Grassley Says Consensus Possible on Health Insurance

[Old Coot]

Source: Bloomberg

June 14 (Bloomberg) -- A mandate that individuals buy health insurance is more likely to gain bipartisan support than a requirement that companies offer plans as lawmakers work for a consensus on health-care legislation, said Senator Charles Grassley, the ranking Republican on the Finance Committee.

Americans could be forced to have health insurance, in the same way states require automobile insurance, Grassley said on “Fox News Sunday.” Grassley also said the committee could propose a tax on health-care benefits, an idea some Democratic lawmakers and Vice President Joe Biden said today they oppose.

Legislation sponsored by Democrats Christopher Dodd of Connecticut and Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts would mandate health insurance for all Americans. The measure would require all employers to supply health insurance for workers or contribute to the cost of a plan.

“Individual mandates are more apt to be accepted by a vast majority of people in Congress than an employer mandate would be, as an example,” Grassley said. “I believe that there is a bipartisan consensus to have individual mandates.”

Read more: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aJGg_5IAU5_Q

---

It looks like we will have:
1. Individual mandates. Everyone will have to buy insurance.
2. Employers will not be required to offer insurance.
3. No pure public plans. There may be co-ops.
4. Possibly will have to pay income tax on employer plans.
5. Reduced Medicare and Medicaid benefits.

[Fovea]

1. And Grassley's opinion is relevant how again?

Change the fuckin Senate rules.
Do it Harry!

[Wapsie B]

23. In the words of Donald Kaul, Grassley is a prestigious graduate

of the Oelwein School of Storm door Technology. Way to suck up to your corporate masters Chuck!

[dflprincess]

2. Then we are better off if this effort fails

and try again another day. Sooner or later the system we have now will collapse on it's own. All Congress is doing now is trying to find a way to protect the crooks that have been cheating us for just a while longer.

[BlueCaliDem]

22. Yes, that's exactly what Republicrats and Rethugs want. Then they

can tell us come election time that the American people don't think health care reform is important, and can then hold out BOTH hands to their HMO benefactors for millions more campaign cash.

This "consensus" is nothing but shoveling more money to corporate coffers because IF this disastrous, pro-corp health "reform" bill passes, every American will be forced to buy insurance - just like every driver is forced to buy car insurance even for children 18 and over although they don't even have a driver's license!

[Iowa]

33. Yep...

This is a plan written by and for insurance companies. It's a complete and total sell-out. We simply don't have effective leadership in any branch of government at the moment, and we'd be better off waiting until we do.

[ThomCat]

3. Then, just like with car insurance, the rich will have complete coverage

and the poor will scrape together money to buy the cheapest legally required plan, and get essentially nothing from it. :(

Does Grassley really think this is acceptable?

:wtf:

[Iowa]

34. Yes, he does think this is acceptable...

Grassley has no conscience. He is simply a water-boy for corps.

[lindisfarne]

4. Grassley (Repub-Iowa) thinks the public option will be extremely successful - up to 119 million

people will choose it. (FYI: I suspect the OP of being either a rightwing troll or a paid shill of the insurance industry based on other threads she has started.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/21937.html

Grassley is opposed to a public option because he thinks if 119 million choose that, the private insurance companies will be wiped out. That's ridiculous.
Germany has a basic public plan available to all citizens. It also has a private insurance market that is heavily regulated. Germany has only 82 million people and many do not buy private insurance.

The US has 300 million people. Even if 119 million people choose the public option IN ADDITION to the 83 million who already get their insurance through the federal government (46 million medicare, 11 million military, 8 million SCHIP; the rest are federal employees and people served by various other smaller programs), there would still be more people left over than the entire population of Germany.

If private insurance works in Germany with heavy regulation AND a public system that guarantees a basic level to every citizen, it can also work in the US. Except the Insurance companies might not be paying their executives and making the massive profits (or "reserves", if it is a non-profit insurance company) that they currently do.

[lindisfarne]

5. Profits at 10 of the country’s largest publicly traded health insurance companies rose 428 percent f

from 2000 to 2007, while consumers paid more for less coverage.

http://blog.aflcio.org/2009/05/27/health-insurance-profits-soar-as-industry-mergers-create-near-monopoly/

One of the major reasons, according to a new study, is the growing lack of competition in the private health insurance industry that has led to near monopoly conditions in many markets.

The report says such conditions warrant a Justice Department investigation and, says Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), provide compelling evidence of the need for a public health insurance plan option as part of the health care reform initiative President Obama and Congress are developing.

...
According to the recently released HCAN report, “Premiums Soaring in Consolidated Health Insurance Market“: (link to report at link above)
In the past 13 years, more than 400 corporate mergers have involved health insurers, and a small number of companies now dominate local markets but haven’t delivered on promises of increased efficiency. According to the American Medical Association, 94 percent of insurance markets in the United States are now highly concentrated, and insurers are thriving in the anti-competitive marketplace, raking in enormous profits and paying out huge CEO salaries.

[Cleita]

6. I've noticed these Republicans bloviating all over the TeeVee this past week.

Why don't our Democrats tell them, they are no longer in power and no bi-partisanship is needed. The people have spoken, now for god's sake listen to them before they have a revolution on their hands.

[lindisfarne]

7. "Bipartisan support" to the Republicans means "We get what we want". And you're right - they lost.

The people have spoken. We want a public option. Actually, we want a whole lot more than that, but we'll settle for a public option for the time being.

The government does not exist to serve the health insurance industry, or the physicians (despite the fact that lobbyists have created a system that largely operates that way). It exists for the people.

1 in 4 Americans (83 million) already get their insurance from the federal government. That system works very well, with much lower overhead than in the insurance industry.

1 in 3 of the remaining (309 million - 83 million) are either UNINSURED (48 million+)or UNDERINSURED (25 million+).

(There are also those who get their insurance paid for by state plans.)

The system the insurance industry created is irreparably broken.

A tax on health benefits beyond a certain benefit level IS fair. Obviously, details will have to be worked out, but executives, for example, get VERY generous health benefits, compared to the average American. That expense is part of their total compensation package. It's not fair that they get a larger dollar amount of their total compensation package untaxed, compared to a worker making $24,000/year (assuming that worker gets any health benefits currently). They also should be talking about taxing insurance benefits for disability and life coverage that exceed a certain level.

[Oregone]

8. As long as we let old people die when they reach 30, Im happy

Its all about saving money baby!

[jwirr]

9. He is just trying to convince his Iowa supporters that he is really working

for the plan they want. I have news for you Grass ass - Iowa voters are smarter than that.

[lindisfarne]

10. "... principles for a strong public health insurance option." (Conrad's co-op does not meet them)

"If any proposal meets these principles, no matter what you call it, it is worthy of support. ... Judging from the reports I've seen on Senator Conrad's proposal, a co-op as currently envisioned does not meet these principles."

http://blog.healthcareforamericanow.org/2009/06/12/a-co-op-for-the-public-option-lets-talk-principles/
Principles:
" 1. National and available everywhere: A strong public health insurance option will be a national public health insurance program, available in all areas of the country. The insurance industry is made of of conglomerates that have national reach. In order to have the clout to compete with the insurance industry and keep them honest, the public health insurance option must be national as well.
2. Government appointed and accountable: The entire problem with private health insurance is that they aren't accountable to you or me. A public health insurance option must have a different incentive. A public health insurance option doesn't have to be a government entity necessarily, but its decision makers must be appointed by government and must be accountable to government.
3. Bargaining clout: The whole point of health reform is to lower health care costs. Clearly, the insurance industry has failed to lower costs when left to their own devices. As the President says, we need a strong public health insurance option to lower rates, change the incentives in our health care system, and keep the industry honest.
4. Ready on day one: The private health insurance industry has utterly failed to control health care costs or provide their customers the quality they've paid through the nose for. With one person going bankrupt every 30 seconds due to health care costs, we cannot afford to wait any longer for a real fix. We need the public health insurance option to start lowering prices now. That means no trigger.

....
As envisioned, the co-op proposal would create a bunch of member operated plans around the country, none of which would have the clout to compete with private insurance or really lower prices with providers and drug companies."

===
At the link above, there is a link to a site which will call you, then connect you to your senator's/congressperson's office (for free) so you can let them know your opinion.

[New Dawn]

11. Forcing people to buy a product from a private company is fascist economics.

There is nothing "progressive" about it: it is all about profit margins for big business.

[harmonicon]

12. yeah.... I don't think I'm ever going to move back to the US now

good luck, dudes.

[lindisfarne]

13. Small Biz Group Says Health Care Reform Could Save Them $855 Billion

http://blog.aflcio.org/2009/06/11/small-biz-group-says-health-care-reform-could-save-them-855-billion/

link to Executive Summary and Full Report at:
http://smallbusinessmajority.org/econ_research.php

Against this backdrop of a failing system and the prospect of true reform, Small Business Majority commissioned noted economist and Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor Jonathan Gruber to apply his trusted healthcare economics microsimulation model to the small business sector—specifically those businesses with 100 or fewer employees. Using his model, Dr. Gruber analyzed the continued impact of no reform on small business costs, jobs, wages and profits over the next ten years and contrasted that with three different reform scenarios, all based on the shared responsibility model proposed by President Obama and now being debated on Capitol Hill.
...
The results are clear: Small businesses will be far better off under a thoughtfully reformed healthcare system based on shared responsibility among individuals, business, government and the healthcare industry—as long as such a system includes provisions that reflect the particular financial constraints faced by small businesses. Under the models considered, shared responsibility includes tax credits to enable small business owners to better afford coverage options (based on the size of the business), coupled with a payment, on a sliding scale, to be made by employers who don’t offer health insurance (also based on the size of the business).

The analysis demonstrates that the type of healthcare reform that is emerging from today’s debate will save small businesses hundreds of billions of dollars in costs, protect small business wages and jobs—and allow small business owners to continue to reinvest in and grow our economy.

[thereismore]

14. To hell with consensus. Didn't we win the election? nt

[lindisfarne]

16. See #15: The consensus of the American people IS a public option. n/t

[thereismore]

29. Of course. But it's the consensus with repigs I am worried about. nt

[lindisfarne]

15. 73% of all Americans support a public option. (NOT a co-op)

http://npalliance.org/content/pages/Secure_Health_Care_For_All

National Physicians Alliance
Now is the time to repair our broken health care system. As part of the reform solution, the National Physicians Alliance strongly supports the creation of a public health insurance option, which is part of President Obama's Health Plan and which represents a middle road, bringing together single payer advocates and market advocates.

Facts:

1. The choice of a public health insurance plan is essential to controlling costs.
2. This choice is incredibly popular - 73% overall; 77% Democrats; 79% independents; 63% Republicans, and is a political asset.
(See http://healthcareforamericanow.org/site/content/public_rejects_insurance_industrys_misleading_claims_new_poll_shows )
3. Voters do not believe that a public health insurance option will have unfair advantages over private insurance, despite industry rhetoric.
4. The public health insurance option provides:

* A guarantee of coverage that's always there
* A strong record of controlling cost
* Gives the government an effective way to implement measures to improve value

====
A different poll by Kaiser Family Foundation showed a similar pattern of results:
Kaiser Family Foundation's Tracking Poll examines public opinion about health care reform. It found that two-thirds (67%) of U.S. residents "strongly" or "somewhat" favor establishing a public health insurance option "similar to Medicare," with about 80% of Democrats, 60% of independents and 49% of Republicans in favor of such a plan.
http://www.insurancecompanyrules.org/how_secure/entry/public_supports_public_health_insurance_plan_option/

====
A third poll http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/06/15/a_singular_solution_for_healthcare/?rss_id=Boston+Globe+--+Editorial%2FOp-ed+pages
When polled, a majority of physicians as well as the public support a single-payer plan. For example, a 2007 AP-Yahoo poll asked respondents whether they agreed with this statement: "The United States should adopt a universal health insurance program in which everyone is covered under a program like Medicare that is run by the government and financed by taxpayers."

A whopping 65 percent said yes to that question. By political standards, this is a landslide. It is time for Congress to pay attention to the voters, not the well-funded lobbyists.

[Juche]

30. A public option would be 20-30% cheaper than private plans

http://www.americablog.com/2009/06/public-option-in-health-care-reform-why.html

Enter the public insurance option. It doesn't replace the insurance individuals already rely on. But it provides an alternative. It lets them make the decision. It's the health care equivalent of being pro-choice. And it thus serves two purposes. The first is to act as a public insurer. To use market share to bargain down the prices of services, much as Medicare does. To lower administrative costs. To operate outside the need for profit, and quarterly results. The Commonwealth Fund estimated that this would result in savings of 20%-30% over traditional private insurance:





Seeing how we know healthcare costs are destroying US businesses and helping contribute to the financial collapse (60% of bankruptcies and foreclosures are due to healthcare costs, and foreclosures helped stop the economic collapse) blocking healthcare reform that actually keeps costs low (especially reform that 73% of the public supports) is very disappointing.

Again, the dems could use reconciliation to ram meaningful healthcare down the GOPs throat but choose not too. That didn't stop the GOP from using reconciliation to ram Bush's tax cuts in 2001 with a 50/50 vote though. Nope. Reconciliation is only bad when the dems do it, and the dems (like battered spouses) put up with it. This sucks.

[depakid]

32. Is reconciliation off the table?

Not sure about that...

[shadowknows69]

17. Just throw me in fucking jail then. I won't be able to afford your insurance

And I won't be able to afford your fucking fines.

[theophilus]

18. Nuts to that action.

NO MANDATES! NO TRIGGER PLAN!

[lindisfarne]

20. If you're against mandates, are you willing to have people without insurance sign a document

which says they refuse any health care that they cannot pay for in advance (including being denied emergency care beyond a certain dollar fee)?

If people don't have insurance, who will pay for their emergency care when they have an unexpected heart attack or fall off their roof and break their neck? Are you willing to say that if people who can afford insurance choose not to buy insurance, they essentially are stating they don't want emergency health care that exceeds some dollar value determined by their personal assets?

(Obviously, any mandate would have to include a provision for federal funding of insurance for those who cannot afford it, and either subsidies or a sliding fee public option for those who cannot afford the full cost).

[John Q. Citizen]

31. Obama never ran on mandates.

[strategery blunder]

19. Only way Individual Mandate will work is if insurance is regulated.

I'm talking regulation similar to that of a public utility.

The following might lead me to consider such mandates at least palatable.

1. Insurers MUST pay bona fide claims without argument. No denying claims. No accountant standing between patient and doctor. This is #1 for a damn good reason; I do carry health insurance but have never had to use it and I am scared to death if I ever need it, it won't pay the claim. The amount of medical bankruptcies filed by people who HAVE OR HAD HEALTH INSURANCE AT TIME OF INJURY is utterly staggering and is a complete atrocity.
2. Anti-trust enforcement to prevent single insurers (or groups of large insurers in collusion) from dominating the market.
3. Rates regulated by state or federal boards. I say state boards might work because they've worked for decades to regulate utilities in most cases.
4. To prevent abuse with insurance cos buying off state boards, stringent anti-lobbying rules including bans on gifts of any sort to regulating boards.
5. The minimum required plan must be set at a bar so as to actually be practically useful, to prevent the problem of people buying woefully inadequate "minimum legal" insurance that is just pissing their money away. This is a big problem in auto insurance because people will often just buy 10k or so liability insurance, minimum required, that doesn't do jack squat when such insurance is actually needed. And it's difficult for even a court to squeeze money from a turnip in enforcing a judgment.
6. Subsidies to those who cannot afford it. Yes, I know the government doesn't subsidize auto insurance, the nearest Individual Mandate comparison. However the requirement for auto insurance can be bypassed by not having a car to drive. There would be NO way to bypass an Individual Health Insurance Mandate.
7. No pre-existing conditions or other such exclusionary crap.

Of course the above would actually require insurance cos to actually be fair, and we can't have that. My doc just prescribed me a dose of Fukidol. Single payer is much simpler and even a VIABLE public option would be far preferable to all the red tape that would be required to SUCCESSFULLY implement an Individual Mandate.

[lindisfarne]

21. 62% of voters believe a public health insurance plan will spend less on profits and administration a

and force private insurers to compete while only 28% of voters believe the attack that a public health insurance plan would be a “big, government bureaucracy.” 60% believe that if private insurers are really more efficient than government, then they won’t have any trouble competing with a public health insurance plan. Only 23% believe a public health insurance plan would have an unfair advantage over private plans.

http://healthcareforamericanow.org/site/content/public_rejects_insurance_industrys_misleading_claims_new_poll_shows

* 61% think a public health insurance plan will be better able to control health care costs by using its purchasing power to drive competition. Only 25% believe a public health insurance plan will shift higher costs onto the privately insured.
* 61% agree that millions of people are already losing their coverage every year, and a choice of private or public health insurance plans will make sure that Americans always have quality, affordable care. Only 27% believe the claim that a public health insurance plan will cause millions of people to be dumped from their private coverage
* Two thirds (66%) agree that a public health insurance plan will provide a choice with a standard, comprehensive package of benefits and a wide choice of doctors. Only 26% believe a public health insurance plan will force people into lower quality care including rationing and long waits.

[Arkana]

24. Oh God no mandates. Never never never.

Massachusetts has them and it's SCREWED us. Never, ever.

But Obama's already stated his opposition to a mandate--much to Jeff Gannon's chagrin, I'm sure.

[lindisfarne]

27. See my question in #20. n/t

[JDPriestly]

25. Old Coot, that plan would be terribly unpopular. It would require

Americans to buy products they don't want. Why protect insurance companies? Because they make money for big investors. The investors should be investing in industry, in jobs that create something other than services -- and right here in the U.S.

No matter what happens, private health insurance is doomed to go the way of the megabanks unless there is a drastic, and I mean drastic, change in the industrial base of the U.S. economy. Fact is, Americans can't afford the health care they get because they don't have jobs that generate wages that can pay for the health care they get.

Change the trade policy. Bring industry back to the U.S., and health care will not be a problem. Continue with the trade and industrial policy we have, and no amount of pressure from the insurance companies to force Americans to buy their product will work.

If things continue as they are -- by that I mean ever higher rates of unemployment and ever lower wages in the U.S. -- we will get single payer healthcare if for no other reason than that the health insurance companies will fail. That's, quite frankly what I actually predict for the future. Unless we get single payer or a very good public health insurance alternative, the health insurance companies will fail. Unless our economy improves in some surprising way, the U.S. government will become the payor for the insurance of most individuals, and the private insurance companies will just fade away.

It's not really a question of whether we will get single payer or not. It is just a question of when. Before the insurance companies fail and start asking for bail-outs (and then become nationalized) or after? It's up to the insurance companies to choose. They will have a better chance of at least keeping niches in the market if they compromise and support a public option. That's their best bet for survival in the long run.

[rpannier]

26. Yep...Give the republikkans everything they want and they'll go along with it

You don't...they won't go for it

[TacticalPeek]

28. Fuck the Republicans.

Fuck 'em.

[elleng]

35. Co-op Compromise Gives White House a Health Option.

Source: nyt/ap

With Republicans fighting the idea of a government-run health insurance plan, members of President Barack Obama's team said Sunday that they are open to a compromise: a cooperative program that would expand coverage with taxpayer money but without direct governmental control.

Congress begins work this week on putting Obama's goal of universal health coverage into law. Some lawmakers are expected to introduce specific plans that run counter to Obama's political promises.

The concessions could be the smoothest way to deliver the bipartisan health care legislation the administration seeks by its self-imposed August deadline, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said.

''There is no one-size-fits-all idea,'' she said. ''The president has said, 'These are the kinds of goals I'm after: lowering costs, covering all Americans, higher-quality care.' And around those goals, there are lots of ways to get there.''



Read more: http://nytimes.com/aponline/2009/06/15/us/politics/AP-US-Health-Overhaul.html

[sharesunited]

36. Where are Republicans getting the influence to extract such a compromise?

Medicare for All is the obvious solution. Conceptually, it is the easiest to persuade voters to go with because it trades on common understanding of a known system and because everyone has a senior in their life who LOVES THEIR MEDICARE!

This should be easy to get done. Why are we blowing it?

[drm604]

37. Because the corporations run America. n/t

[lindisfarne]

39. 73% of all Americans support a public option. Write your representatives and say No Co-Op.

See link for poll at http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3922967#3923009, along with links to another poll with similar results.

[caseymoz]

52. From the moderate "blue dog democrats."

In safe seats. These assholes are killing us.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Dog_Coalition

[lindisfarne]

38. Much discussion on weakness of co-op option (unless it's really a public option we label "co-op") at

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3922967

"As envisioned, the co-op proposal would create a bunch of member operated plans around the country, none of which would have the clout to compete with private insurance or really lower prices with providers and drug companies."

http://blog.healthcareforamericanow.org/2009/06/12/a-co-op-for-the-public-option-lets-talk-principles/

Principles for health care reform (If the "co-op" option meets them, fine, but the republicans will fight these principles to the death (of many Americans); we, too, can play semantic games: "It's not a public option, it's a co-op; just like "water boarding" is not "torture"):
" 1. National and available everywhere: A strong public health insurance option will be a national public health insurance program, available in all areas of the country. The insurance industry is made of of conglomerates that have national reach. In order to have the clout to compete with the insurance industry and keep them honest, the public health insurance option must be national as well.
2. Government appointed and accountable: The entire problem with private health insurance is that they aren't accountable to you or me. A public health insurance option must have a different incentive. A public health insurance option doesn't have to be a government entity necessarily, but its decision makers must be appointed by government and must be accountable to government.
3. Bargaining clout: The whole point of health reform is to lower health care costs. Clearly, the insurance industry has failed to lower costs when left to their own devices. As the President says, we need a strong public health insurance option to lower rates, change the incentives in our health care system, and keep the industry honest.
4. Ready on day one: The private health insurance industry has utterly failed to control health care costs or provide their customers the quality they've paid through the nose for. With one person going bankrupt every 30 seconds due to health care costs, we cannot afford to wait any longer for a real fix. We need the public health insurance option to start lowering prices now. That means no trigger.

[elleng]

41. I don't like the idea of either applauding or dumping on

something 'as envisioned' by ??? Have I missed something?

[tomm2thumbs]

40. sounds like what a 'credit union' is to the banking industry - perhaps

credit unions are around and have been for some time, but have never been a huge threat to banking interests - perhaps this will be similar. Providing an option at least.

[sandnsea]

42. Or local rural electric co-ops

My electric is delivered that way. Maybe DU can be a co-op. It can't possibly be as good as a national public option. It's clear that Congress doesn't care about the health of the people.

[bluestateguy]

43. Obama is so desperate for a health care bill, any bill, that it seems he will accept a bandaid bill

It's almost like he so desperately wants to avoid the Clinton fiasco of getting nothing (1993-94), that he is willing to accept a token bill that may give him a short-term political victory, but do little to solve the long-term problem.

[FrenchieCat]

44. Since we have Democrats in the senate saying NO to a Public Option,

how can it get done....other than this round about way.

At some point the Co-Ops could join forces and become what it is we were looking for
to begin with, Government Money without Government control per-se.

[elleng]

45. Its BOUND to be round-about;

the people and our representatives are NOT READY for a dramatic change of any kind.

[John Q. Citizen]

49. That's right. No we can't! No we can't! No we can't!

[depakid]

47. By actually standing up and fighting for what's both popular and right

as opposed to going along to get along (and getting poor public policy in return).

[John Q. Citizen]

48. That cracks me up! You can fool some of the people all of the time. Lincoln said so!

[TacticalPeek]

46. Fuck the Republicans.

Fuck 'em. They lost.

[harun]

54. Not acceptable.

[ima_sinnic]

50. fuck that shit. I will NEVER buy health insurance, so sue me already.

throw me in jail, then, where I can get free health care.
or let me die of natural causes, I don't care, I will NEVER submit to a "mandate" to patronize corporate greedheads. What a load of fucking bullshit. Why did I vote for "democrats" again? I will NOT make that mistake again!

[Fumesucker]

51. "I can envision a day when you will have to show proof of insurance at the job interview".

-Hilary Clinton, during the 2008 primaries..

This is exactly where we are heading, wait and see.

No insurance, no fucking job.

[caseymoz]

53. No way. No way should they be allowed to do this.

First, there's is no reason to siphon money to private companies. It will be health care-by-corporate-welfare with a free-enterprise facade. What it guarantees isn't medical care, it guarantees profits. Also, it will be used to further the proof that government agencies don't work.

We need to steamroller those blue dog democrats out of office. There's no reason why the plan has to look like this other than the fact that those assholes are proxies for Republicans.

These public-private partnerships are a license to steal. I'm calling my Senator.