Howard Dean: Public health insurance option is more important than bipartisanship

[madfloridian]

From MSNBC's First Read:

Dean: Forget bipartisanship on health care

From NBC's Domenico Montanaro

WASHINGTON -- Howard Dean said a public health insurance option is more important than bipartisanship, and that Democrats should pass health-care legislation that includes the option with 51 votes if necessary.

Dean added that Democrats should have "no intention" of working with Republicans if it's not the strongest possible legislation that could be passed with a simple majority.

"If Republicans want to shill for insurance companies, then we should do it with 51 votes," Dean said during a news conference at the first day of the liberal America's Future Now! conference here.

Dean, though, also praised what he called President Obama's "realist" approach to trying to pass health care reform.

"What I like about Barack Obama's plan is he's a realist," Dean said, adding that private insurers aren't going away and that polling shows people are generally happy with their private health care -- if they have it. He said it should be all about giving people a "choice" of signing up for a public option, but "on the other hand, you don't want to take something away either."

I recorded the America's Future Now since I was out, but I don't see the scheduled 4:20 conference with Dean and Hilda Solis and others. At that time I just saw a replay of the GM stuff. Maybe it will be on later.

I agree with what he said earlier, that if we don't deliver real reform we will lose the midterms

Former presidential hopeful and former party Chairman Howard Dean said Monday night that Democrats and Mr. Obama will suffer if they don't strike more boldly on health care.

"If we can't deliver a real choice to the American people and real reform, I think we lose seats in the midterm election. I think we're going to have a hard time getting the president re-elected," Mr. Dean said on a call with MoveOn.org and Democracy for America members, trying to rally support for public health care. "As long as he sticks with us, and we stick with him, I think we're ultimately going to win this."

On health care, Mr. Dean and his allies are trying to force Mr. Obama to be more bold in embracing a public health care system. Mr. Dean announced a new Web site, www.StandWithDrDean.org, and said he disagrees with more conservative Democrats who fear they might be vulnerable to charges of socialized medicine.

"We have a Democratic president, Democratic Senate, Democratic House. There's no reason to trade it away," Mr. Dean said.

The media does not seem inclined to present the public options much on the air. I guess we have to just keep trying.

[worthlesscitizen]

1. I'm really starting to like that guy.

Really smart to bring up the midterms. Smart, smart guy, this Howard Dean. I'll admit I laughed at the "Dean scream" way back when, but you know what? Now I want to scream it with him.

[movonne]

3. Well that scream was a hoax...

[worthlesscitizen]

4. Then what was that "yarggh" I heard on All Things Considered? nm

[PassingFair]

20. That was the sound of Howard Dean's microphone SEPARATED ....

from the ROAR of the crowd of volunteers
he was addressing, many of whom were pounding
empty coffee cans into the floor and ALL of
whom were screaming at the top of their lungs.

He only sounded nutty when his voice was
ISOLATED from the crowd. His microphone was
specially calibrated to erase the noise of
the crowd.

Here is tape from the event, where he
is clearly yelling to be heard over the
crowd. It makes me smile to see it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCjsiq1pUq0


He had real passion for our county.
He still does.

[madfloridian]

21. We need to keep that video handy at all times.

Weren't there almost 4,000 there?

[PassingFair]

23. I am in a rotten mood tonite, Mad.

All of the shit we would have been
spared if Dean had won that election.....

It makes the back of my head hurt.

:cry:

[madfloridian]

28. I have been that way a lot lately.

We are running into people who are in so much financial trouble who thought they were on top of the world. It's sad.

Dean may not have won, but he would have gone down fighting very hard.

[Political Heretic]

38. This is 100% true, and ABC actually reported the contrast between how it really sounded in the room.

They played video from one of the people who was there and recording, and you couldn't hear Dean over the roar of the crowd.

Only when the crowd is filtered out, do you get the "sound byte" heard round the world.

I was amazed that ABC actually pointed this out -- stunned in fact. But it was only mentioned once, to my knowledge, and then we never heard that truth again.

[Egnever]

69. Aww thanks for that

Howard was the first dem to really make me want to work for him. We missed a great opportunity when we took a pass on him.

[PassingFair]

70. Yes we did.

Can you imagine how wonderful
the presidential debates would
have been?

We would damn well have a
National Health Plan by now!

:cry:

[EFerrari]

53. It was the sound of you being manipulated.

When you listen to the audio of the whole room that night, you could barely hear him above how loud those people were.

[redqueen]

2. I'm saddened that only 341K people have signed his petition.

I guess perhaps for many it's single payer or nothing? :shrug:

Oh... it's 342K now. Guess I need to change my sig. Still, it's pitiful.

[tabbycat31]

6. I signed it

[redqueen]

12. Thank you!

Please pass it on. :hi:

[madfloridian]

8. Only Single Payer petitions are getting the huge numbers.

Yet actually he is being more realistic overall.

[redqueen]

11. Exactly. I'd think most would want to show their support for both.

I'd much rather have single payer, and I've signed on for those too.

[madfloridian]

14. I agree.

They should sign both as a matter of practicality.

[Ms. Toad]

13. Not single payer or nothing,

but any proposal I support must make access to health care available to those whose illnesses make traditional insurance unaffordable. There are many options short of single payer that could accomplish this - what Dean is calling for does not. It makes government managed insurance available at prices competitive with the current market.

Shaving a fraction of the cost by competition does not provide my daughter (diagnosed with an autoimmune disorder that generally requires a liver transplant 12-18 years from diagnosis), and others like her, with access to health care. My 18 year old daughter has two chronic illnesses; the most recently diagnosed one will likely prevent her from holding a full time job (she currently cannot manage a full time college courseload - and she is in the early years of waiting until her condition is bad enough that the cure - a transplant - is worse than the illness). The cost for competitive insurance, as of two weeks ago, is $14,000 a year. With government competition, it may stay stable for few years or even decrease modestly. This does NOTHING to help her - or the countless others with diabetes, cancer, multiple sclerosis, or any number of other illnesses which make nearly impossible steady full time work that might otherwise provide access to health insurance.

I could support making a Medicare-like option - even one with a sliding scale that requires payment from the recipient on a sliding scale - available to anyone diagnosed with a condition that is traditionally considered unaffordable. Access to health care for people with chronic illnesses CANNOT depend on their ability to pay for that care. I cannot support mere competition with the current private companies - in my opinion, it is not even a step in the right direction - and we cannot afford to waste our political capital on a plan that does not provide meaningful change for those most severely impacted by the current health care system.

So - I am not one of the 342,000 people signing the petition -BUT I am not in the single payer or nothing camp. I will support meaningful change; I do not want my voice used to support placebo change - which is all this is without more conditions requiring that the public option provide access to those who need it most but can afford it least.

[madfloridian]

17. What I have read of his plans on this would include everyone.

I am not sure what you mean.

[Ms. Toad]

24. You can have access - meaning you can get insurance.

The problem is that nothing in a Dr. Dean's discussion of a public health plan that requires that cost of of that plan be affordable - only that it be available to all (subtext: who can afford to pay for it).

From his FAQ: "What does “universally available” mean? A universally available public option would be open to anyone regardless of gender, race, religion, income or employer. . . . We are drawing a line in the sand over the key principle of real healthcare reform: availability of a public healthcare option. If the final bill allows Americans to choose between for-profit insurance or a universally available public healthcare option, then it will meet the key principles and deserve our support."

Currently many individuals in our country do not have access to health insurance - at any price, because they can be denied coverage on the basis of pre-existing conditions. HIPPA supposedly required that each state come up with a plan that provides access to insurance to everyone who needs it. The vast majority of these plans do so by providing some sort of high risk pool. The current high risk pool in Ohio has rolling enrollment months and limited quantities - so I can eventually get in, but not necessarily immediately. The cost, as of two weeks ago, was $14,000 a year.

A public health plan would presumably guarantee that I could not be denied because of pre-existing medical conditions (although Dean's FAQ does not even expressly say pre-existing conditions could not be used to exclude me from coverage - or the condition excluded from coverage).


BUT It doesn't do my daughter a bit of good to not be denied because of her pre-exiting conditions if she cannot afford to pay the premiums.

From his FAQ: "Capitalism thrives on competition. The more healthcare choices the American consumer has to choose from the harder the healthcare supplier will work to be chosen. A public healthcare option would bring new competition into the market driving lower prices and incentives for better service and care."

Nothing anywhere on Dean's website addresses affordability - except through competition with the currently available private options. Note that discussion of the cost or affordability of the public health care plan individuals may choose is conspicuously absent from the quotes I provided above about access.

A public health option provides access, it does not provide affordability. Before I support a public health option it MUST expressly include a requirement that access be affordable - AT LEAST to individuals who currently have limited access to health care because of poor health. Anything less is just a hair more than HIPPA brought us nearly a decade ago. HIPPA was a BIG change at the time (I am actually entitled to health insurance if I lose my job, thanks to HIPPA, whereas before I was not guaranteed access to health insurance once COBRA ran out); to add a public health option now is virtually no change from the status quo. It would make insurance available to those individuals who have never had insurance and to those who have failed to maintain "creditable coverage" for more than 63 days - pretty much everyone else is already guaranteed access to health insurance (subtext: if they can afford it). It would do nothing, except through price competition, to protect us from whatever the insurance company wants to charge for that coverage.

We cannot spend our political capital on access alone; it must be linked to at least minimal standards of affordability for those who need it most. If we miss this opportunity by insisting only on a public health option, it may be another decade before we get a chance to make a dent in the affordability arm of health reform.

[madfloridian]

25. Not going to argue because I support either.

[slipslidingaway]

29. Please consider making this post, or part of it, a separate thread

as you raise important differences between the options.

TIA.

:hi:

[Ms. Toad]

31. I may do that

I have had the discussion several times. Each time people who are ordinarily well informed seem surprised that what is being touted as barely tolerable to health insurances companies - and a big step in the right direction is really just a minor improvement over what we have now, and will not address affordability unless we insist on it.

[madfloridian]

32. No, some of us who are well-informed ARE quite aware of the two options.

There is no way you are going to shove the powerful insurance companies aside and get them out of the picture. They have been given too much power for too long.

Now I would prefer single payer also, but I don't think we will get it.

I am advocating for what I think is possible under the circumstances.

We are going to divide ourselves over something that is not possible right now. That is sad.

[Ms. Toad]

35. I am not insisting on single payer over public health plan

It is not an either/or issue. I have minimum standards for a plan which none of the public health plans I have seen proposed currently meet (including the criteria set out by Mr. Dean).

I will not support a public health plan that does not include affordability for those who currently have no option other than the high risk pools. That can be accomplished most efficiently by a single payer plan - but a single payer plan is not the only option.

HIPPA already provides access to insurance for the vast majority of people in this country, provided they can afford the premiums, and has for nearly a decade.

If you have ever had creditable coverage, HIPPA guarantees you can convert your employment based plan to a personal plan - and that you can continue it for life as long as you can afford the premiums (as long as you don't have a gap of more than 63 days). HIPPA covers not only the employed worker, but everyone in the family covered under that plan at the point they are no longer eligible because of age (as children reach adulthood), divorce, death of the employed worker, etc.

If you nave not ever had creditable coverage, HIPPA also required each state to provide a means of making insurance accessible to all residents (again, so long as you can afford the premiums). Most states do that by a high risk pool which has open enrollment periods during which individuals cannot be turned down because of pre-existing conditions (again, as long as you can afford the premiums).

People who have never had creditable coverage or people who "let" their creditable coverage lapse AND who live in states that are not compliant with HIPPA are the only ones who do not currently have access to health insurance.

Access is ALL a public health plan provides, aside from the small price drop that might (but is not guaranteed to) come from competition.

Access without a minimal guarantees of affordability provides virtually nothing beyond what we currently have. My bottom line minimum is access PLUS affordability for at least those individuals who are not currently eligible for private insurance by any means other than the high risk pools. That is a far cry from demanding a single payer plan. It can be accomplished by private insurance alone. It doesn't need to be free - I am willing to accept a graduated premium based on income. It doesn't need to cover everyone - only those who cannot apply for and obtain insurance-for-healthy people from any old insurance company. It is a modest step in the right direction - the step of ensuring that access to health insurance is not dependent on health or wealth. My ultimate goal is that access to health care not be dependent on health, wealth, employment, or ability to maintain status as a full time student.

[slipslidingaway]

33. Thanks and I hope that you do, it is difficult to support a public

option when we do not know exactly what we are supporting and how it will be financed.

:shrug:

There is talk of mandatory insurance, but as you have stated, it may still be out of reach for many.


http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE54U0BZ20090531?feedType=RSS&feedName=politicsNews&rpc=22&sp=true

"...Kennedy, a Democratic stalwart whose thinking is widely believed to track that of President Barack Obama on healthcare, is expected to unveil a plan in early June that will include both a new government program to provide medical coverage for all as well as a mandate that every American acquire some form of health insurance..."

[madfloridian]

36. Then if we only support single payer, back off on public option...

we are not going to get anything like real reform.

It's a bad situation to be in.

It's really odd that here at DU now I am becoming a pariah for supporting the public option as the most likely one for us to get right now because of the power of the insurance industries.

I have notes sent to me and posts directed at me as being a sell-out.

[slipslidingaway]

39. My belief is that if we compromise from the start we will not get

a strong public option.

Also I still do not know what the hell we are supporting in a public option and how it will be financed???

[madfloridian]

42. Single payer IS a public option, only it leaves the insurance companies totally out.

I hope you get it, I really do sincerely hope so.

But most people even on Medicare, a single payer, also have private insurance as a supplement.

I don't think Dean and the others are trying to be harmful by pushing this public option alongside the insurance company options. I think they are being practical.

I support single payer, but I think the public option will lead to it.

Medicare is paid for out of Social Security checks. Next year it will be going well well over $100 a month.

Social Security is paid for throughout our working years.

It will be paid for by us one way or the other.

[slipslidingaway]

46. A public option is not HR 676, single-payer not for profit health

care, as you state it may lead to a SP system, but the lines are being blurred with too many stating that a public option is the same as HR 676 Single-Payer.

While some can say that the portion of HC under the public option is SP, checks being sent by the government, one cannot say that the public option IS, what many refer to as SP, which is HR 676.

I think it is important to distinguish between the two. A strong public option may lead to a Not for Profit Medicare for all, single-payer system, a watered down version may not.

IMO the best way to obtain a strong public option is to ask for more and if need be settle for less.

I hope you understand the difference between a public option and HR 676.

[madfloridian]

48. That is NOT what I said. Yes, I understand the difference.

One is a government run option with insurance companies shoved out of the picture, which does not seem likely considering their power.

The other is a government run option with private insurance still in the picture. The first option would be better, but the second option would lead to it.

It is good to bargain for more than you expect, but it is not good to put down the rest of us who are in the middle.

[slipslidingaway]

51. What I object to is how the public option and single-payer are

being blurred, even Dr. Dean said you can have single-payer, which has meant HR 676, or a private HC plan.

This is confusing to some people who are not as familiar with the subject.

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/howard-dean-single-payer-not-table


I really do not believe that I have put down anyone who is advocating for a public option, although I have tried to differentiate between a public option and HR 676, single-payer HC.

Also as stated above I find it hard to support a public option for a couple of reasons...not knowing the details and also starting from a position of compromise, that is why I decided against signing the public option petitions.

There is no guarantee that a public option would lead to a SP system, in fact PNHP thinks this will only slow down the movement towards SP.

http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepayer_faq.php#public-option

:shrug:

[Ms. Toad]

37. Not the best option

but if the proposal included pricing restrictions on insurance companies, including everyone in the pool would lower the individual cost for those older or in poor health (and raise the premium for the young and healthy).

I don't like the idea of punishing people who are living hand to mouth and cannot afford premiums (by making it against the law to not have health insurance) - but if it can be structured like the earned income tax credit so that those on the lower end of the income scale have their premiums paid by the rest of us, and had an option for people to create a medical savings account + catastrophic coverage option I could support it.

[slipslidingaway]

41. "...if it can be structured..." that is a big if and why I am hesitant

to endorse such a plan, hopefully we know the details soon enough.

[Ms. Toad]

54. It is not something I have ever supported - but

if single payer is off the table and the choice is between a public health plan option (without an affordability requirement) and mandatory insurance structured to make premiums affordable, I would support mandatory health insurance.

[Still Sensible]

49. So what does "regardless of...income" mean then? n/t

[Ms. Toad]

57. It means coverage cannot be denied based on your income

Just like you cannot be denied coverage because you are the "wrong" gender, the "wrong" race, the "wrong" religion, or have the "wrong" job. It doesn't mean the plan has to be affordable - just that you can't be denied coverage because your income is too low (or too high, or from the wrong source, etc.)

[Vidar]

58. Signed also.

[redqueen]

63. Thank you.

:)

From what Kennedy's saying, it looks like we'll get our public option.

Now we just have to make sure it gets safely through Congress.

[janx]

5. This is the time! Dean is right!

We have the support and shouldn't hesitate!

[Triana]

7. The Doctor is Right. Love Dr. Dean! n/t

[madfloridian]

9. C-Span was supposed to carry the health care forum after 4:00 today.

They are now having Cheney on right after Obama and GM.

If anyone sees the America's Future Now forum scheduled again let me know.

[madfloridian]

16. Tonight they are replaying the earlier sessions, but no health care forum?

This is just weird.

[redqueen]

18. Hmm... maybe it'll be on later.

:kick:

[madfloridian]

19. Hope so.

Fingers crossed.

[bigwillq]

10. Dean is right again!

:bounce:

[anonymous171]

15. Dr Dean is right, yet again. If we get HCR passed, we will destroy the GOP

If we don't, they will return.

[OETKB]

22. There's even more

Max Baucus has agreed to meet with Single Payer Experts. See below. This is also not in the news. Rev it up guys. Nothing will happen without some honest to goodness activism.

[redqueen]

26. Nicely put.

:kick:

[madfloridian]

27. More from a health care conference which apparently won't be televised.

From Raw Story:

Liberal groups give boost to Obama's healthcare plans

A coalition of US progressive groups unveiled Monday a 82-million-dollar campaign to boost President Barack Obama's plans to overhaul the ailing healthcare system.

"The election of Barack Obama was the beginning, it's not the end," former Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean told reporters at an annual conference sponsored by activist group Campaign for America's Future.

"It was important to win the presidency so that there could be a progressive legislative agenda. Now we have one and now we've got to get to work."

[madfloridian]

67. Still nothing scheduled at C-Span

[madfloridian]

30. More on the day's event from National Journal Hot Line

I guess this is why we might lose both if we are so divided.

http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com/archives/2009/06/progressives_di.php

"During the question and answer portion of a panel about "The progressive movement in the Age of Obama," held at the Omni Shoreham and featuring Organizing for America director Mitch Stewart and Change to Win chair Anna Burger, among others, Burger was interrupted by a female audience member who barked from the darkened ballroom: "Why not single-payer?"

"It would be great to have single-payer, but I don't think that's going to happen this year," she said, adding that whatever plan is ultimately adopted, Democrats seem to be moving toward a public option plan that allows people to opt out of the system, will make a difference in people's lives.

A few minutes later, Deepak Bhargava, with the Center for Community Change, interjected, "I think many of us think the single payer system would be the best system," he said, drawing enthusiastic applause from many activists in the room.

But then he pivoted. "It is a step on the path," he said.

A step isn't enough for everyone. After eight years of assailing Pres. Bush's leadership, progressives are regrouping in an effort to leverage their newfound fortune - a WH in Dem hands and a Senate just one-vote shy of a filibuster-proof majority. They even had to change the past name of the annual confab from "Take Back America."

[madfloridian]

34. Progressive groups have 82 million to spend on organizing against insurance companies.

http://www.alternet.org/politics/140385/progressives_have_the_troops_and_a_massive_war_chest_for_health_care_reform/

"I'm sitting in a press conference next to my AlterNet colleague Joshua Holland. We're watching progressive heavyweights Bob Borosage, Howard Dean and labor leader Anna Burger discuss the prospects for health care reform in Congress this summer. The topic is the major pile of dough -- $82 million -- and number of grassroots and advocacy groups -- 1,000 -- and their members -- 30 million -- that are pushing hard for the Health Care for America Now (HCAN) campaign.

Howard Dean lays out the landscape: "This is a center-left nation," Dean is saying. He ties the rise of America's "multi-cultural" society, and the precedents set by patterns of younger voters who "see themselves as multicultural" -- who not only have elected a multicultural president, but whose ideology offers hope for health care reform. RIchard Kirsh, who is the national campaign manager for HCAN, makes some major declarations: "We've waited 100 years for health care reform, and we're going to see it in the next few months."

Pollster Celinda Lake announces the results of a survey she conducted for Change to Win, a major labor coalition pushing hard for health reform. Looking through the results, the one that caught my eye is this number: 62% of people in the survey think that health care, education and energy reform must be enacted as soon as possible. Which is really in tune with the thinking of this HCAN campaign.... do it NOW!

A reporter from the Boston Globe asks Howard Dean if it's more important to have a bipartisan plan or a public health care plan, and Dean smashed that softball out of the park -- we'll pass it with 51 votes if we need to, Dean says. Kirsh came up to the mic and reminded us that when Social Security was up for a vote in DC, not one GOPer in the House voted for it, and only one Republican senator gave a yes vote."

[Political Heretic]

40. I greatly appreciate these comments from Dean, but would add that single payer needs to be discussed

I understand that perhaps single payer has lots of practical obstacles or that there might be some good reason why some other approach is better.

What is disgusting to me - totally outrageous in point of fact - is the fact that there is HUGE public demand for a discussion about single payer, over 15,000 - yes fifteen thousand - doctors who support single payer, and our "representatives" refuse to put it on the table. I repeat, they refuse to even discuss it, or listen to testimony or advocates.

That is pathetic.

All I want is for advocates not to be shut out of the process!! Even if something else ends up going forward, they deserve to be heard!

[madfloridian]

43. He has agreed they need to be heard. He said so publicly.

He simply believes that the public option now will open the door to it later.

[Political Heretic]

45. Oh I know! 100% behind Dean on this. I guess I was thinking more about other Democrats.

[Faryn Balyncd]

44. K&R

[bertman]

47. My Howard Dean for President bumper sticker is still proudly displayed on my personal

bulletin board. I love that man. A TRUE Progressive. I almost said true Democrat, then I thought about Rahm.

I want universal health care, but the public option is the first (giant) step we can realistically take.

Everyone keeps talking about us having a Democratic Congress, but I just don't see it. Too many DINO's and not enough Democrats.

Recommend.

Edited to say, I've already signed a Single-Payer petition. Where do I go to sign on to the Public Option petition?

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

50. Dean is right again, as usual

I love that man!

[McCamy Taylor]

52. Health insurers want one thing...for us to blow our only chance for universal healthcare.

The "bipartisans" who talk about compromise are actually giving away a once in a generation opportunity to make a difference in the lives of working class Americans by endorsing a system that will be programmed to fail.

Why would they do this? Because they are already refilling their campaign coffers for the next election.

[destes]

60. You are so exactly right!

Single payer must be an unadulterated option. Acceptance and passage of any other plan will be WORSE than no change at all. Compromisers and self-proclaimed-realists do a dis-service. If giving in to any demands from the health insurance industry is a requirement for legislation then we may as well stop now. Any plan the insurance industry approves will cost people.

The issue is afford-ability. In these times of economic chaos the very idea that it is necessary to legislate so that a parasitic industry may survive while bedrock industries, like manufacturing cars for instance, goes bankrupt is ABSURD. Are we characters in a Gogol novel or an Albee play? The fact is that people share a common sense of impending cataclysm and they fear it may effect them personally.

An aside, an exercise in observation:
You know, America does seem to have some things in common with pre-revolutionary Russia.
Involvement in unpopular wars that are breaking the treasury and the spirit of the military.
The majority of the population is under-educated/uninformed.
There is a powerful, entrenched minority of status-quo-worshiping reactionaries grasping at straws.

Just saying

[madfloridian]

62. "Single payer must be an unadulterated option."

It would be nice, but good luck with that.

Your quote:

"Acceptance and passage of any other plan will be WORSE than no change at all. Compromisers and self-proclaimed-realists do a dis-service. If giving in to any demands from the health insurance industry is a requirement for legislation then we may as well stop now. Any plan the insurance industry approves will cost people."

You are advocating no compromise. Again good luck with that.

Looking down at those of us who are seeing things differently, not a good idea.

[AzDar]

55. Ayup.

:thumbsup:

[TheBigotBasher]

56. "We have a Democratic president, Democratic Senate, Democratic House. There's no reason to trade it

A point I have made before

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/TheBigotBasher/47

I of course have not counted on the Rethug voting Senators. Once we get Franken, I hope Reid evolves.

[madfloridian]

73. We still have the Conservadems even if we get Franken.

Bayh's group of 15 or so who want to be fair to the Republicans. :eyes:

[eridani]

59. The people who are happy with private for profit insurance have never been expensively sick

Unfortunately, the 85% healthy majority prefers not to think about sick people and is fine with killing them off by spreadsheet. They're busy and would prefer that their HR departments continue to handle the mess. They know nothing about how good their fire departments are either, and with luck they'll never have to find out.

The only thing that single payer would take away is their right to kill other people by withdrawing their money from the pool used for the actual care of sick people.

Not just any "public option" is a worthwhile compromise. If it is set up to segregate the poor and the sick, it will be worse than no reform at all.

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[madfloridian]

64. Dean talks health care with Cenk Uygur...Video

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x319625

Still see nothing scheduled at C-Span for that health segment from yesterday.

[Mass]

65. Good to hear somebody who cares. but he is too optimistic when it comes to

Democrats. Some of them do not want a public plan either.

[mzmolly]

66. An excellent statement.

Agree fully with Dean on this. We need a public option.

[madfloridian]

71. Agreed, mzmolly.

:hi:

[mzmolly]

72. .

:hi:

[Wednesdays]

68. K&R

:kick:

[madfloridian]

74. Just a reminder what he said about bipartisanship.

He's not perfect, but he's at least trying. Doesn't deserve to be protested.