Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Howard Dean: Insurance co-ops wont solve problem

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
lindisfarne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-15-09 12:00 PM
Original message
Source: Rawstory /reporting on MSNBC

It doesnt fix the American problem, Dean told MSNBCs Contessa Brewer. I think the co-ops are a fine idea but they wont work.

The co-ops are too small to compete with the big private insurance companies, Dean continued. They will kill the co-ops simply by undercutting them and using their financial clout to do it.

This is a compromise thats designed to deal with problems in the Senate but it doesnt deal with problems in America, said the former Democratic presidential candidate. And I think its time for the Senate to stop playing politics. Do what has to be done.

If the Republicans dont want to get on board then we can do this without the Republicans, Dean insisted. We have the votes.

Read more: http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/06/15/dean-co-opts-won... /



Video at link
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-15-09 12:04 PM
Response to Original message
1. K&R!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeyondGeography Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-15-09 12:07 PM
Response to Original message
2. Killer line
This is a compromise thats designed to deal with problems in the Senate but it doesnt deal with problems in America.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
valerief Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-15-09 02:52 PM
Response to Reply #2
26. Ain't that the truth! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
harun Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-15-09 04:16 PM
Response to Reply #2
39. +1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-15-09 12:14 PM
Response to Original message
3. The Dr. diagnosed the problem
which is with the corrupt Senate (and more specifically, corrupt Senators) -and not with the public option.

The only question is: will Obama and his administration stand up and fight for popular and rational reforms?

or will they go along to get along?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dflprincess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-15-09 12:22 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. He appears to be going along
If he had any interest in standing up and fighting for a popular reform he would have been talking about single payer.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-15-09 12:26 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. Getting there- choosing the best place to make a stand and moving the process forward
in a rational manner is more important than tilting windmills.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dflprincess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-15-09 12:41 PM
Response to Reply #6
10. You don't start bargaining with the option you're willing to settle for
you start by asking for more than you expect to get. It's become clear that Obama's first priority is to protect the health insurance companies and he won't think twice about selling us out to do that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-15-09 12:57 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. What Dean's been saying- which is spot on is that choice is the way to frame the issue
and choice involves allowing folks to keep what they have if they're reasonably satisfied with it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-15-09 01:52 PM
Response to Reply #13
19. What about white privilege? Or Straight privilege? Or Male privilege. Should people be able to keep
Edited on Mon Jun-15-09 01:54 PM by John Q. Citizen
those if they are reasonably satisfied with it?

Health care is a right, not a privilege and people are dying and people are seeing their lives destroyed so someone else can be reasonably satisfied.

When Howard Dean failed to stand up and demand that everyone have a place at the debate, i lost most of my respect for him. He's afraid of open honest debate, because he knows the facts aren't on his side.

If you want single payer than demand single payer.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-15-09 02:18 PM
Response to Reply #19
23. Can't disagree with the goals- but the process is more important
Edited on Mon Jun-15-09 02:20 PM by depakid
which, unfortunately many fail to see.

And- to be perfectly honest I find your post to be unhelpful, in that you'd rather scream about something we're going to get immediately, rather than working toward a responsible means of attaining over time. The public option may well get us there- banging heads against the wall, or accepting a watered down versions like coops that are bound to fail will not.

Dean recognizes that- as I do.

The question is- does (or will) the Obama administration?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-15-09 03:14 PM
Response to Reply #23
29. We've been screaming about it since 1947. I've personally been working for it since 1990
When I started working for Obama a year ago February, i did it with one goal in mind. I wanted to see single payer get a place at the table in the health care debate that I knew America would be having if Obama won. i didn't think congress would pass it probably, but i knew it was crucial to move the issue forward and to educate Americans about what actually works. All I wanted was a fair shot for our experts to be able to present their ideas.

I had no trust at all in Hillary, because back in 1993, she cut the grass roots out of the debate and I didn't trust her not to do that again.

I could care less that Dean endorses tax payer subsidies of private insurance companies as a way to bring down health care costs. He can endorse what ever crazy stupid thing he wants.

But when Dean was silent, as the millions of Americans who support a single payer solution were shut out of the debate, I realized that Dean is no friend of ours. Friends don't let friends be shut out in the cold without a word.

Public/Private Partnerships are frauds whether it was the bush social security plan, school vouchers or in health care.

Public private partnerships in healthcare have failed everywhere they've been tried; In Oregon in 1994, in WA, in Massachusetts, Vermont, Tennessee and Minnesota state after state after state and it hasnt worked. Overwhelmingly passed by Democrats.

Go ahead and try it again if you want. Heck, try it five or six more times in the next 50 years. Insane? You tell me.

But don't say you weren't warned. OK? And don't blame anyone else but yourselves when it doesn't work, yet again.






Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SpartanDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-15-09 01:12 PM
Response to Reply #10
18. So he shouldn't have
pressed for the type reform he proposed during campaign and instead just came up something new? All you would've done is given credence to talking point that the public option is designed lead to single payer system.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-15-09 02:12 PM
Response to Reply #5
22. ooh, maybe you can run along to
your little kitty litter sandbox and call him a corporate whore.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-15-09 03:34 PM
Response to Reply #22
31. you may have been
drinking the kitty litter you seem to know so much about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dflprincess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-15-09 04:49 PM
Response to Reply #22
43. Let's see. He tells us we need a public option to "keep the insurance companies honest"
so he admits they're crooked and can't be trusted but he's willing to let them continue cheating us, in fact he may even support provisions forcing us to buy their products. Meanwhile he cuts advocates of a single payer solution out of any serious discussion.

Insurance company profits and campaign donations remain protected, what would you call it?


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Iowa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-15-09 01:07 PM
Response to Reply #3
16. There's no question...
"The only question is: will Obama and his administration stand up and fight for popular and rational reforms? or will they go along to get along?"

Of course he will sell out! That's what he does. Hell, he already has.

New rule: The following words cannot be used in the same sentence as the word "Obama".

"stand-up"
"fight"
"reforms"

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zorra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-15-09 12:17 PM
Response to Original message
4. He's right, (as usual), and that is exactly why co-ops are being proposed.
So insurance companies can continue to rip us off with impunity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
harun Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-15-09 12:43 PM
Response to Reply #4
12. Dem's need to ask "What constituents are demanding Co-ops?" because
NO ONE is. It is from the lobbyists.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kenny blankenship Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-15-09 12:27 PM
Response to Original message
7. It's a compromise designed to defeat the whole purpose of healthcare reform
Edited on Mon Jun-15-09 12:43 PM by kenny blankenship
They tried to put it off altogether with some polite Republican idea of a "trigger" period, an interval during which govt. agrees to do nothing at all, while in exchange the insurance co.s dial back their greed temporarily. The net "benefit" to the American people of the trigger idea is to dissipate legislative will to reform the system, wait out the anger of the public, and cause the people to give up hope. And after the trigger period expires, the insurance corporations and their political monkeys go back to the business of juicing Americans as usual. But that is too brazen.

So now they're figuring out ways how to enact "reform" while making sure the reforms cannot work and bring discredit to the idea that these crushing problems have a political solution.

Mind you, these are the Democrats that are knifing healthcare reform in the crib. They may blame it on Republicans but the fact is that the Democrats could pass whatever plan they wanted to. It seems though that they only want to pass a plan that the Republicans will agree to, but Republicans are obdurate and cohesive. (They actually act like a party sometimes) Consequently the Democrats are limiting themselves to voting for a Republican plan, not a Democratic plan. You have to wonder why we vote for them.

Do not be deceived: there is no room to make a compromise here. Any successful national healthcare plan would negate and invalidate forever everything the Republican party believes in and everything it has promoted for one hundred years. National healthcare is the death of the Republican philosophy. They are facing extinction. Therefore they will never agree to any compromise that would have a snowball's chance to succeed in practice. However, you MUST pass a viable plan or the disasters it causes will spell the end of the Democratic Party; and no viable plan will pass except over the GOP's dead body.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lindisfarne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-15-09 12:31 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. The quick death of the "trigger" option shows that all of us sending faxes, sending emails *does*
make a difference. Keep it up, people. Tell your representatives in no uncertain terms that co-ops are UNACCEPTABLE.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MannyGoldstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-15-09 12:33 PM
Response to Original message
9. My Hero
The de facto leader of the Democratic wing of the Democratic party.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
harun Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-15-09 12:41 PM
Response to Original message
11. Another attempt to move the goal post, it will not work.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blasphemer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-15-09 01:03 PM
Response to Original message
14. If they had the votes... these compromises wouldn't be on the table
The GOP is not the problem - yeah, it wouldn't be "bipartisan" but if the Senate Dems were all on the same page, it wouldn't matter. If true reform fails, it will be because of the stranglehold the insurance lobby has on a good chunk of the Democratic party.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PassingFair Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-15-09 03:56 PM
Response to Reply #14
37. All we need is 51....
we have the votes.

We need the will of the
rank and file to PUSH the New Dems
into it.

They will be afraid to be on
the wrong side of this vote.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lydia Leftcoast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-16-09 11:59 AM
Response to Reply #37
54. Right--Obama needs to whip those Republican Lites into shape
I might actually start to admire him if he did that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PassingFair Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-16-09 12:07 PM
Response to Reply #54
55. Me too.
If the ONLY thing he accomplishes
is available health care to all,
without us having to become indigent,
he will be hailed as one of the
greatest presidents in history.

See Tommy Douglas, Canada's "Greatest Canadian"

snip> Douglas's most notable achievement, the introduction of universal medicare legislation in 1961.

Medicare

Douglas's number one concern was the creation of Medicare. In the summer of 1962, Saskatchewan became the centre of a hard-fought struggle between the provincial government, the North American medical establishment, and the province's physicians, who brought things to a halt with the 1962 Saskatchewan Doctors' Strike. The doctors believed their best interests were not being met and feared a significant loss of income as well as government interference in medical care decisions even though Douglas agreed that his government would pay the going rate for service that doctors charged. The medical establishment claimed that Douglas would import foreign doctors to make his plan work and used racist images to try to scare the public. Their defenders have also argued that private or government medical insurance plans covered 60 to 63 percent of the Saskatchewan population before Medicare legislation was introduced.

An often forgotten political fact is that though Douglas is widely hailed as the father of Medicare, he had retired from his position as Saskatchewan's premier, turned over this job in 1961 to Woodrow Lloyd and took the leadership of the federal New Democratic Party.

The Saskatchewan program was finally launched by his successor, Woodrow Lloyd, in 1962. The success of the province's public health care program was not lost on the federal government. Another Saskatchewan politician, newly elected Prime Minister John Diefenbaker, decreed in 1958 that any province seeking to introduce a hospital plan would receive 50 cents on the dollar from the federal government. In 1962, Diefenbaker appointed Justice Emmett Hallalso of Saskatchewan, a noted jurist and Supreme Court Justiceto Chair a Royal Commission on the national health system - the Royal Commission on Health Services. In 1964, Justice Hall recommended the nationwide adoption of Saskatchewan's model of public health insurance. In 1966, the Liberal minority government of Lester B. Pearson created such a program, with the federal government paying 50% of the costs and the provinces the other half.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lydia Leftcoast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-16-09 12:50 PM
Response to Reply #55
56. I remember being in Canada one summer as a kid when the health plan was being debated
My memories are vague, but I distinctly remember that some doctors actually refused to treat patients at all in protest of the plan. This backfired when people died of curable causes due to lack of care because the one doctor in their small town was "on strike."

At least that's how I remember the newspaper articles I read while we were vacationing in Canada. (I've been reading the paper daily since I was about 10.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PassingFair Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-16-09 01:03 PM
Response to Reply #56
57. My cousin in Australia told me that the doctors threatened to
...strike there when National Health Care was
adopted.

He said that the government's response was to
threaten to fling open Med School enrollment and forgive
loans to new doctors.

The doctors backed down pretty quickly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quidam56 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-15-09 01:04 PM
Response to Original message
15. We must have health care reform this year,
In East Tennessee and southwest Virginia, I have seen what is deemed, defended and supported as "the acceptable standards of health care" http://www.wisecountyissues.com/?p=62 Clearly PROFIT CARE is more important than PATIENT CARE. How many more will die thanks to the greed and mislead health care system we have now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dflprincess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-15-09 04:43 PM
Response to Reply #15
42. It isn't the health care system that's the problem,
it's the health insurance system that's killing people. Better that Congress not slam some half assed bill through this year (remember the Patriot Act?) but go slowly and do it right.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenTea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-15-09 01:07 PM
Response to Original message
17. Co-ops are a joke-Insurance corporations will say & do anything as long as there's no public option
Edited on Mon Jun-15-09 01:28 PM by GreenTea
This is such slime offered by the paid off "democratic" senator from North Dakota, Kent Conrad..(And democratic sell-out Byron Dorgan is no better).

Of course the republicans & the insurance companies want it...the insurance companies will be able to control the co-ops in no time, if we allow this bullshit smokescreen to occur.

The slimy insurance companies want no public competition and that's what the corporate republicans (and obviously paid off slimy democrats)have been shooting down and lying about since FDR and this co-op bullshit is just another attempt to lie to the public and keep the insurance companies steal our money with no competition.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
newtothegame Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-15-09 01:52 PM
Response to Original message
20. I don't get it...we claim the problem with private companies is 30% overhead...
so how exactly would they undercut co-ops?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kenny blankenship Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-15-09 02:04 PM
Response to Reply #20
21. The co-ops would be small and fragmented, replicating the ins. co.s administrative costs
Edited on Mon Jun-15-09 02:49 PM by kenny blankenship
The co-ops would also, by the same token, be unable to negotiate prices with pharma companies from strength. A national healthcare program would negotiate prices with drug companies and be able to get volume discounts. That's how it's done in all other countries with viable national health plans.

Duplicating the adminstrative overhead, emasculating the negotiating power -- a stab in the gut and a coup de grace to the neck for public healthcare.

Aside from being "Set Up To FAIL", the other attraction of co-ops for Republican crooks and their Democratic enablers is that public healthcare stays out of the public sphere, remains outside of government responsibility.
When it fails as intended, they will all shrug their shoulders and say But of course only pirate enterprise can do these things (don't look north to Canada, forget about Europe). If on the other hand, the public healthcare option starts out as a GOVERNMENT program, then the government are responsible for seeing that it works. When the govt does something it is assumed usually that the govt does this because it MUST do this. It becomes a permanent responsibility. It is an obligation of the social to the individual -- part of the social compact. So if there were to be a national public option (aka gummint run healtcare) and if the initial plan for that is flawed either by accident or design, it will then be their job to fix it and to finally deliver a REAL plan. If they blew off that responsibility they would be turned out of office en masse. If on the other hand "public healthcare" is kept out of the government but merely operates as a bunch of non-profit co-ops with govt. blessing, our honorable elected representatives will just wash their hands of it when it fails. There will be a lot of blood to wash off but they don't mind.

In trying to find other entities to bear responsibility, they are trying to avoid having to do it right, because a working public option is the end of the gravytrain for insurance corporations, who are their patrons. And they will do or say anything to avoid establishing the idea that healthcare is a RIGHT.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LiberalLovinLug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-15-09 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #20
24. Also
If one or two co-ops became popular and started growing, the large national IC would target them with reduced rate deals in the same geographical area, much like a large department store in a community can undercut a smaller successful mom and pop operation, with loss leaders etc. because they have a large national pool of resources to keep them afloat until the mom and pop goes under, then they raise prices again to the national stores level and carry on with business as "usual".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Romulox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-15-09 03:38 PM
Response to Reply #20
34. The government is proposing to give the big boys a virtual monopoly of captive buyers
That immediately privileges the big guys over everyone else (and many of these having been recently bailed out, either directly or through intermediaries!)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PSPS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-15-09 08:43 PM
Response to Reply #20
44. "Co-ops" are designed to be too small to work. That's why private insurers will "settle" for them.
The whole idea of insurance is "pooled risk." The smaller the pool, the higher the cost.

Insurance companies want to keep any potential pool in any "public option" as small as possible because they know they can undercut them with the advantage of their larger national pool. Plus they can run operations in one pool's area at a loss if they have to, subsidized by gouging in other markets, to drive it out of business.

The single payer option is the only rational choice. The pool would be so large that costs would be reduced dramatically -- at least by half. The additional income taxes needed to fund such a system would be much less than what people pay today for their private medical insurance.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Deep13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-15-09 02:25 PM
Response to Original message
25. The House and POTUS are insisting on a real public option.
So this isn't even a complete political solution.

I was talking to a House member over the weekend who said anything without a real public option is not a real reform. He or she expressed frustration that one Senator is holding up the works.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
harun Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-15-09 04:16 PM
Response to Reply #25
40. I still have hope with the House. There are members who will go apesh*t
if a public option is abandoned or watered down.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dysfunctional press Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-15-09 02:53 PM
Response to Original message
27. 
wanna bet?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
indimuse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-15-09 03:03 PM
Response to Original message
28. knr...
To the Heavens!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-15-09 03:34 PM
Response to Original message
30. Thank you Howard Dean -
that statement justifies my contribution to DFA.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ejpoeta Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-15-09 03:36 PM
Response to Original message
32. we need everyone in one big pool. That is the only way it works.
and the people against a public option know that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Romulox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-15-09 03:37 PM
Response to Original message
33. Earth to Howard Dean: Neither will mandatory for-profit insurance. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-15-09 03:52 PM
Response to Reply #33
35. Public option isn't the same thing as for-profit is it?
Edited on Mon Jun-15-09 03:52 PM by redqueen
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Romulox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-15-09 03:54 PM
Response to Reply #35
36. It's not clear if there is even going to be a public option.
If there is one, Nancy Pelosi wants to make sure it doesn't have any "unfair" competition with the for-profit giants who are being granted a monopoly. So it will indeed amount to much the same thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lindisfarne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-16-09 10:07 AM
Response to Reply #36
48. Let your representatives know you want a national public option - NOT a Cooperative. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slipslidingaway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-15-09 04:43 PM
Response to Reply #35
41. We will subsidize both private and public plans...
Edited on Mon Jun-15-09 04:44 PM by slipslidingaway
Ex-Governors at the AHIP Convention...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

"What the president is proposing to do is say, if you like what you have, you can keep it. If you're comfortable with the private insurance market, you can keep it. Not only that, but we'll help you buy it. There will be a government subsidy based on your income, particularly helpful to small businesses, that you will receive to buy healthcare in the private market," Dean said. "But you will also have a choice of buying into a public plans such as Medicare or some other public plan. And I'm one of the few defenders of that in this room."

"Now I know people in this room, in this industry, are very, very fearful," he said. "This is the center of opposition."

He looked at the rows of representatives of Aetna, Blue Cross, and dozens of other companies assembled and said, "Your living is at stake here. But I don't think it's going to be as tough as you think it is."

:shrug:


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jackpine Radical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-15-09 04:01 PM
Response to Original message
38. We only have the votes if a bunch of pseudo-Democrats start acting
like REAL Democrats.

I just thought of a really gross fate that I momentarily wished on Sen. Baucus. I'm sparing myself the mind-trip of writing it, and you the mind-trip of reading it. Be grateful.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kingofalldems Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-15-09 08:47 PM
Response to Original message
45. Fake Democrat(s) on this board spouting the GOP line
Edited on Mon Jun-15-09 08:56 PM by Kingofalldems
Happens every time we try to get something done. I trust Dr. Dean, thanks for posting. K and R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire_Medic_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-15-09 08:52 PM
Response to Original message
46. If we have the votes then do it already. Oh wait that's right we don't have the votes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kingofalldems Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-15-09 09:06 PM
Response to Original message
47. 33 recs for this thread so far----fantastic
Edited on Mon Jun-15-09 09:07 PM by Kingofalldems
On the other hand, disruptor thread has 0 (zero) recs. Yesss!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
colsohlibgal Donating Member (670 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-16-09 10:54 AM
Response to Original message
49. Off The Chart Lame
I'm surprised Conrad stooped to this level to try to save his benefactors. This is a prime example of why we need public financing of elections. Until that happens we will have senators who consistently vote against the public interest because of what essentially is bribery.





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lindisfarne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-16-09 11:16 AM
Response to Reply #49
51. The crazy thing is - Conrad really doesn't get much benefit (at least comparatively) from the
insurance industry. And many of his constituents are rural, who are paying disproportionately high rates for individual or small group policies. Another recent study showed that rural states are also disproportionately paying higher rates because of lack of competition in their markets.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lindisfarne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-16-09 11:53 AM
Response to Reply #51
53. You'd think we could easily educate Conrad's constituents - there aren't all that many of them! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rurallib Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-16-09 11:12 AM
Response to Original message
50. Co-ops are little more than HMOs - look what happened to them
Let me steal a line from DKos' front page:

ecthompson:

Maybe I've missed something, that's possible I've been working very hard lately (I'm a trauma surgeon). Could it be possible that the goals of healthcare reform have changed? I thought the purpose of healthcare reform was twofold -- first, to improve healthcare and secondly, to decrease health care costs. Currently we're spending $2.2 trillion in healthcare per year. Approximately 1/3 of expenses are eaten up by insurance companies. So, if you do the math and a limiting health insurance companies you have approximate $700 billion. This should cover the 46 million Americans who are currently uninsured.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Iwillnevergiveup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-16-09 11:24 AM
Response to Original message
52. Rec #44
And a :kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
justinaforjustice Donating Member (519 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-22-09 04:58 PM
Response to Original message
58. We Already Have a Cooperative -- with Terrible Leadership!
If a private health care cooperative were massive enough, it might be able to negotiate with insurers or become an insurer itself, but we already have a potentially gigantic cooperative -- its called the population of the United States, already signed up through the IRS, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. The problem is that the leadership of our national cooperative - the U.S. Congress-- has shown itself to be totally reactionary about providing health care to all its members. We need to replace all those reactionary members and make Congress pass a government-payer bill with health care for all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
New Dawn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-22-09 06:09 PM
Response to Original message
59. Kick.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vidar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-23-09 09:39 AM
Response to Original message
60. Thank you, Howard.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Jul 27th 2017, 08:22 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC