President Obama, Let me be clear and I mean crystal

[FourScore]

President Obama, Let me be clear and I mean crystal
by icebergslim
Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 05:02:11 PM PDT

If the Senate Finance Committee drops the public option, the bill is worthless.

Let me repeat this, "If the Senate Finance Committee drops the public option, the bill is worthless."

It means that the 1.4 million lobby pay days have won.

It means that the senate is bogged down with members on the take.

It means that the American public's voice is stiffled, again.

It means that the real power in Washington, D.C. is not at the White House but with "K Street" and the checks are being written, as I type.

This also means that you have a problem here, President Obama...

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/7/27/758549/-President-Obama,-Let-me-be-clear-and-I-mean-crystal

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. K&R!

:kick:

[Skittles]

2. Obama knows all this and more

[Bandit]

40. Yes he does, and now he knows we know..

Let the Primary season begin...

[DesertFlower]

3. K&R. nt

[WillyT]

4. Big K & R !!!

:kick:

[Simeon]

5. Or it could mean the people spoke

Let me be clear. At nearly 50 I've looked into this bill and decided it is not good for me (or for you when you get older.)
We need some serious fixin' for healthcare and health insurance, but centralizing the power to pay in DC means that we all will loose eventually - BIG time.
Read the bill.

Simeon

[chascarrillo]

8. Thanks for deciding that, whilst providing no details, that the bill is not good for me.

Much appreciated. I can't think for myself, so I'm very happy that you'll stand up and do my thinking for me.

[Simeon]

12. Details . . ..

The bill mandates no further writing of private insurance and negates persons self coverage (you can't pay for it yourself).
Therefore, we will all eventually end up on the "public option."
The bill provides for "end of life" counseling" (get ready to take a pain pill instead of getting treatment when you are deemed "not worthy" - just like in England.)
O confirmed as much in his response to about the lady who was over 100 and got a pace maker.

Does the government do anything well? - No
Does the government administer anything for less than non-government? No

Do you want a bureaucrat telling you if and when you can have a procedure? I don't.

So what do you like about it chascarrillo?

Simeon

[IrishBuckeye]

16. Page 16 of the bill I believe...

is where some of this scary stuff can be found.

[DesertFlower]

19. you sound like a republican. nt

[Simeon]

21. I hope not . . .

The Republicans, as a whole, don't know what they stand for.
I stand by being an Independent and would be happy to vote for a good "Blue dog" who knew the place of power is in the people and not the Capital.
But I confess after what I see going on these days I am much more likely to pull a red lever. (Although I would be real happy to get rid of the Republican Senator we have now.)

[Naturyl]

23. Um, this board is for Democrats.

"But I confess after what I see going on these days I am much more likely to pull a red lever."

Since you also left a dropping in one of my poverty threads, it's my pleasure to inquire, do you prefer pepperoni or anchovies?

[Simeon]

26. Shall I leave then?

So, then discussing matters to get to the nub of things is a problem?

[Naturyl]

27. No, repeating right-wing talking points is a problem.

And then ADMITTING you would rather vote for Republicans is an even bigger problem.

Given the fact that DU restricts participation on this board to people who support Democratic and progressive viewpoints, yes, I do think you should leave. I doubt you'll have a choice once a mod gets here, anyway.

[FatDave]

31. Some of you guys are just no fun.

This guy can at least speak in full sentences. I say we see if he can debate.

[Naturyl]

34. Go for it. Looks like mods are in bed.

Pizza has yet to be delivered, so why not?

[FatDave]

57. Apparently not.

Guess he wasn't ready for a reasoned discussion where we actually defend our beliefs. Oh well.

[Simeon]

64. Wow ... that was a short window of opportunity.

I do have a family and a job. My responses (as I suppose anyone else's) are rather secondary to more important life issues.

[FatDave]

70. It was 20-some hours, but appologies for the assumption.

Guess you're just a night owl. I actually responded individually to your points somewhere below here. I did make assumptions about your existing ideolgy (which were largely confirmed later by yourself) but I did try to provide substantive arguments as well. Anyhow, I eagerly await your reply, though it will be tomorrow before I get to read it.

[Simeon]

62. He can?

Well, sometimes anyway.
Give and take discussion of an issue or view would be welcome. I note so far that responses are base questions of my ideology and or are basicly ad homonim.

[Simeon]

68. Repeat, repeat . . .

So the questioning the Democrat and progressive veiwpoints is taboo?

Naturyl, the Republicans did that and lost the middle of the voting block. The Democrat party seems to be going down the same road.

If somebody has a good idea it will stand up to the light of discussion.

Repeating talking points is for people who don't think about what they are saying - or questioned about it.

I'll go see if I can find a thread in my list that has a point of substance that can be discussed. Maybe I can find that GMI thing we started with.

Simeon

[FatDave]

28. "the place of power is in the people and not the Capital."

You are absolutely right! And 72% of the people want a public health-care option. Here's the story, including a link to a .pdf with excruciating detail:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/06/19/opinion/polls/main5098517.shtml

So there you have it. The people want it. The ones really fighting this are insurance companies and their lobbyists. Insurance companies are spending millions trying to kill this bill that the people overwhelmingly want, and bought-off politicians are the ones trying to prevent it from passing. And they're convincing people like you with their baseless propaganda.

Do your research, man. Find out what health care is really like in countries where the government pays for it. Don't just take the word of those who are obviously trying to kill it (which includes Fox News, obviously).

[Simeon]

72. Clash of statistics

FatDav,

I take it you know what Mark Twain said about statistics . . .
Any poll can be designed and/or read to say about anything. That said, I do believe a majority of Americans do want to get health care/insurance under control. I do. (And by the way, I don't currently have health coverage.) So since you took the time to put up the link let's have a look at it.

From the article:
The poll reveals, however, the obstacles that remain in the way of the public option and broader reform efforts. Many Americans are concerned that their own health care may be compromised if the government is involved, and while they are generally willing to pay more in taxes for universal coverage, that support drops when dollar amounts are mentioned.

Few support -- and many are unsure about -- some other specific policy options that have been proposed, including creating a government insurance pool for purchasing health coverage. By two to one, Americans disapprove of taxing employer health benefits, and many are uncertain about it.

So, yes. We want a solution but there are serious (IMO) problems with what is presented.
A BIG question is what this is going to do to existing coverages. The House bill says that insurance companies will not be writing new policies once the government option is in place. (That sounds like a reasonable motive for insurance companies to be battling this.) It also says that when people move between states or change jobs or want to change coverage they must go government. So call me silly, but I don't think this is a right way to deal with it.

And then there is cost. Everyone is for it until the cost is looked at (per the article). The Congressional Budget Office has a price tag of 1.5 to 3 Trillion over the next 10 years. That is going to have some major effects on the rest of the economy.

Dav, there are two assertions in your response I find unreasonable. You stated ; I say there are real problems with it and it is a dereliction of duty for representatives to just get in line and support it. Just last week the President said he didn't know what was in it. I think a committee chairman, Henry Waxman, said the same thing. The thing is over 1,100(?) pages and written in a manner that is difficult to follow.

There are serious issues with this program (private plans, cost, bureaucratic approvals, end of life care, fines, effect on drug and physician availability, plan taxes, effect on the economy, etc) and I think it very disingenuous to rush it through in the manner being attempted. It smacks of hiding something. And at a base level I think the idea that the government could do this well is "pie in the sky" to start with.

The other thing you said was "And they're convincing people like you with their baseless propaganda." Which basically says that I can't consider these issues and think for myself. - An ad homenim and not the greatest way to facilitate a discussion. So you know, I spent a few years counseling people who had become involved in destructive and controlling groups - after being exposed to one myself for a short period. It has made me a fairly critical thinker and very aware of the devices used to bring people into a line of thinking. Your comment above is what is called a "thought stopper." It may be intended toward me, but be careful how it works in your own consideration of the issues and how you view people with a different opinion.

Also, I am not relying on any media for info on the state of medicine in other countries. I have a good friend from South Africa, neighbors from England, other friends from Canada, I have been to Russia and on occasion review comments and policies made by their politicians. Cancer survival rates in most (if not all) is lower than it is here simple because it takes a longer period to get approvals and slots in the system. One might also consider that most countries in Europe don't have a very big defense budget. Why? Because WE pay for a big portion of their defense. Therefore, they have had more latitude to spend funds in health care.

So, I have done my own research and look forward to your thoughts on the issues.

I'll try look for you tomorrow evening

Best,
Simeon

[LiberalAndProud]

36. Who is your Senator? Who would you like to see in his/her place?

The bill allows us to take this issue on at the state level. I suspect that most states will choose to opt in, with an eye toward attracting businesses. At least forward-thinking states will.

Except for wherever the Free Staters settle.


Welcome to DU. :hi:


As I am about to celebrate my 50th birthday, what is it that isn't good for me? I am guessing that you have insurance now? If not, why is it better to have no health coverage?

[Hugabear]

20. Government doesn't do anything well?

You're either a rethug or a libertarian.

[Simeon]

24. Could be ....

. . . I'll think about it.
The gov does do national defense well. If one doesn't count the cost overruns. And the lack of good intelligence. And that agencies couldn't (can't?) talk to each other.

Medicare and Social Security have an unfunded debt of ... what? 50 Trillion

Education is . . . bad.

Stimulus was a pork project.

I think I'll just go to bed and not think about it anymore.

What do they do well, besides screw up the economy?

'nite

[FatDave]

32. I need to go to bed too.

I hope when I check back tomorrow you have not been kicked out and have responded to my posts.

[Old Codger]

54. Pretty much

Rethugs who screwed up the economy from what I can see.... But they are in fact part of government in a way anyway...

[Simeon]

69. Rethugs and demos

I can be equal opportunity on the blame for the economy.

Bush was far from fiscally responsible. He and both the Repub. and Demo congresses of that time could not/would not control spending. And IMO he should have sent GM and Chystler to bankruptcy last fall. I also think he violated the seperation of powers by using TARP money for those bailouts after congress chose not produce an answer for the problem.

Bush/Clinton/Bush/Reagan/and Carter and all of the congresses along the way fed the housing blow-up by implimenting and pushing more and more programs that led to the sub-prime mess in the name of "affordable housing."

The impotent Repub's let a few Demo's (Frank, Dodd, and Waters) cower them into inaction when Freddy and Fanny were heading for the cliff and needed to be realed in. Perhaps the biggest piece of dynomite to the economy was when the 5 big brokerage houses were allowed to "blow off" their lending ratios (big-time). At the moment I don't know who had control of that oversite. It all comes down to the politicians doing what is politicly convienyent instead of having the disipline to do what was necessary. It's all fun until somebody gets hurt.

Best,

[Old Codger]

74. Although

I agree to a certain extent that the dems are partially to blame on the recovery side of this mess, added to the spate of de-regulation that both sides are responsible for the facts are pretty clear that the combination of an irresponsible repug president added to a rubber stamp repug senate and house (including spineless dems) who started with a surplus and more than doubled our national debt in a very short while. The combination is/was absolutely devastating to our economy. The repugs did not do this in a vacuum.

[Patchuli]

55. So you "pull the red lever" most of the time?

Most of us here do not mind decent debate but your agenda is not Democratic. Therein lies the problem. We are not mainly "Blue Dogs" around DU...

Our government is paid well with our tax dollars and basically give the lions' shares to the corporations. Our Pentagon is bloated beyond belief. Thank goodness the F-22 finally lost. Defense? Of what in George Bush's Iraq Adventure? Health care handled by private insurance companies (veteran of same here) knows that it does not serve the people. Other countries are happy with their socialized medicine, including our closest allies Britain and Canada. We pay more for health care than anyone and get shorted. Medicare has some problems obviously but I know I for one have been paying into the damn thing for 30 years. I'm sure it can be fixed with a little less obstruction from neo-cons and flag wavers. Education is "bad" because it is underfunded. Also speaking from a personal knowledge on that. Stimulus was started by Bush and yes, a lot of his 'distribution' was pork. I think Obama's is just starting to show results and those that expected instant 'cure' for all the ills of the past 8 years are fooling themselves. You have to be realistic. Your "red lever" party f***ed things up pretty savagely and it's going to take some time to right things. Besides, when you pull the "red lever" you are usually ending up with more government, not less.

Now watch yourself that you don't get tombstoned...maybe don't listen to Faux too.

[mmonk]

56. America needs dollars turning right now in our communities.

That is what a real stimulus does. The so called economics of tax cuts, and deficits and spending cuts for domestic purposes while spending for pork to cronies (Wall Street) and the military with no cost restraints is not really a healthy economic model, especially when most of our jobs have been shipped elsewhere.

[FatDave]

22. Heh.

I'm not sure why I'm gonna bother, but...

Does the government do anything well? - No

Interstate highway system. Postal service. Military. Oh yeah, and a little thing that used to be called ARPANET.

Does the government administer anything for less than non-government? No

See everything listed above. The USPS can deliver a letter from one side of the country to the other in a couple days for under 50 cents. What's it cost for UPS or FedEx to do that? $20? And how much did we pay Haliburton to provide all the services that the military used to provide for themselves much cheaper? Billions (yet they still can't manage to wire a fucking bathroom safely). And care to compare Blackwater salaries to what our country's soldiers get paid?

Sorry, you lose. The government actually does things more efficiently. Do you know why? Because nobody's paycheck depends on the bottom line. It's a service provided to the people. There is no markup.

Do you want a bureaucrat telling you if and when you can have a procedure? I don't.

Freeper, please! In countries with single-payer systems (hint: it's nearly every industrialized country *except* us), there are no government bureaucrats getting between patients and doctors. The government simply pays for the treatment. In some countries, the government funds the hospitals. If you contrast that to the good old US, we actually have insurance companies getting between patients and doctors. Right now. On a daily basis. Do you not get that?

This makes your argument absolutely ludicrous on so many levels. First of all, you're trying to scare us with something that your side--which has a clear and obvious agenda--says COULD happen. Yet you ignore the fact that the very same thing already is happening, only it's corporations telling patients what procedures they can have. So if we're betting Bad Thing X Could Happen vs. Bad Thing X is Already Happening, Could Happen is the safer bet. At least there's a chance it's going to get better. And if you honestly look at how it works in other countries, you have to come to the conclusion that the chance of it getting better under a government run coverage system is pretty damn good.

And secondly, why would it be in the interest of the government to deny care to its citizens? The people administering the system will be straight salaried government employees, and there are no stockholders to be accountable to. There is no profit motive in a government run system.

And that, my friend, is the key to the entire issue. In the current system, the companies providing financial coverage for medical care (i.e. the insurance companies) are in it to make a profit. Covering somebody's medical care is a loss to them. Therefore, denial of medical care is encouraged by the constant demand for profit.

This is why the system is broken. There is no incentive for the private companies to cover the people they are supposed to cover, and in fact there is hefty negative incentive to do so. That is what we democrats are trying so hard to fix. Now unless you've got a better solution (and so far, nobody on your side does) get the fuck out of the way and let us fix it.

On a side note, did you really think you could come over here and just spout your standard talking points? Did you think we'd have some kind of revelatory change of heart from you saying the same tired old shit? Sorry, no, we think over here.

[pipoman]

37. I don't completely disagree

my wife is a medicare biller for a hospital and decisions about treatment are in fact made by medicare. The up side is that doctors and hospitals are for profit and may do unnecessary procedures without oversight. Currently insurance companies often require preapproval too and ultimately deny coverage for procedures. So, yes, there will be bill/procedure scrutiny with any public option. Hopefully we can come up with a system that doesn't require as much administrative costs as medicare and medicaid, they are almost nightmarish in their complexity. It has taken my wife, a smart woman, years to understand the payment system for medicare. She often spends hours on individual claims which result in increased cost of administration. Currently the best insurance payment/admin in this area is Blue Cross/Blue Shield, their system may be worth looking at and modeling after for a public plan.

edit, just to clarify, if the poster thinks his health care isn't already administered by for profit bureaucrats who make decisions about which procedures he can receive, he is sadly mistaken, unless of coarse he is self pay and actually can afford to self insure and in that case, he is in a 1% category.

[Naturyl]

25. Hoo-boy. Get the door. It's Domino's.

[FatDave]

29. No, not yet.

I want him to respond to my posts. Unfortunately, I'm up way too late already and will have to check back tomorrow, so hey Simeon, try not to get booted before then. Stay civil.

[TheBigotBasher]

33. May I rather politely say - bollocks

The bill provides for "end of life" counseling"

So that elders are told about issues such as living wills, appointees and other areas that affect their ongoing helth issues as they get older.

(get ready to take a pain pill instead of getting treatment when you are deemed "not worthy" - just like in England.)

Complete and utter tripe. Sick scare story lies that have no basis in truth whatsoever. It simply does not happen in the British system.

[beltanefauve]

60. This little piece of propaganda

is being spread around a lot on Fox and by Limbaugh. They're trying to scare seniors with this, and I'm hearing it a lot lately. You can see the lies, and the lies being debunked at: http://mediamatters.org.

[TheBigotBasher]

71. Also at my blog ad journal here

I picked up on it early. In summary it is sick twisted crap.

[TheBigotBasher]

73. i answered an early email on DU and my blog

in the last few days they have got an awful lot worse, in fact they have got so bad I think the film 28 days later is a documentary, so I have shut all my doors and windows and I have hidden upstairs.

[Laelth]

41. I hate the bill.

But the government does most things very, very well. Been to the Post Office lately? Know of any military in the world that can hold a candle to ours?

The "facts" you have outlined in description of the bills being considered are, for the most part, flat out wrong.

I suspect you are lost. :hi:

:dem:

-Laelth

[CrispyQ]

43. Some things should not be done for profit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DOWJFiKeZQ&feature=related

[Donnachaidh]

48. "Does the government administer anything for less than non-government? No"

You obviously are not using Medicare or Medicaid. The two programs repukes fought to stop.

The RW talking points are coming out of the woodwork...

[chascarrillo]

50. If you think that this bill prohibits purchasing private insurance, you're illiterate.

You know what? Life's too short to discuss things with illiterates.

[bertman]

53. Simeon, you ask "Does the government do anything well?" Then answer, "No."

I suppose you consider all of these endeavors failures:

The U.S. Military, including the Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, Coast Guard.
The healthcare system that provides top quality care for all of the above, their dependents, and retirees.
The Veterans Administration.
NASA.
The Center for Disease Control.
National Park Service.
Dept of Agriculture Food Inspection Services--until they were gutted by Republicans.
Medicare.
Medicaid.
Social Security.
The Interstate Highway System.
The Internet.

Okay, that's the short list.

Next, are you kidding when you say "Do you want a bureaucrat telling you if and when you can have a procedure? I don't." Well, if not, you'd better cancel your private health insurance policy, because it's all about bureaucrats making decisions about your health care.

Alright, I'm gonna stop now before I say something really nasty.

[SammyWinstonJack]

76. I'd much rather have some health insurance greed pig telling me

if and when I can have a procedure. :eyes:


Do you want a bureaucrat telling you if and when you can have a procedure? I don't. :spank:

[Kalyke]

78. I'm glad we'd all be on the public option. I'm FOR single-payer

for everyone.

And yes, the government does ALOT well. Space exploration, mail delivery to ALL areas (including rural), roads to drive on, police at your door in a few minutes of an emergency and the ability to read a book without forking out $25 a pop. Government does many things well.

And, yes, the government provides many services cheaper than for-profit industries, mainly, oh... let's see HEALTH CARE INSURANCE. Medicare/aid operate at administrative costs of 3 percent to the 30 to 50 percent private, for-profit companies provide.

Finally, I'd rather have a bureaucrat deciding my fate than a for-profit company that makes more profit if they deny me care.

You've read far too many Republican talking points.

[City Lights]

79. Um, bureaucrats already tell me if and when I can a have a procedure.

Nice try though. :eyes:

Oh, and, FYI, I despise astroturf talking points. :thumbsdown:

[Naturyl]

9. Just 5 posts and you're ready to crash and burn?

Have some discipline, my good man/woman.

Also, "loose" is kind of a giveaway...

[Simeon]

14. Oh well .. . .

Type fast and hope the spell check gets most of the details. That one got through.

Thanks

[Divine Discontent]

67. Hey! not fair

my mom types 'loose' all the time when she means to say lose. I am a brilliant speller and often find errors from people, but even I mess up on there their they're at times and such, so I can't see how someone using the wrong form of lose/loose means they're a closed-minded GOP moran! ha

[Patchuli]

13. How about we older than you have looked

and find this bill WITH THE PUBLIC OPTION to be better than what we have going on now.

Nice try, special agenda. Welcome to DU, I think...

[Simeon]

15. My "agenda"

I defined my reasons in "details" and yes I do have a special agenda - my own skin.
Read the thing.

[FourScore]

17. This should get entertaining...

[Political Heretic]

46. The people spoke huh? That's why a super majority support a public plan? According to Gallup, CNN

and USA-Today polls?

[winyanstaz]

63. Riiight....those same "polls" that kept telling us how well liked Bush was,.....

sheesh...look to the streets, the blogs, the internet to see how people are feeling...not some rigged "polls" that are meant to convince us how much we all want something that is bad for us.

[Political Heretic]

80. Um.... no they didn't.

Those "same polls" had bush at a 29% approval rating.

Rigged polls? How big of an idiot are you? Big Corporations have NO INTEREST in health care reform - why would the RIG POLLS AGAINST THEIR OWN INTERESTS???

[Old Codger]

52. You don't like

A government run system? At 50 you have a ways to go but I will tell you for a fact that Medicare(in case you are not aware from your republican side of the aisle) is a government run single payer system and works very very well thank you. If you have facts other than your opinion (we all know about opinions) Lay them out here for discussion.

[Mithreal]

61. Simeon, which bill are you talking about? There are like 5 different ones. nt

[masuki bance]

65. lose>loose. nt

[trayfoot]

75. Gee, simeon, I've been trying to lay eyes on a "definitive" bill

for a long time! Strange thing is, there does not seem to be one! Either you have some "pull" on the "hill", or you are attempting to "pull" our legs! That has been the problem - there is NO definitive bill to peruse!

[Sirveri]

6. It could at least be a start...

If they propose a bill which forces insurance companies to actually accept people with pre existing conditions, and force them to keep people and not jack their rates should they get cancer. It would at least be a start. The real problem is when the congresscritters start trumpeting that they 'did something' and then ignore it for another 20-60 years. It would also be worse if people were mandated to buy insurance even if they couldn't afford it.

[Naturyl]

7. Must K&R this.

Bad enough we were getting the watered-down "public option" instead of single-payer to begin with. If the public option is dropped, you might as well roll the bill up and flush it.

[kentuck]

10. Are you saying he should veto it ?

Maybe so?

[Naturyl]

11. If it doesn't have the public option, why not?

Might as well, for all the good it would do.

[TheKentuckian]

18. Without a public option we can't control total cost as % of GNP or seriously address the uncovered

So, it would not mean anything about winning the game or even advancing the ball but some important goals can be reached with regulation and screwing around the edges. I will not reject anything that helps the people but without the the option (and a real one) we haven't even started yet, much less accomplished anything and the chase continues.

[lib_wit_it]

30. K & R and R and R!

Oh, I guess I only get one R.

[bkkyosemite]

35. As Obama said just the other day. We need Single Payer to cover everybody. Yes we do!

[natrat]

38. no publc option. What did you expect ? honestly, these are whoring crooks

AP Sources: Bipartisan group omitting Dem goals

By DAVID ESPO (AP) – 13 hours ago

WASHINGTON — Officials say that a bipartisan group in the Senate is edging closer to a health care compromise that omits a government insurance option that President Barack Obama favors. Nor is it expected to require businesses to offer coverage to their employees.

Like health care bills drafted by Democrats, the proposal under discussion by a group of lawmakers on the Senate Finance Committee would bar insurance companies from denying coverage to any applicant. It also would prevent firms from charging higher premiums on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions.

But it jettisons other core Democratic provisions in an attempt to gain a bipartisan flavor. The officials who described the talks spoke on condition of anonymity, saying they were not authorized to speak publicly.

THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.

WASHINGTON (AP) — A new government health insurance plan sought by President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats could coexist with private insurers without driving them out of business, an analysis by nonpartisan budget experts suggests.

The estimate by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office — seen as good news by Democrats — comes as leaders pushed Monday to make progress on health care overhaul before lawmakers go home for their August recess.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., says a floor vote is still possible in the next few days, and Democrats called a meeting of all their House members late Monday afternoon. In the Senate, a small group of lawmakers from both parties were resuming negotiations in search of an elusive compromise.

Obama's ambitious timetable for his top domestic priority has slipped as Democratic dissension has slowed the legislative work.

The White House and congressional Democrats were angered two weeks ago when the budget office director, Douglas Elmendorf, told Congress that the House bill lacked mechanisms to bring health care costs under control.

Now, Democrats are using the budget office's suggestion that a government-run insurance plan would not destroy private insurers to rebut one of the main charges against their proposal — that it would lead to a federal takeover of the private health insurance marketplace.

The controversy seems far from settled, given uncertainty over projections of how a revamped health care system would work.

Polls have shown that Americans support the idea of a public coverage option as part of health care overhaul. The insurance industry and employer groups say it could drive private insurers out of business, particularly if the government plan had the power to pay medical providers below-market rates.

More than 160 million workers and family members now get health insurance through an employer. A widely cited study by the Lewin Group, a private health research firm, estimated that more than 100 million people would sign up for the public plan proposed by House Democrats, making it the dominant insurer in the land.

But the budget office, in a letter Sunday to a senior Republican lawmaker, said its own estimate for the same legislation is "substantially smaller."

CBO estimates that only 11 million to 12 million people would sign up for the public plan — making it a much smaller player in the market. The government coverage would be available alongside private plans through a new kind of insurance purchasing pool called an exchange. CBO estimated about 6 million of those enrolled in the public plan would be workers and family members of employers that joined the exchange.

The reasons the estimates are so far apart have to do with different underlying assumptions.

The CBO estimated that the public plan would offer premiums about 10 percent lower than private plans; the Lewin analysis estimates the premiums would be at least 20 percent lower. The CBO estimates that only individuals and workers in companies with fewer than 50 employees would join the exchange, while Lewin estimated the exchange would eventually be open to all workers.

As if to underscore how such estimates can vary, the Urban Institute public policy center also ran calculations — and came up with different numbers. The Urban Institute estimated that about 47 million people would sign up for the public plan, if companies with fewer than 50 workers were allowed to join.

[Triana]

39. Send this to Whitehouse.gov ("contact us")

Seriously.

Send it.

[bvar22]

42. The House Bill (HR 3200) is not much better.

It contains something they are calling a "Public Option", but it is completely BOGUS.
3-Card Monty anyone?

[Orsino]

44. The president's already promised to veto it.

I hope he has the guts to go through with it. Cheney got away with "wrong answer; do it over," after all.

[Political Heretic]

45. K&R. The people still willing to defend a bill without even the minimum public option disgust me.

[spanone]

47. today the President said he wanted a bill with a public option

[BlooInBloo]

49. I'm pretty sure Obama knows this.

[defendandprotect]

51. This is giving me pain in my stomach -- back later . . America needs this!!!

[mzmolly]

58. What about a signing statement adding it back in?

:evilgrin:

[GreenTea]

59. Republicans hate competition, they prefer a rigged game, monopolies & collusion ....

Public option would mean competition for the insurance corporations, republicans hate competition, they prefer a rigged game, collusion , no competition means sky high profits because there's no place else for one to go...the insurance companies, like all corporations & monopolies set prices among themselves to keep profits as high as possible, fuck sick people, it's about PROFITS!

It's should be a safety net for people who get sick and the insurance companies and republicans think it should be about profits & privatization....to charge outrageous fees, throw people off policies if the hospital bill is too large and not accepting people if they are sick, that's the republican plan health care, corporate profit....

"For middle-class Americans, health insurance offers little protection," he added.

"Nationally, a quarter of firms cancel coverage immediately when an employee suffers a disabling illness; another quarter do so within a year," the report reads.

We are fucked again if we get no public option, right back where we stated at the mercy of the insurance companies...out not for your well being but for profit and corporations always cut corners for more profits.

[KT2000]

66. Another KATRINA

only this time Congress cannot escape culpability.

This is a moral issue.

[FormerDittoHead]

77. Yoo hoo IDIOTS! It will have *A* public option! JUST NOT ONE THAT'S WORTH A DAMN.

"Idiots" - people who are buying into the drama and think there WON'T be a public option...

But after all the drama and exictment, there will be a public option, but it won't be worth a damn:

THIS IS ABOUT THE CURRENT PROPOSED PUBLIC OPTION:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090727/hl_nm/us_usa_healthcare_4

...The analysis by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said a government-run health insurance plan proposed by Democrats...

...The CBO report estimated only about 10 million to 11 million people would sign up for the public option by 2019...

THIS IS THE STUDY DEMOCRATS ARE USING TO *PROMOTE* THE CURRENT PUBLIC OPTION!

...and we're SURE to get something LESS THAN THIS!

I have NO DOUBT that there will be "a" public option in the plan, and everyone will do a victory lap.

So we WILL get a "public option" but at THIS point, what the hell GOOD is it?



.