
An influential progressive in the House of Representatives says that the public option compromise taking shape in the Senate might not survive the lower chamber--particularly if the Senate tries to jam its health care bill through the House.
In an interview this afternoon, Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) said he met with the Congressional Progressive Caucus' health care task force yesterday and they all agreed. "There is consensus within the progressive caucus," Grijalva said. "Personally I'm in agreement with them. I don't think very much of it."
"We're questioning whether you can define [what's coming out of the Senate] as a robust PO, and we don't think you can," he told me.
"There's rumors that we will skip conference--that we won't do conference--and bring their bill directly to the floor, and we are very, very opposed to that," Grijalva said.
At her press conference this morning, I asked Speaker Nancy Pelosi how much of a chance there is that the Senate will "ping pong" its bill over to the House. Her response was emphatic, but not definitive. "Not much," she answered. "We would like to see a full conference." But she didn't rule it out entirely.
Grijalva says if he and other House progressives are faced with a straight vote on the Senate bill, they'll likely defect. "It would be very difficult, if not impossible, to vote yes."
That said, Grijalva says he's going to wait and see the explicit details of the compromise, and read what the CBO has to say about it, before taking any concrete steps, including whipping votes.
After all, maybe the CBO will come back with a surprising report. "That consideration's always there--a member said 'if you don't want to call it a public option in the Senate, [but if it does what the public option does] we'd consider that,'" Grijalva said. "But are we ready to count heads on whether you're a no vote or a yes vote...at this point it would probably be premature."
Indie Pro
December 10, 2009 5:19 PM
maybe it's time to give up the 60 vote dream in the senate, and look to simple majority alternatives that'll work best for the people and democrats in the end!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
December 10, 2009 7:17 PM in reply to Indie Pro
I hope if they resort to reconciliation they throw every fucking progressive amendment back on this bill. Medicare +5%, prepopulate the public plan, any provider that accepts Medicare has to accept the public option, repeal McCarran-Ferguson, etc. etc.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
allouchsit
December 11, 2009 8:45 AM in reply to Tanjaoui
You clearly do not understand how reconciliation works. If they go that route not much of this 2000 page bill will actually remain, let alone any progressive amendments. Time to study up before opening your mouth.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
December 11, 2009 10:53 AM in reply to allouchsit
as if that is the only alernative, but while some aspects of the bill may need to be passed in a separate measure, many of the progressive measures do effect the budget positively, like the publis option.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
December 11, 2009 11:00 AM in reply to Tanjaoui
one part of this latest compromise is that whole exchange within the exchange, OPM-regulated national non-profit provider model well, OPM falls under the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, which Lieberman chairs.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/12/10/812887/-Lieberman-in-Charge-of-Oversight-of-Healthcare-Exchange
and as Plumline notes, according to recent polls, more people are in favor of the public option than the senate's bill.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
December 11, 2009 12:14 PM in reply to Indie Pro
and
A loophole in the Senate health care bill would let insurers place annual dollar limits on medical care for people struggling with costly illnesses such as cancer, prompting a rebuke from patient advocates.
The legislation that originally passed the Senate health committee last summer would have banned such limits, but a tweak to that provision weakened it in the bill now moving toward a Senate vote.
As currently written, the Senate Democratic health care bill would permit insurance companies to place annual limits on the dollar value of medical care, as long as those limits are not “unreasonable.” The bill does not define what level of limits would be allowable, delegating that task to administration officials.
Adding to the puzzle, the new language was quietly tucked away in a clause in the bill still captioned “No lifetime or annual limits.”
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iY4N1OnmEl-p6kEdB_ROs6toazbQD9CH3T100
what someone should be asking is why are so many supposed liberal outlets like Ezra Klein and Salon pushing lies about deals that are not there about policies that don't do what they say?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
December 11, 2009 12:15 PM in reply to Indie Pro
liberals and progressives are the only ones fighting for the people
everyone else is fighting for an election or big business
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
brewmn61
December 11, 2009 11:03 AM in reply to Indie Pro
Thank you for acknowledging that the fault might not be all Obama's. The Senate is a broken, anachronistic institution, and in a better world, Americans would agree to reduce it to a largely ceremonial body, like the British did.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
December 11, 2009 11:08 AM in reply to brewmn61
the fault is not all Obama's.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mcc
December 10, 2009 5:28 PM
Okay, sounds good, but before the House vote Grijalva and the CPC also said they'd vote against a bill that moved the public option to "negotiated rates", and when the bill finally came up they voted for it anyway. Is there anything to make us think the threats are for real this time?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
marklouis
December 10, 2009 5:33 PM
Another idiot. Thanks for nothing Raul. At least you've got yours.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Maritza
December 10, 2009 5:51 PM
Some how I don't believe him. They will cave because this is the only way we are going to get health care passed.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
December 10, 2009 6:10 PM in reply to Maritza
It's insurance care.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
December 10, 2009 6:19 PM
Chris Bower's onboard. Weiner says it's good. Dean's okay. Bernie Sanders is acting like the cat who ate the canary. Lieberman is being a prick about it, so one might think there's at least some reason to say this deal isn't the most awfulest thing ever done by Congress. But, hey, unless and until this guy I never even fucking heard of before until he became Mr. Public Option signs off, it must still be evil.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Ken Riley
December 11, 2009 12:03 AM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
I completely agree.
When the story initially broke that the PO was dead in the Senate, I was furious. But, the more I've read, the more convinced I've become that this deal was one simply crafted to remove the phrase "Public Option" from the debate.
Expansion of Medicare has been the right way to go from the beginning since it moves us towards single-payer. If we can get this bill passed, we can start chipping away at the age limit until there is none. Major tactical victory that only cost us a phrase that's become too heavily loaded on both the left and right to bear the weight of its increasingly marginal significance.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Paul Brand
December 11, 2009 8:05 AM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
Thank you.
This is a non-story, entirely unworthy of TPM "headline" status---but I'll forgive that because it offered occasion for your hilariously dead-on comment.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
December 11, 2009 11:01 AM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
this guy I never even fucking heard of
not much of progressive or liberal I see
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
des
December 10, 2009 6:44 PM
And the award for the Best Lead-in to Snark goes to:
The Commentator Formerly Lnown as NCSteve!
Congratulations!
ps: I liked it! I really liked it!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
December 10, 2009 7:13 PM
Unless this is more kabuki (a distinct possibility), it's nice to know all the pressure isn't coming from the so-called centrists (market theory fundamentalists) from Arkansas, Maine and Louisiana.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
David Dunham
December 10, 2009 7:18 PM
He may vote against it but the rest of the House Dems will vote to pass it with the compromise in it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
synchronicity
December 10, 2009 7:21 PM
So far I don't see where they filled the whole in the middle i.e. under 55 over 130%(or whatever the percentage is)poverty level...so business and everyone else???
Wyden has a bi-partisan amendment with a republican senator Collins to increase choice that sounds interesting.
Bottom line if they don't increase choice and reduce costs...
the must remove the mandate.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
nova voter
December 10, 2009 8:05 PM in reply to synchronicity
the middle gets the nonprofit exchange administered by the federal government. and as a federal employee in FEHB (paying for for-profit insurance coverage in a smaller risk pool, at that), i can tell you it ain't half bad.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
calchala
December 10, 2009 7:24 PM
Kucinich is on board. That's HUGE! And no one has threatened to fillibuster...yet....But still so far so good.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Weeferdog
December 10, 2009 7:37 PM
The bottom line is this: all Republicans are compassion-free, soulless, corporate whores. ALL OF THEM, those in government and those trolling here. About 10-20 percent of the Democrats are. The rest are not willing to stand by while thousands die and millions suffer. So they will, in the end, 'give in' to pass some incremental bill. The other side couldn't give less of a shit, so if the whole thing implodes, so what?
Weeferdog
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ilovebacon
December 10, 2009 7:50 PM
Great new article by the prescient doctor/writer Atul Gawande, in this week's New Yorker. It's too long to summarize, but Howard Dean and Obama have in the past quoted from his articles. He compares the current state of health insurance to agriculture in 1900. I highly recommend it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
brewmn61
December 11, 2009 11:09 AM in reply to ilovebacon
His earlier one on a poor, rural Texas County, which also happened to have one of the highest Medicare reimbursement rates in the country, is also a must-read.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ilovebacon
December 11, 2009 6:53 PM in reply to brewmn61
That one was great. Howard Dean and Obama quoted from it. Really shows the haphazard nature of our medical system.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
nova voter
December 10, 2009 8:02 PM
great idea, grajouliujlkjoijsh!!! as stated above, many of the most established progressive minds on capitol hill are, if not amped about it, seemingly satisfied with the senate bill. but grajmkkoiiskmdk is going to threaten to kill it in the name of progressivenessicity. insurance companies will continue to rescind coverage from, and deny coverage to, the sick. the number of uninsured will grow. all because grajiiiikklonni didn't get a "public option." what a doofus.
maybe his stupidity will dawn on him when he gets the thank you note from limbaugh, mcconnell, boehner.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
nova voter
December 10, 2009 8:04 PM
the middle gets the nonprofit exchange administered by the federal government. and as a federal employee in FEHB (paying for for-profit insurance coverage in a smaller risk pool, at that), i can tell you it ain't half bad.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
nova voter
December 10, 2009 8:05 PM in reply to nova voter
crap. was meant to be in response to a post above. reposted in the correct place.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
atticus1104
December 10, 2009 8:06 PM
Here is a great "Open Letter" to President Obama. Pass it on, and maybe he will wake up and read it some day.
http://progressnotcongress.org/?p=3395
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Maritza
December 10, 2009 8:36 PM
Pelosi likes the medicare buy-in.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cwnidog
December 10, 2009 9:03 PM in reply to Maritza
Hell, I'm 54 and have to buy my own insurance. I really like the Medicare buy-in. It's not cheap, but individual coverage is over $600/ month, which is a horse-choker.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JadeZ
December 10, 2009 9:11 PM
lol
still arguing over stuff that doesnt matter.
you have a bill that forces people to buy insurance and does NOTHING to contain cost.
and that all you have...........
i look forward to watching the democrats get blown out of office.
remember this, this bill was all democrats fighting with themselves to do corporate interests biding.
they have not fooled anyone.......
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
December 11, 2009 7:33 AM in reply to JadeZ
And you tip your hand a little too much...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ilovebacon
December 10, 2009 9:18 PM
You ignorami who complain that the bill will do nothing to contain cost are naive and uneducated. Read Atul Gawande's New Yorker article (this week's) and then come back. It's amazing how cocky the uninformed are.
And to think that there are some people (see ignoramus JadeZ above) who long for the days of a GOP congress. That's why this is in shambles. EIGHT YEARS OF DUBYA AND DICK!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Scott in PacNW
December 11, 2009 2:05 AM in reply to ilovebacon
Gawande's analogy of medicine in 2009 with agriculture in 1900 is not valid. First, medicine is not a commodity as crops are. Second, we have no analogous thing as a tractor (which Gawande somehow never mentions) coming along to exponentially reduce the cost of health care.
It'll be 2013 before these exchanges are open. Insurance companies will have 4 years to jack up rates at will -- just like the credit card companies have done over the last six months -- before we get there. And the GOP will have two election cycles to do their worst in the meantime.
I don't feel very naive making these points.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ilovebacon
December 11, 2009 10:17 AM in reply to Scott in PacNW
"Gawande's analogy of medicine in 2009 with agriculture in 1900 is not valid." He notes the obvious differences between agriculture and health care, but emphasizes the fragmented nature of both industries. When you have no cooperation, coordination, and communication, inefficiency is the norm.
"It'll be 2013 before these exchanges are open." Many parts of the policy are intended to kick in before 2013. But it's becoming increasingly obvious that the sooner the better for implementation.
"Insurance companies will have 4 years to jack up rates at will -- just like the credit card companies have done over the last six months -- before we get there." Precisely. I just got a letter from BCBS informing me that my insurance will "only" go up 15% this next year. Only?! I am self-employed and know well that 800 per month for lousy coverage is untenable. I hate to see what it will be in 5, 10 years if nothing clamps down. A landlord can only raise rent 3% per year in NJ, yet insurance companies have no caps. Why?!
"And the GOP will have two election cycles to do their worst in the meantime." Which is why Democrats must move to implement whatever passes right away.
"I don't feel very naive making these points." Not naive at all. The asinine people who shout "govrnment takeover" and "obamacare socialism nazi partyism" are the naive ones.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Scott in PacNW
December 11, 2009 11:31 AM in reply to ilovebacon
Well, I hope you're right bro. I'm not crazy about the bill, but it is absolutely a step in the right direction.
I just see a lot of risk in the pretty big gap between the need, the promise and its Rube Goldberg-like content.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ilovebacon
December 10, 2009 9:20 PM
Read the writing on the wall--Health Care Reform WILL pass soon. It may not be great, but it is historical and a huge accomplishment for Democrats (which is why Repubs are desperately trying to stall).
Bicker all you want. It doesn't change the fact that whatever HCR bill that Obama signs will be as significant as the inception of Social Security.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
allouchsit
December 11, 2009 8:48 AM in reply to ilovebacon
Even if either of the bills currently under consideration were to pass, it would be struck down as unconstitutional. http://www.heritage.org/Research/LegalIssues/lm0049.cfm A complete waste of time.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ilovebacon
December 11, 2009 10:09 AM in reply to allouchsit
Faux intellectual gibberish from Heritage. Well, what does one expect.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hoppycalif2
December 10, 2009 9:58 PM
I'm not from Arizona, but by happy coincidence I spent some time at a lunch talking with Raul Grijalva a few years ago. Any disrespect shown him is not justified. If you are a liberal Democrat Raul is your man. Of course if your only tie to the Democratic Party is through Obama, and you can take or leave any other Democrat, then I can see why you wouldn't want to hear what he is saying.
If this Senate bill passes as is proposed now, the health insurance industry will have been give a Christmas present to die for - and numerous Americans will do just that. Can you even imagine a bill being passed that would require every American to purchase a new car? This bill requires that we all hand over what ever the monopoly insurance company serving our area asks for, or face a tax penalty. In return we get what we had before the bill passed, but with one more promise that we won't be stuck with "pre-existing condition" crap, and wont be kicked out for having the gall to actually use the insurance. Sometime in the future, unless the Repubs gain control of Congress, we might possibly find a way to buy insurance from someone other than the monopoly insurance company in our area.
I didn't use to believe in Santa Claus, but now I see if you are a health insurance executive or stock holder, Santa Claus is actually the US Congress.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
NYCBlaine
December 11, 2009 10:18 AM in reply to hoppycalif2
Um, while there isn't a law requiring us to purchase a car, there are laws requiring us to purchase car insurance.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hoppycalif2
December 11, 2009 11:01 AM in reply to NYCBlaine
Not true. Only if you choose to drive do you have to have automobile liability insurance, to cover people you damage by driving. Most New York city residents don't have to have automobile insurance. Health care insurance will be required to be purchased by everyone, without exceptions. And, there are literally dozens of companies selling automobile insurance, competing vigorously, but almost no competition in health care insurance, with many states having a single company selling it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Kevin Sutton
December 10, 2009 11:57 PM
I really don't see any political advantage in progressives jumping all over the new compromise before they know the details and before any of the holdouts in the Senate have promised to vote for it. What is there to be gained? A few commenters were upset earlier at Weiner for talking it up so much because it might screw the deal.
Grijalva trying be hard to get isn't a bad thing, because he's pushing for a better deal. Actually blocking a good deal might be bad, but that hasn't happened.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hoppycalif2
December 11, 2009 12:19 AM in reply to Kevin Sutton
A good deal for health insurance companies isn't what Congress is supposed to be working on. At this point I don't see they putting much effort on anything else. Considering that there very likely are 50 senators ready to vote for what would really be a good deal for citizens, all of this bowing to the insurance companies just to avoid ticking off the Repubs and Blue Dogs is very unproductive. Harry Reid needs to give up on 60 volts and take the budget reconciliation route, but add to the bill repealing the anti-trust exemption, and either a public option that takes effect in 2 years or a scheduled step by step lowering of the Medicare eligibility age to zero within 4 years at most. I think the House would accept such a bill once the senate passes it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
December 11, 2009 7:35 AM in reply to Kevin Sutton
This is a good point. Progressives publicly opposing the deal actually increases its chance of passing.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
merlot
December 11, 2009 12:39 AM
Thanks to Grijalva, progressive voices are identified with lunacy... and for good reason. Raul is but one of the brain-dead generation of progressives not unlike the Palinites and "hoppycal" crowd. Obama has called serious progressives to be serious people with working brains in the 21st century as it is time to give up smoking 420 24/7. Grijalva & Joe Lieberman are of the same stripe: assholes without critical thinking abilities, the enemies of the good. The comments posted here by old, drug-addled, brainless 60's "progressives" demonstrate who is the enemy of 21st century progress in this country. If you haven't been told, the fact is that the day of old hippies is over... btw, I am an old hippy... but, I had a good graces to grow up. Obama belongs to the 21st century and not the 1960s... and he has led us into the new century. If you want to live in the 1960s, stick with GWB because he had more going for him than you will ever have.... in other words, it's time to cut off your pony tails and grow up.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
nova voter
December 11, 2009 7:26 AM in reply to merlot
EXCELLENT post.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
December 11, 2009 9:01 AM in reply to nova voter
Excellent post?
Excellent post? Really?
This is nasty drivel that could well have been written -- and probably is, every day -- at Right Wing blogs. The progressive spirit that animated the 60s is what must be re-kindled in this nation. Yes, it must be modified for a new time and it must be pressed by more mature people, but that it is hardly reason to ridicule those who tried so hard to get this country moving in the right direction only to be squashed by the reactionary Conservative movement. The people in the 60s may not have had the right answers but they asked the right questions and that is a start. It is easy to claim the mantle of realism while compromising away everything that matters.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
brewmn61
December 11, 2009 11:28 AM in reply to wbgonne
Yeah, I thought it was awful heavy on the anti-hippy ad hominem.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
nova voter
December 11, 2009 4:11 PM in reply to wbgonne
he's talking about YOU. of COURSE you're offended by it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
December 11, 2009 5:53 PM in reply to nova voter
Offended? No. Morons don't offend me. But unlike you, I certainly don't praise them.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
December 11, 2009 5:57 PM in reply to nova voter
You are obviously an insurance company shill. No Health Insurance Company Left Behind instead of health care reform. Good work. Turd.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
December 11, 2009 11:10 AM in reply to merlot
I hope progressives and liberals hear and believe this is how the democratic party feels. I sincerely do.
you can have your DLC, conservative democratic party.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Godwhacker
December 11, 2009 7:39 AM
I understand why progressives are upset, but at this point there is a lot to be happy about. For the first time in our history, the working poor will have access to health insurance. Add in the rule that says 90% of premiums must go for health care, and the end of 'pre-existing conditions' and this bill is a huge step forward for social justice.
If health care costs continue to soar, the public option will be a much easier sell next time around because it will be the state going broke paying for them.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
December 11, 2009 8:50 AM
This is just great. Commenters at a Progressive website bashing the House Progressive leader for . . . being progressive. If not for Grijalva and the House Progressive caucus the public option would have been dead months ago and the HCR bill wouldn't even pretend to care about anything other than insurance companies.
Please stop and think about this. We Progressives are just like whipped dogs, snarling and turning on ourselves instead of those who insult and abuse us. How about some pride in what we believe?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Silence
December 11, 2009 9:01 AM in reply to wbgonne
And, that would be what? Communism?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
December 11, 2009 9:03 AM in reply to Silence
Communism? WTF?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Silence
December 11, 2009 8:53 AM
You folks can sit around hoping some bureaucrat in DC will find your sad little life viable enough to save with your own money.
I've been doing some research. Medical tourism has great potential. Of course, no one wants to travel very far from home for medical care. However, if this dung heap of a bill passes, some enterprising organization will take it to a whole new level.
Medical cruise ships. Why not extend that vacation a few extra days and get full medical care on board? That's right. Forget the long lines, illegals and rationing. All testing is done right on board, and if a problem is found, it's treated immediately by top docs in a state of the art surgical center, cancer treatment deck, or rehab center. Final recovery takes place on the Lido deck with a nice Pina Colada.
There are some real benefits to operating a top notch hospital in international waters. The docs would certainly fair better financially. Customers would pay cash for services and cabins just as they would for any cruise vacation. Insurance policies for major medical procedures would be sold exclusively by American Express.
Just a few miles off the coast, a whole new medical industry is just waiting to be born.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?