Carper: Lieberman And Snowe Have Been Very Constructive In Public Option Negotiations

All I can say is Corruption is Bliss! LOL

RT
www.be-anonymous.bg.tc

Not to be dense, but - If it gets that stuck, why can't they use reconciliation instead? And why can't they use the threat of reconciliation - and perhaps the more liberal bill that could emerge if only 51 senators had to vote for it - to push the blue dogs?

It's getting close to the time to let these Republicans masquerading as Democrats effectively sabotage this bill, and then actively recruit primary challengers against them, making their blatant corruption and disregard for the welfare of ordinary people Issue Number 1.

I suspect the "public option" is now dead, and the stench you smell is from its corpse. So, that opens the door to other options. I think there is great merit to expanding Medicare to age 55. Most of our serious medical bills occur after that age, so it does fill part of the need. But, along with that has to come the elimination of the subsidies to insurance companies provided for "medicare advantage", actually "insurance company advantage" policies. And, restrictions on the amount of health care insurance premium income to insurance companies that can go to other than providing health care. Kaiser spends less than 10% on non-health care, while the other insurance companies spend closer to 20% now. So, lets lump in anti-insurance company welfare acts with the health care bill, and reduce the age of eligibility to 55, as the price for dropping the public option.

without details, passing judgement on this expansion is pointless.

What about Collins (R-ME)? Now that the PO is being replaced, does that make her vote gettable? If so, Nelson wouldn't be needed and abortion would remain unchanged.

No corruption here. He's only taken in $452,586 from the insurance industry this cycle, its just a coincidence that he's trying to torpedo healthcare reform...

Why is tail of abortion wagging the dog of health care reform? Frankly, it's ridiculous. The President and Congress can easily allocate funds to abortion providers outside of the health care reform initiative, subject to later reconciliation.

Frankly, I'm fed up with this legislative nightmare. With a pro-reform President, a pro-reform Congress, and the plain fact of sky-rocketing health care prices, how on Earth have we ended up facing the stark reality that no meaningful reform will be enacted?

While I'd like to point the finger of blame at those who've fought against any significant reform of the health care system, they're in the minority (both in politics and in the electorate) and lack the practical power to derail anything. While I believe they have played a role in what appears to be the slow death of the current reform effort, I can't help but wonder if the approach taken by President Obama and the Congress is really to blame.

Countless opportunities were lost to engage the public in both finding and implementing appropriate solutions. The bully pulpit, which ought to have been the President's forte, seemed to be a complete afterthought. Sure, Obama campaigned on the public option, but we don't elect Presidents on the basis of regulatory proposals. To this day, I think that most Americans have no clue about what a public option really means, and how it might impact on their lives. When thousands of pages of competing bills were dropped into this education vacuum, there was opportunity aplenty for naysayers and critics to step in and control the discussion. And, as could have been predicted, boy did they ever. And because some of the issues they raised had some degree of merit, and the answers were often subtle, the din prevented calm, reasoned discussions. It's apparent to me that the political parties have now completely lost their credibility as honest brokers in this debate. They have been reduced to insult-slinging partisans who want to ram through a result -- pro or con -- and leave the American people to proceed on a wing and a prayer. I'm a regulatory lawyer (and a philosophy major with an emphasis on German existentialism), and I have a hard time getting my arms around what Congress is doing here. The more I dig, the less the "public option" seems to make sense, and the less confident I am in anyone making sense of the underlying medical, economic, and social dynamics that have led the United States to spending so much more than anyone else on health care while leaving so many people in the lurch.

What we need, more than ever, is a blue-ribbon, non-partisan commission that takes on reform afresh, and produces a report that answers key questions and gives a recommended solution -- which Congress needs to vote "up or down" on (much like the base closing commission which finally ended the political stalemate on military base decommissioning). We need the commission to reliably answer basic questions free of partisan politics:

(1) Why are US health care prices skyrocketing? And how do we stop that surge? Doctors and hospital administrators that I know point to underfunding of health care costs by Medicare and Medicaid as driving up prices (to shift those costs to private insurers). Others point to gouging and inappropriate spending (and salaries) by hospitals, doctors, and insurance companies. What is the truth? Why does it cost $7,000 a night for a semi-private room? Or $150,000 for ten days worth of medications?

(2) How does increasing competition in the insurance market affect the rising prices of health care services? Just how far can insurance premiums be reduced if health care prices continue on a rapid, upward trajectory?

(3) Why are health care premiums so expensive? How will they be affected if insurance provides are required to cover pre-existing conditions and persons at high risk of expensive treatment?

(4) How good (or bad) are the health care systems in other nations, including Canada, France, Great Britain, and Denmark? What can we learn for their experiences? How can those approaches be applied to our own health care system?

(5) Is the United States effectively subsidizing the health care systems in other countries? I've seen significant evidence that prescription drugs in other countries are inexpensive because drug companies foist the R&D costs on us. Is that true?

We don't have a clear, reliable source of answers to any of these questions, and, without that, we're basically flying blind as a nation.

I still think Nelson's a wimp. In the end, he will come back to the coop.

Here's an analogy, maybe not a good one, but an anology nonetheless.

If over a period of time a man pursued a certain woman who he found attractive, and if during this pursuit that woman caused him much consternation and heartache before agreeing to marry him, then the man will not be able to enjoy his marriage to her
as much as he would like due to the resentment he might have over the difficult pursuit she put him through.

Some form of health care reform will probably pass, but I think there will be some boiling resentment in the Democratic Party that will linger against Nelson, Lieberman, and to a lesser degree, Lincoln, Landrieu, and Conrad.

Ben Nelson is way out of line here. If he doesn't like the bill he should vote against it. But to screw your own party on one of their key issues is traitorous and wrong.

Senator Ben Nelson never criticizes a single Republican idea! Not one! Can anyone name one Republican idea he has criticized, let alone stopped from coming to a vote?

Time for the Dems to punish Nelson for being such an obstructionist ingrate.