This isn't ideal, but frankly the fact that she intends on proposing the amendment is without a doubt a good sign.

What's the appeal of a trigger? Is it just supposed to appease those who believe in magic market faeries? Or is it some sort of way of pretending to do something while leaving the insurance industry to run rampant.

It seems like there's really no way to design a trigger that wouldn't trigger immediately given how screwed up our system is now, or alternatively wouldn't ever trigger if it's built by those who like the current system.

It seems like there's really no way to design a trigger that wouldn't trigger immediately given how screwed up our system is now, or alternatively wouldn't ever trigger if it's built by those who like the current system.

Bingo.

There are a couple of really political curiousities about the situation as it is now, however.

As between a Finance bill with toothless co-ops and a bill with a triggered public option (with or without toothless co-ops), the latter would be more liberal. And it would be Snowe, nominally a Republican, making a bill written by a guy who's nominally a Democrat, it more liberal, especially given that she's advocating more generous subsidies. Stuff like that was common in the 1960s, but today, It makes my head ache to just tocontemplate it.

Second, when leadership starts blending the Finance and HELP bills, the difference between a bill with a public option and one with a triggered public option is a lot narrower than between bills with and without a public option.

Arguably, the middle ground between a public option and no public option is a triggered public option. However, the middle ground between a public option and a triggered public option--whatever it turns out to be--is a hell of a lot more likely to be something progressives can stomach, if only grudgingly while holding their noses.

I don't want her to support the Baucus bill. I prefer reconciliation.

My problem with a trigger is that when you set some metrics for the Health Care Industry to hit and a certain amount of time to hit them they will simply focus their top lawyers and analysts on the case and figure out how they can game the system. Something like this is always going to be somewhat subjective in evaluating and therefore since we know that the Health Care Industry is failing us miserably, on purpose I might add; we should just go ahead and pull the trigger now.

Trigger or no trigger, that is the question.

I actually like this amendment for a few reasons:

1. It maintains the power of the states within the union -- and it doesn't impinge on states who already have efficient health care systems, i.e. Minnesota or Wisconsin,

2. It's being proposed by the "opposition", meaning that if it is included in the bill, the bill has a likelier chance of going through, and

3. A triggered public option of 95% may not seem like a lot, but if it is based on AGI of the population of a given state, then you can bet it will be effective enough to have insurance companies get in step with the national desire for a more affordable health care system

Am I wrong?

If I understand this right:

A trigger is a good thing if it gets triggered, right? I have every reason to believe it would be. Corporations are not built to think long term, they are only interested in tomorrow's profits. So they never choose the preventative steps over the immediately satisfying ones.

I'm thinking of several other examples. The music industry, which refused to budge on the CD format for years, despite the imminent dangers therein. Why? CD's were selling at Walmarts for 18 bucks!

Also, McCain's gas mileage bill on the early 2000's was dismissed with a "promise" from the car companies that they didn't need oversight, they would make the changes themselves. Obviously, that didn't happen, and they paid the long term price for it.

I think the Insurance companies will continue to price fix for as long as they can, and the trigger will have to be pulled. If so, it was a good thing...right?

Full public Option on a national scale. I don't trust a single one of these cowards to do the right thing by the middle and lower income groups who will end up shouldering the burdens of the final bill's provisions and mandates.

This seems like a brilliant way to ensure that tax payers in blue states have zero access to a public option while those same people are simultaneously paying to subsidize the tremendous lack of options one has in red state where zero steps are taken by the state to insure the people or allow for genuine competition.

We already know that states like Arkansas have 1 insurance provider available to the vast majority of their people. How will that system end under this Snowe Amendment - by allowing a public option, of course. Meanwhile, taxpayers in states like Oregon, where we have plenty of options yet 25% of the people have no insurance and many of them (even under these formulas) still won't be able to afford it, send our tax dollars off to give other states a public option. That's rather messed up!

The Federal Government should not be in the business of offering services to select states, especially when such selections, by design, reward the states who do the least amount of work policing corporations or encouraging competition.

It can't pass without Democratic support. ANy two democrats vote against it and it fails.