk/free market types, who worry that it will eventually be a government subsidized entitlement. Medicare (Parts A-D) are government subsidized entitlements. That's a bad association.
Yeah, but all of the Republicans in that group, which is most of them, will vote against it anyway.
There's some movement among House and Senate Democrats to rebrand the public option as Medicare Part E(veryone).
I have to question the wisdom of that move. On the one hand, a lot of people are scared of the "public option" due to plain ignorance. Medicare is (mostly) understood and popular ("keep your government hands..."). So that makes sense.
On the other other hand, consider two main sources of opposition to the public option. First, we have the fiscal hawk/free market types, who worry that it will eventually be a government subsidized entitlement. Medicare (Parts A-D) are government subsidized entitlements. That's a bad association.
Second, you have seniors worrying that HCR in general, or the public option specifically, will cut Medicare. I could see a thought process developing that "Part E" means now everyone will get their precious Medicare, leaving less for the seniors.
It should be noted that a couple of Blue Dogs who have come out against the public option indicated that they would support the idea of Medicare Part E. And since Part E would involve expanding Medicare, meaning that more people would actually be paying into the system with premiums, the idea that there will be less for existing Medicare beneficiaries doesn't really hold water. Honestly, I don't care what they call it as long as it gets done.
"Would [inclusion of a public option] be enough for you to vote against the cloture motion?" a reporter asked Snowe on her way off the Senate floor Thursday afternoon.
"On the public option? I'd say I'm against a public option, so yes," Snowe said.
"But would it be enough for you to say, 'I'm not going to proceed to this bill?' " the reporter pressed. Snowe nodded on her way into the elevator.
Snowe said she also opposes the opt-out version of the public plan, which would allow individual states to remove their residents from the federal exchange. "I don't support that," she said.
If there's any justice, she's just removed herself from the negotiations. But I doubt we're that lucky.
sterling3763 on
0
Options
AegisFear My DanceOvershot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered Userregular
edited October 2009
Seems like Snowe might be a bit bitter after being shut out of the reconciliation negotiations.
What's more ominous to me is the last bit where she says she's in talks with Ben Nelson (and possibly other conservadems) to block cloture. So we know for sure that Nelson, Landrieu, Lincoln, and possibly Bayh may be the sellouts that block cloture. I certainly hope that the caucus is thinking of good ways to punish them. Lincoln's the easiest, you'd just have to have the DSCC decline to help her with re-election and make sure that no Democrats helped her campaign.
What's more ominous to me is the last bit where she says she's in talks with Ben Nelson (and possibly other conservadems) to block cloture. So we know for sure that Nelson, Landrieu, Lincoln, and possibly Bayh may be the sellouts that block cloture. I certainly hope that the caucus is thinking of good ways to punish them. Lincoln's the easiest, you'd just have to have the DSCC decline to help her with re-election and make sure that no Democrats helped her campaign.
It's possible that Lincoln may face two primary challenges as well; one from the left and one from the right.
While we're talking about it, Lieberman needs to get punished too. It's looking more and more likely that he's going to be a spoiler in the healthcare debate as well.
Democratic sources tell me that Reid – after a series of meetings with Democratic moderates – has concluded he can pass a bill with a public option.
This is not because there has been a new groundswell of support for the idea. In fact, there are still a handful of Democrats who -- along with Olympia Snowe and every other Republican – oppose the idea. As recently as this morning, Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA), for one, dismissed recent polls that show public support for the idea, telling NPR, "I think if you asked, do you want a public option but it would force the government to go bankrupt, people would say no.”
That would appear to be a problem because Reid needs 60 votes to pass a health care bill and there are simply not 60 Senators who support a public option. But Reid is now convinced that Democratic critics of the public option will support him when it counts – on the procedural motion, which requires 60 votes, to defeat a certain GOP-led filibuster of the bill. Once the filibuster is beaten, it only takes 51 votes to pass the bill.
Democratic sources tell me that Reid – after a series of meetings with Democratic moderates – has concluded he can pass a bill with a public option.
This is not because there has been a new groundswell of support for the idea. In fact, there are still a handful of Democrats who -- along with Olympia Snowe and every other Republican – oppose the idea. As recently as this morning, Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA), for one, dismissed recent polls that show public support for the idea, telling NPR, "I think if you asked, do you want a public option but it would force the government to go bankrupt, people would say no.”
That would appear to be a problem because Reid needs 60 votes to pass a health care bill and there are simply not 60 Senators who support a public option. But Reid is now convinced that Democratic critics of the public option will support him when it counts – on the procedural motion, which requires 60 votes, to defeat a certain GOP-led filibuster of the bill. Once the filibuster is beaten, it only takes 51 votes to pass the bill.
Is this actual leadership from Harry Reid?
I'm guessing the odds are still good that Reid is caving. Just caving to the pressure from the left rather than the right. Which hopefully will work out just as well in the end.
What's more ominous to me is the last bit where she says she's in talks with Ben Nelson (and possibly other conservadems) to block cloture. So we know for sure that Nelson, Landrieu, Lincoln, and possibly Bayh may be the sellouts that block cloture. I certainly hope that the caucus is thinking of good ways to punish them. Lincoln's the easiest, you'd just have to have the DSCC decline to help her with re-election and make sure that no Democrats helped her campaign.
It's possible that Lincoln may face two primary challenges as well; one from the left and one from the right.
You can be to the right of Blanche Lincoln and still call yourself a Democrat?
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Democratic sources tell me that Reid – after a series of meetings with Democratic moderates – has concluded he can pass a bill with a public option.
This is not because there has been a new groundswell of support for the idea. In fact, there are still a handful of Democrats who -- along with Olympia Snowe and every other Republican – oppose the idea. As recently as this morning, Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA), for one, dismissed recent polls that show public support for the idea, telling NPR, "I think if you asked, do you want a public option but it would force the government to go bankrupt, people would say no.”
That would appear to be a problem because Reid needs 60 votes to pass a health care bill and there are simply not 60 Senators who support a public option. But Reid is now convinced that Democratic critics of the public option will support him when it counts – on the procedural motion, which requires 60 votes, to defeat a certain GOP-led filibuster of the bill. Once the filibuster is beaten, it only takes 51 votes to pass the bill.
Is this actual leadership from Harry Reid?
no
it's not the first time he's said something like this
but a lot of democrats' constituencies are getting really pissed off over all this so he's doing his best to keep them placated while the senate continues to neuter the bill
What's more ominous to me is the last bit where she says she's in talks with Ben Nelson (and possibly other conservadems) to block cloture. So we know for sure that Nelson, Landrieu, Lincoln, and possibly Bayh may be the sellouts that block cloture. I certainly hope that the caucus is thinking of good ways to punish them. Lincoln's the easiest, you'd just have to have the DSCC decline to help her with re-election and make sure that no Democrats helped her campaign.
It's possible that Lincoln may face two primary challenges as well; one from the left and one from the right.
You can be to the right of Blanche Lincoln and still call yourself a Democrat?
Good ol' Arkansas. One of the few states where Dixiecrats still have a significant presence.
This is not because there has been a new groundswell of support for the idea. In fact, there are still a handful of Democrats who -- along with Olympia Snowe and every other Republican – oppose the idea. As recently as this morning, Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA), for one, dismissed recent polls that show public support for the idea, telling NPR, "I think if you asked, do you want a public option but it would force the government to go bankrupt, people would say no.”
I also think that most Americans hate ice cream. I mean, if you asked them, "Would you like an ice cream cone, and also for me to stab you in the eye with this screwdriver?" I think they'd say no.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Democratic sources tell me that Reid – after a series of meetings with Democratic moderates – has concluded he can pass a bill with a public option.
This is not because there has been a new groundswell of support for the idea. In fact, there are still a handful of Democrats who -- along with Olympia Snowe and every other Republican – oppose the idea. As recently as this morning, Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA), for one, dismissed recent polls that show public support for the idea, telling NPR, "I think if you asked, do you want a public option but it would force the government to go bankrupt, people would say no.”
That would appear to be a problem because Reid needs 60 votes to pass a health care bill and there are simply not 60 Senators who support a public option. But Reid is now convinced that Democratic critics of the public option will support him when it counts – on the procedural motion, which requires 60 votes, to defeat a certain GOP-led filibuster of the bill. Once the filibuster is beaten, it only takes 51 votes to pass the bill.
Is this actual leadership from Harry Reid?
no
it's not the first time he's said something like this
but a lot of democrats' constituencies are getting really pissed off over all this so he's doing his best to keep them placated while the senate continues to neuter the bill
whoops, forget i even said that much
Public option supporters: Put the corks back in the champagne bottles.
A senior Senate aide is denying a report that’s fast making the rounds saying that Harry Reid has concluded he has the votes to move forward with the public option.
ABC reported today that they have the goods, citing Democratic sources and claiming Reid “has concluded he can pass a bill with a public option.” ABC said Reid is now convinced that even if some moderates are still holding out against it, they will ultimately vote for it on the procedural vote to get it past a filibuster.
Not so much, a Senior Senate aide claims. “He has not concluded anything yet,” the aide said of Reid. “But he is more optimistic.”
Oy vey. This is more of Reid's "i'm thinking of considering the possibility of contemplating maybe talking about including a public option, but only if Senator Snowe is okay with it and it's a day not ending in 'day'."
This is not because there has been a new groundswell of support for the idea. In fact, there are still a handful of Democrats who -- along with Olympia Snowe and every other Republican – oppose the idea. As recently as this morning, Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA), for one, dismissed recent polls that show public support for the idea, telling NPR, "I think if you asked, do you want a public option but it would force the government to go bankrupt, people would say no.”
I also think that most Americans hate ice cream. I mean, if you asked them, "Would you like an ice cream cone, and also for me to stab you in the eye with this screwdriver?" I think they'd say no.
That quote nearly made me sick. Newsflash: Pushpolls make for shitty information-gathering!
All this while pretty much every party-neutral assessment of the public option has concluded that it will actually lower the deficit.
The claims I'm seeing are that it would lower the deficit over the next decade, but then increase it substantially in the following decade. My initial thought is "You're honestly going to try and project our budget out over 20 years and assume that it means anything? Really?" But I am wondering if there's anything to it.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
See you guys went and got my hopes up and it turns out my apocalyptically cynical attitude was still the correct one.
because everything is terrible~
all the tiiiiiiime!:whistle:
seriously though things have started to bode worse after snowe got in on this
not only is she further impeding legislation but obama and the blue dogs can also use her as an excuse if a public option doesn't go through
that's basically been their strategy up to this point anyway, toe the corporate line and use the republicans as a scapegoat when it screws everyone over
Franken: Dr Furtgott-Roth, I think we disagree on whether the health care reform that we’re talking about now in Congress should pass, and you said that kind of the way we’re going will increase bankruptcies ... I want to ask you, how many bankruptcies because of medical crises were there last year in Switzerland?
Diana Furchgott-Roth: I don't have that number in front of me but I could find out and get back to you.
Franken: I can tell you how many it was. It was zero. Do you know how many medical bankruptcies there were last year in France?
DFR: I don't have that number for you but I can get back to you, if you like.
Franken: Yeah, the number is zero. Do you know how many there were in Germany?
DFR: From the trend of your questions, I'm assuming the answer is zero, but I don’t know the precise amount and I would have to get back to you..
Franken: Well you're very good. You're very ... fast. The point is I think we need to go in that direction not the opposite direction. Thank you.
DFR: Do you know the cancer survival rates in those countries?
Franken: You know, you’ve picked on one – and, if you look at that study, did you know that we pick easily, much more easily survivable cancer rates – so if you want to start getting into digging deep into studies ... that study isn’t legitimate. I’ve heard that before. That’s because we find easily survivable cancers to count as ones that we survive. So if you want to – you can cherry pick stuff to find one little place where somebody says our system works better than the French or the Germans - but we’re talking about bankruptcy here today. And the fact of the matter is, you’re saying that if we go more to a French system or a Swiss system, that we’ll have increased bankruptcies, but the fact is that they don’t have bankruptcies, and we do - for medical care. Thank you.
Lesbianism is so rampant in some of the schools in southeast Oklahoma that they'll only let one girl go to the bathroom. Now think about it. Think about that issue. How is it that that's happened to us?
Henroid on
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
edited October 2009
Lesbianism is a terrible contagion, as everyone knows. For one thing, it's infected nearly the entirety of the pornographic actress population!
Franken: Dr Furtgott-Roth, I think we disagree on whether the health care reform that we’re talking about now in Congress should pass, and you said that kind of the way we’re going will increase bankruptcies ... I want to ask you, how many bankruptcies because of medical crises were there last year in Switzerland?
Diana Furchgott-Roth: I don't have that number in front of me but I could find out and get back to you.
Franken: I can tell you how many it was. It was zero. Do you know how many medical bankruptcies there were last year in France?
DFR: I don't have that number for you but I can get back to you, if you like.
Franken: Yeah, the number is zero. Do you know how many there were in Germany?
DFR: From the trend of your questions, I'm assuming the answer is zero, but I don’t know the precise amount and I would have to get back to you..
Franken: Well you're very good. You're very ... fast. The point is I think we need to go in that direction not the opposite direction. Thank you.
DFR: Do you know the cancer survival rates in those countries?
Franken: You know, you’ve picked on one – and, if you look at that study, did you know that we pick easily, much more easily survivable cancer rates – so if you want to start getting into digging deep into studies ... that study isn’t legitimate. I’ve heard that before. That’s because we find easily survivable cancers to count as ones that we survive. So if you want to – you can cherry pick stuff to find one little place where somebody says our system works better than the French or the Germans - but we’re talking about bankruptcy here today. And the fact of the matter is, you’re saying that if we go more to a French system or a Swiss system, that we’ll have increased bankruptcies, but the fact is that they don’t have bankruptcies, and we do - for medical care. Thank you.
That reminds me of... bah, what's his name, guy whose name starts with a K... Well, in any event, I love that Franken was able to both shut down her argument she tried to present AND remind her of the specific focus of today's hearing. Franken being in the Senate is like the best thing ever. I was all for it because he was a comedian with insight. Turns out he knows how to get shit done.
Lesbianism is so rampant in some of the schools in southeast Oklahoma that they'll only let one girl go to the bathroom. Now think about it. Think about that issue. How is it that that's happened to us?
This made my brain bleed. My god can we give Oklahoma to Texas and let them leave the country please?
The Franken thing is great. Only in the great capitalist society of ours can people go bankrupt because they get cancer. You will survive it sure, but only so you can go onto food stamps, lose your house and drop into poverty. And that is if you have insurance.
The claims I'm seeing are that it would lower the deficit over the next decade, but then increase it substantially in the following decade. My initial thought is "You're honestly going to try and project our budget out over 20 years and assume that it means anything? Really?" But I am wondering if there's anything to it.
There is SOME merit to the point, depending on the context. It specifically relates to how you fund healthcare reform. The finance committee funding sources is driven by the taxes on above average value healthcare plans, the threshold for which is set, so the revenue rise over time making the whole thing budget neutral or better without any changes over 20 years. The original House bills used adjustable rate revenue sources, so revenue rates don't rise at the same pace and the entire reform package won't be revenue neutral at 20 years under current CBO assumptions.
But the whole thing is very much a debate about having a better revenue source, not a critique against the bill as a whole, because exactly as you said projections out that far are worse than useless. Even 10 years is frankly too far out, but you need something.
werehippy on
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
That reminds me of... bah, what's his name, guy whose name starts with a K...
probably kucinich
Yes, that's the one. Back in late spring he schooled a doctor who was fighting against reform while under oath. He kept trying to dodge questions to talk about other things and Kucinich would cut off his bullshit and answer the question for him. It eventually lead up to the doctor saying he dislikes Kucinich's comments. Well boo-hoo.
If the democrats were actually interested in passing this they wouldn't even talk about how to pay for it. They would only talk about how we can't afford to not pay for it. Obama has done this, the rest need to get onboard.
Medicare would have never passed if they'd let the discussion sit on "who's going to pay for it"
Where did all of this momentum for the public option come from? According to a source close to negotiations, it came from last night's closed door meeting between Senate and White House officials, with the push coming from Democratic leadership.
"It's definitely being considered," the source said, referring to the public option compromise that may end up in the Senate's health care bill.
"It came out at last night's meeting," the source indicated. "It was indicated that based on some surveying that had been done of the moderates, that it doesn't so far seem like they would jump out of their skin as long as they have an opportunity to vote to strip it."
Any provision in the base bill that hits the Senate floor will stay in unless 60 senators can band together to strip it out. That means if a public option is included now, it's almost certain not to go anywhere. According to both Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE) and other sources, the compromise being considered would create a national public option that pays providers at negotiated rates. Unlike similar so-called "level-playing-field" public option proposals, it would not be operated by the Department of Health and Human Services, but by a separate entity, with a board of directors appointed by the government.
This fact, apparently, didn't sit well with Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, who is determined to keep Sen. Olympia Snowe's vote.
"Baucus met with moderates this morning and got them nervous." Or tried at least. Snowe clearly laid down her mark. And Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) didn't seem particularly pleased. But of all the Senate's conservative Democrats, none have yet rebelled.
"People have been sort of saying, It doesn't make me jump off the ledge." We'll be keeping our eye on them as the week winds down.
We also may know soon whether the White House will fully get behind the idea--and if they don't, it's possible that this trial balloon will pop. But key Democrats in the Senate are walking right up to the edge. It's getting to the point where they'll have an uncomfortable time reversing course.
Dem leadership finally gets their game face on, and Baucus promptly decides it's worth trying to tank the thing because his goddam republican buddy isn't happy.
Posts
Exactly. As the system currently stands, you are under no obligation (unless you're in Massachusetts) to even have insurance, and can pay OOP for whatever you need. Insurance is not bought at gunpoint, nor is it a right, ergo fair practices laws keep insurers from being forced into bad investments. The government can't legally force a company into going out of business, and that's what providing coverage to many people would be tantamount to.
Here's an extrapolation of this argument, though:
Under any public plan, care (at some point) wil be rationed, and likely at the point of severe abuse/overuse. Meaning, at some point, the government will be turning away care for these same people should they continue an at-risk lifestyle, even though those people will likely still be paying healthcare taxes.
Well, you never know. I'm not saying you are, and I'm not saying you're not, but I heard that you might support Glenn Beck. Until you come out and lay these claims to rest, we can't know for sure. And if you didn't support Glenn Beck's actions in 1990, why wouldn't you just say so?
Both the House and Senate are moving to strip the health insurance industry of anti-trust exemption.
The whip count on support for Medicare+5 is reportedly at 210 in the House. It needs 218 to pass the legislation.
There's some movement among House and Senate Democrats to rebrand the public option as Medicare Part E(veryone).
Public support for the public option is at 57%, and even Michael Steele had to admit that people support it.
Olbermann's call to action to support free clinics in Conservadem states has raised enough money for 3 clinic events.
The "doctor fix" for scheduled doctor's fee reductions, normally a routine passage, was blocked by a mix of Republicans and Democrats who are insisting that the fix be paid for.
CBO scored the House's Medicaid+5 at $879 billion over ten years; Medicaid+5 would actually reduce deficit. Conservadems now have to move the goalposts to explain their opposition.
I'm almost certain I'm missing something, but I think this covers most of it.
I have to question the wisdom of that move. On the one hand, a lot of people are scared of the "public option" due to plain ignorance. Medicare is (mostly) understood and popular ("keep your government hands..."). So that makes sense.
On the other other hand, consider two main sources of opposition to the public option. First, we have the fiscal hawk/free market types, who worry that it will eventually be a government subsidized entitlement. Medicare (Parts A-D) are government subsidized entitlements. That's a bad association.
Second, you have seniors worrying that HCR in general, or the public option specifically, will cut Medicare. I could see a thought process developing that "Part E" means now everyone will get their precious Medicare, leaving less for the seniors.
It should be noted that a couple of Blue Dogs who have come out against the public option indicated that they would support the idea of Medicare Part E. And since Part E would involve expanding Medicare, meaning that more people would actually be paying into the system with premiums, the idea that there will be less for existing Medicare beneficiaries doesn't really hold water. Honestly, I don't care what they call it as long as it gets done.
"On the public option? I'd say I'm against a public option, so yes," Snowe said.
"But would it be enough for you to say, 'I'm not going to proceed to this bill?' " the reporter pressed. Snowe nodded on her way into the elevator.
Snowe said she also opposes the opt-out version of the public plan, which would allow individual states to remove their residents from the federal exchange. "I don't support that," she said.
If there's any justice, she's just removed herself from the negotiations. But I doubt we're that lucky.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
the whole party is rotten, burn it to the ground
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
Is this actual leadership from Harry Reid?
And Jesus, Landrieu. Bankrupt the government? Really?
I'm guessing the odds are still good that Reid is caving. Just caving to the pressure from the left rather than the right. Which hopefully will work out just as well in the end.
You can be to the right of Blanche Lincoln and still call yourself a Democrat?
no
it's not the first time he's said something like this
but a lot of democrats' constituencies are getting really pissed off over all this so he's doing his best to keep them placated while the senate continues to neuter the bill
Hilariously, the House bills which are more liberal are also more fiscally responsible. Funny how that talking point is completely full of shit.
I'm waiting for someone in the press to say this to Lincoln. She can't very well argue with the Oracle of Delphi, uh, I mean the CBO.
whoops, forget i even said that much
god bless the democrats
edit: ah nuts i forgot to link it
That quote nearly made me sick. Newsflash: Pushpolls make for shitty information-gathering!
All this while pretty much every party-neutral assessment of the public option has concluded that it will actually lower the deficit.
because everything is terrible~
all the tiiiiiiime!:whistle:
seriously though things have started to bode worse after snowe got in on this
not only is she further impeding legislation but obama and the blue dogs can also use her as an excuse if a public option doesn't go through
that's basically been their strategy up to this point anyway, toe the corporate line and use the republicans as a scapegoat when it screws everyone over
That reminds me of... bah, what's his name, guy whose name starts with a K... Well, in any event, I love that Franken was able to both shut down her argument she tried to present AND remind her of the specific focus of today's hearing. Franken being in the Senate is like the best thing ever. I was all for it because he was a comedian with insight. Turns out he knows how to get shit done.
probably kucinich
This made my brain bleed. My god can we give Oklahoma to Texas and let them leave the country please?
The Franken thing is great. Only in the great capitalist society of ours can people go bankrupt because they get cancer. You will survive it sure, but only so you can go onto food stamps, lose your house and drop into poverty. And that is if you have insurance.
There is SOME merit to the point, depending on the context. It specifically relates to how you fund healthcare reform. The finance committee funding sources is driven by the taxes on above average value healthcare plans, the threshold for which is set, so the revenue rise over time making the whole thing budget neutral or better without any changes over 20 years. The original House bills used adjustable rate revenue sources, so revenue rates don't rise at the same pace and the entire reform package won't be revenue neutral at 20 years under current CBO assumptions.
But the whole thing is very much a debate about having a better revenue source, not a critique against the bill as a whole, because exactly as you said projections out that far are worse than useless. Even 10 years is frankly too far out, but you need something.
Yes, that's the one. Back in late spring he schooled a doctor who was fighting against reform while under oath. He kept trying to dodge questions to talk about other things and Kucinich would cut off his bullshit and answer the question for him. It eventually lead up to the doctor saying he dislikes Kucinich's comments. Well boo-hoo.
Medicare would have never passed if they'd let the discussion sit on "who's going to pay for it"