TPMDC
Progressives Press Feingold To 'Fulfill' Obama's Health Care Promises
Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI)
Share
Send to a friend!
The Progressive Change Campaign Committee is running a new health care ad in Wisconsin pressuring Sen. Russ Feingold to fight President Obama on the public option.
PCCC members identified Feingold (D-WI) as a senator they would target to oppose the final health care compromise unless it includes a public option.
The new ad, which you can watch after the jump, says Feingold has the power to "fulfill" Obama's public option promise. The release was timed to coincide with an email to members saying the progressive senator could be a "hero" on improving the health care bill.
The ad, running in Madison, Green Bay, and Milwaukee, says "any final health care bill without a public option is not change we can believe in."
"The congratulations that Democrats are giving themselves in Washington DC are not shared by voters across the country who overwhelmingly want a public option and oppose being required to buy insurance from companies that put profit ahead of people's health," PCCC's Adam Green said. "Russ Feingold can be a hero at this historic moment by declaring that any final bill must have a public option to win his support. That would change the entire calculus in House-Senate negotiations and force President Obama to finally fight back against Joe Lieberman's threats -- something Russ Feingold himself has said the White House has failed to do."
Green said more than 40,000 people have signed a petition asking Feingold to take action and that $16,000 in donations has come in online to help run the ad. The group also is doing a robocall, starring self-employed Madison handyman Terry Kleinschmidt, to 10,000 Wisconsin voters per day.
They also are targeting Sens. Al Franken (D-MN), Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Sherrod Brown (D-OH).
Comments (48) | Join the Conversation!
Leave a comment
Follow us!
Most Popular
TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com
TPM Top News
© 2010 TPM Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
December 29, 2009 11:36 AM
Anyone else thinking about the Black Knight in "Monty Python and the Holy Grail?"
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
G3
December 29, 2009 4:55 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
More like the Parrot Sketch...eh's not dead...eh's stunned...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
shooter242
December 29, 2009 11:59 AM
This sort of pressure is why a healthcare bill isn't going to make it to Obama's desk. The left will include enough seriously objectionable provisions in the conference version that the Senate won't be able to vote for it.
Darn.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
condew
December 29, 2009 1:44 PM in reply to shooter242
Maybe it souldn't. Tell me what is in the bill that is worth the cost. Tell me why this is not yet another Republican-style bailout where we give an industry everything they want, and then trust them to do the right thing -- after we got where we are because they haven't done the right thing for at least 20 years.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
condew
December 29, 2009 12:10 PM
Hey, I'll compromise. I'll accept no Public option for now in return for no mandate and no funding taken from Medicare.
Then, in honor of Netanyahu's hopes to damage Obama and Lieberman's selling out, attach a piece of the House health care reforms to every piece of legislation that might benefit Israel or fund a war from now until it is all law.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Clearbrook
December 29, 2009 3:10 PM in reply to condew
I am with you there. Not that I am likely to aggee with you on everything you think the bill should be, but that way at least something would get done!
It could be amusing, at least.
Me, I'd settle for ripping out the Anti-Trust Exemptions that Private Health Insurance companies now have, open up markets by allowing competition across state lines, and dissallowing denial of coverage based upon preexisiting conditions. The last part would drive up costs, I know, and I am against driving up costs, but that is a moral issue to me, which trumps the cost...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
condew
December 29, 2009 3:22 PM in reply to Clearbrook
I'd also like a limit to how much of a "discount" doctors and hospitals can give insurance companies so that if I pay my own way it is not appreciably more expensive than what insurance would pay; then I might survive if I did not have insurance; I could point to my retirement savings and call it "self-insured". Right now, doctors and hospitals charge individuals 3 to 10 times the price insurance companies pay. My doctor bills $150 for an office visit, but accepts my $20 copay plus $30 from insurance = $50; but if insurance rejects the bill, he wants $150 from me, same as if I went to the doctor without insurance (if he would see me at all). I think the price should be $50 no matter who is paying. Insurance companies are evil, but doctors and hospitals are far from inocent. I can't "self-insure", and I don't see how a medical savings account could work if individuals pay 10 times the price insurance pays.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
December 29, 2009 4:51 PM in reply to Clearbrook
So, you're aware that the Senate bill allows competition across state lines by enabling out of state companies to participate on the exchanges and disallows the denial of coverage based upon preexisiting conditions, right?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
condew
December 29, 2009 5:14 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
The crucial question here is which state laws apply, the state the insurance company calls headquarters or the state where the buyer lives? If it is the sate the insurance company chooses, it will be a bad deal; an end run around all those states that have done a good job of regulating insurance. For example, Minnesota requires that 90% of premiums be spent on actual care. (In other states with little or no regulation, this can be 50%.) The health care bill was calling for 80% (85% for employer-sponsored plans). So, if you live in Minnesota and insurance can choose another state to operate from, you would see worse care (90% to 80%) and lose your insurance industry. Of course if you live in a state with lousy regulation, you'd see better care (from 50% to 80%) and insurance companies moving to your state.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
gharlane
December 30, 2009 7:39 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
The antitrust exemptions for this parasitic "industry", of course, remain in place. Crickets from NCStrawman on that count.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Icon
December 29, 2009 12:12 PM
It's wonderful to know the progressives want to kill the bill as much as conservatives.
Idiots.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
condew
December 29, 2009 1:49 PM in reply to Icon
I'd say the idiots are the ones that are all for this bill, when we don't even know what is in it yet -- we just know what won't be in it and that is bad enough. Just like Obama, all the supporters want is something labeled "Health Care Reform" to sign and call it a win. No matter the spin, we may find out it is a far cry from a win in 2010.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Icon
December 29, 2009 2:18 PM in reply to condew
It's true that we don't know the fates of certain minor provisions, but it's pretty much accepted that anything that was in both the Senate and House bills will be in the final bill.
There will be Medicaid expansion. There will be cuts to Medicare Advantage. The "doughnut hole" will be closed. Subsidies will be available for the poor to buy insurance. There will be an individual mandate. There will be state-by-state insurance exchanges.
That's the bulk of reform right there.
Really, the only big unresolved questions are on the matter of abortion and funding. Will the Nelson or Stupak language ultimately be agreed upon by the conference committee? Probably the Nelson language.
As for paying for it, I suspect the income tax increase on high-earners would prevail, even though it's bad health policy. Why? Because the House will insist that at least one of their major provisions make it into the final bill, and progressives in the House won't take a bill that is essentially the Senate version without any of their ideas in it lying down. Further, there's the whole bit that the unions will lobby conferees to use the House's funding mechanism, and the Dems don't want to harm their relationship with organized labor over this.
None of the advocates for the bill as-is are arguing in favor of making tiny changes and calling it reform. They realize that issues such as the public option are really a small part of the big picture and even a bill without a public option is a massive step forward in a large number of ways.
Is it everything we could have hoped for? No. But you generally don't get everything you want in politics. Pushing a hard line where it's "everything we want or nothing at all" seldom works in the politics of a free society in the real world.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
condew
December 29, 2009 2:24 PM in reply to Icon
I see, so yet again the Democrats look out for the poor, the Republicans look out for the rich, and they take turns screwing the middle class. The cost control that competition from the public option was to create was for the middle class, and, of course, it was bargained away.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Icon
December 29, 2009 3:17 PM in reply to condew
Speaking as an economist, the public option would likely not have had the effect its strongest advocates believed.
It may have created an outcome better than the status quo, but not nearly as big of a change as people who wanted it believed. Abolishing the antitrust exemption and breaking up the insurance companies is far better public health policy.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
condew
December 29, 2009 3:46 PM in reply to Icon
I liked the original idea of a head-to-head competition; public insurance vs. private insurance, let the best policy win. I'll agree that after it got ground into sausage it may not have had the effect I am looking for.
My main gripe is that the public option was the only nod toward controlling the spiralling costs, and the other reforms don't mean much if the product is unaffordable. I like the elimination of "pre-existing conditions", but if they can charge old people 3 times what others pay, and sick people 50% more than what others pay, I doubt the result is affordable. I also like that they eliminated the lifetime maximum, but then they introduced an anual maximum that is worse. I like that they outlawed recisions, but I am told that recisions were already outlawed, but the law was never enforced; so what changed? You're still likely to be fighting a lawsuit against your insurance company from your death-bed.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Icon
December 29, 2009 4:04 PM in reply to condew
"My main gripe is that the public option was the only nod toward controlling the spiralling costs, and the other reforms don't mean much if the product is unaffordable."
The public option would have saved the government money, but in terms of health care costs in general it isn't the only thing that's potentially going to become law that affects cost.
The excise tax on high-premium insurance plans would decrease costs. Computerized medical records decrease costs. Cost-driven comparative effectiveness studies would decrease costs. Smarter preventive medicine would decrease costs. Abolishing the antitrust exemption for the insurers would decrease costs. The insurance exchanges will marginally decrease costs. Curbing double-testing would decrease costs.
Heck, even tort reform would have some (albeit small) negative effect on costs.
Really, what would have pushed down costs overall is a single-payer system, but that option was never really on the table because there were never the votes to pass it and putting it up for discussion would have wasted legislative time.
"I like the elimination of "pre-existing conditions", but if they can charge old people 3 times what others pay, and sick people 50% more than what others pay, I doubt the result is affordable."
That may be the case, but they have to be able to price-discriminate because without some price discrimination there can't be an insurance market.
It sounds kind of horrible to say, but the insurance market would not exist without price discrimination. I won't bore you with the economic proof for why that is, but having an insurance market hinges on the insurance companies being able to engage in some degree of price discrimination.
Just as men pay more for auto insurance than women (because men are statistically more risky drivers) and minors pay more for auto insurance than adults (for the same reason), those who are more likely to be ill will have to pay more than those who are less likely to be ill. I don't know if it needs to be a difference of 300%, but there must be some difference or there won't be any insurance offered at all.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Clearbrook
December 29, 2009 3:21 PM in reply to condew
Actually, the Democrats give away everything they can to whoever they can to buy Party Loyalty. The Republicans try to take everything back and succeed only if there is not enough opposition, which means the weakest groups get the shaft. Small groups with no money and no support from the Progressive Agenda (who can only support so many things at a time, mind you, purely out of political expediency!) are going to always suffer. Small groups with lots of resources available, (read: Rich and Industries) will always be able to protect themselves better. This I get from my Aunt, who is on Medicare, over 70, and still has to work (but not 32 hours or more, or she loses Medicare or less than 30 hours or she loses health insurance) and speaks with years of experience at being screwed by *all* politicians! Oh I soo look forward to my golden years in America... Not!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
condew
December 29, 2009 3:37 PM in reply to Clearbrook
Of course you are talking about Democrats "giving away" to ordinary voters. Republicans take back from ordinary voters; when they do the giving away it is to industries and rich people.
I like Democrats; although their policies may make me poor, they will then look out for me as a poor person. I'll never be rich enough to matter to Republicans.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ru4862
December 29, 2009 12:20 PM
I am as liberal as they come but there is no way i would put my own self interest before my country. PCCC and FDL are great grassroots organizations but at moments like this they're being irrational and selfish.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
condew
December 29, 2009 3:52 PM in reply to ru4862
I'm still looking for the speadsheet that goes down the "wins", assigns a value to each and adds them up, then compares that total to the costs to individuals, to taxpayers, to Medicare recipients. My suspician is that it was a good deal while there was at least a Medicare buy-in, but that when the final deal was cut, it has become like buying a car, just without an engine.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Mad As Hell
December 29, 2009 12:20 PM
PCCC's FEC forms are being scrutinized for who is behind a large contribution of over $200,000. The snake in the bed might be Firebagger Jane Hamsher.
Why won't TPM look into who is funding Jane Hamsher? Nader was funded by the Republicans, too.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Unnamed Former Party Official
December 29, 2009 12:33 PM
I've unsubscribed from PCCC, where I had been a contributor, and don't plan on contributing any more. I hope others will do the same.
It is not just that they are opposing the bill; lot's of people have different policy views on one issue or another, and I can disagree with them and still support them generally. But they have chosen to attack both Obama and many key progressives with a vitriol that is matched only by the Teabaggers. On top of which, the FDL site in particular, which PCCC seems to be closely alligning with, has become wholly hostile to rational discussion of these issues.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Buckeye Terrorist Fist Jab Nation
December 29, 2009 3:38 PM in reply to Unnamed Former Party Official
I unsubscribed from them too.
I told them that if I wanted to see Obama or Sherrod Brown bashing, I'd tune into Faux Noise.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
gharlane
December 31, 2009 12:48 AM in reply to Unnamed Former Party Official
On top of which, the FDL site in particular, which PCCC seems to be closely alligning with, has become wholly hostile to rational discussion of these issues.
Aside from your, um, conclusions (i.e., made-up assertions) about this, can you produce any actual evidence that this is the case? You know, quotes 'n' stuff. (In context, please.)
It's very satisfying to assert that your opponent is irrational, etc; I have yet to see anyone back up such an assertion satisfactorily, and in a manner that can withstand serious scrutiny, when it comes to either of these organizations.
Thanks for playing.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
condew
December 29, 2009 1:14 PM
For all those who want this bill to pass, is it really worth the cost? What do we get for our trillion dollars (half of which is comming out of Medicare, due to be broke in 9 years) and making everybody buy overpriced insurance? What in the bill is going to make the insurance affordable?
Most of all, why do you think Obama and this congress will revisit health care soon and fix the deep flaws in the current legislation?
My take is that big business gets all it wants, we get crumbs, and congress won't touch health care again in my lifetime.
Unless, of course, the mandate costs Democrats enough elections so that Republicans get power and repeal the whole shebang, then invade Iran, and Yemen, and ...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
December 29, 2009 1:45 PM in reply to condew
I'm just loving these astroturfed "progressive" commenters regurgitating GOP bullshit. Just when did Medicare Advantage become a pillar of the "progressive" vision? Give me a f'n break.
But yes, the livelihood of millions of working people is worth the cost of the bill.
Next.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
condew
December 29, 2009 1:55 PM in reply to Stroszek
Kind of like the astroturf comments out of Obama's "grassroots" organization. This administration invites a blogger to be part of a weekly teleconference, and they are so flattered that the administration owns them, and just won't talk about anything the administration doesn't want discussed. That's how they killed talk of single payor, and that is how they are selling this turkey.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
December 29, 2009 2:26 PM in reply to condew
remember when Josh said he'd ask for voices against the Senate bill be in the cafe. What happened to that?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Clearbrook
December 29, 2009 3:30 PM in reply to condew
You bring up another point. Almost a trillion dollars, and it is not even completely funded! (the CBO estimates only include the actual funding being legislated) Which means, if either bills passes, it is only smoke and mirrors that keeps costs under the 'magic' 1 Trillion Dollars in 10 years nonsense! In reality, they will still ahve to pass another bill later to fund that darned thing! The hope, of course, is that after this bill passes, in whatever final form it takes, the Democrats can all get quickly and quietly together and ramrod the extra 1.5 to 5 Trillion Dollars needed for everything to be fully funded! And that is with the states (except Nebraska, lucky bastiches!) picking up an extra Tab on Medicare! This whole bag of crap really begins to stink, the closer you get to it!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
condew
December 29, 2009 3:59 PM in reply to Clearbrook
Actually, there were savings that CBO would not estimate, so savings could be higher. CBO estimates for the second 10 years showed significant savings even with the conservative estimates they used.
Question is, were the CBO savings because health care gets hollowed out (i.e. we get less care), or were the savings because the system got more efficient and the price was driven down?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
December 29, 2009 1:29 PM
Liberals and Progressives have no place in the democratic party.
Conservative Democrats (neo-liberals) continue to sell this crap bill, giving tax dollars to an industry outside of anti-trust laws, with little cost controls, and a mandate so they can claim a win, while they attack progressives and liberals for calling a bill written by the industry lobby, the whitehouse and baucus a corporate giveaway. It is a corporate giveaway.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
condew
December 29, 2009 1:41 PM in reply to Indie Pro
Agreed. Progressives gave up single-payer for a "public option" that was weakened repeatedly, then briefly replaced by a Medicare buy-in, and then we got NOTHING.
So what is the industry going to give up to make this a true "compromise"? It's got to be something comparable to the public option, like the mandate or the trillion dollars in subsidies for people to buy their product, or accept some serious oversight on cost and quality -- with serious penalties.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
December 29, 2009 1:47 PM in reply to condew
Ah, so it's now a "progressive" cause to remove subsidies for working families? What next? Progressives should demand tort reform?
Astroturf'd.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
condew
December 29, 2009 1:58 PM in reply to Stroszek
If you want tort reform, what are you going to replace it with? It is an expensive and slow way to insure some quality, so there should be a better way; but I've never heard a viable alternative.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Clearbrook
December 29, 2009 3:49 PM in reply to condew
Actually, the best Tort Reform proposal I have heard is to have a fairly high Cap (say $5Million over real damages) on Lawsuit Awards *UNLESS* there is a crime involved, in which case it becomes as it is now, the sky is the limit! The idea is not to control costs directly as much as indirectly. The high cap means that the few outrageous lawsuits will be cut down to size, but proportionally, that will make less than a % of difference. The real benefit will be from Risk analyis that will be done by Hospitals and other major Health Care Facilities and Groups. They will really want to limit exposure to those Doctors that might cross over into the 'criminal' area. The current culture is this: Bad Doctor? Offer him a sterling recomendation that will get him a job somewhere else, or get fired. The Doctor takes the letter and may even get paid better! For a crappy Doctor! Make this one change and no-one wants to even do that. They will just fire them. Why? Because if they lie and the Doctor ends up getting another hospital in real deep poo, the damages they suffer will become real damages for them to sue the first hospital (giving the faked reference) for all of those actual damages (to them) that they can! You just have to put such a transfer clause like that into the law to make the only thing needed in such a civil case to be Primae Facia evidence of misrepresentation! A simple change to Civil Laws! Of Course, states laws can be on the books that opposes such a change, but an exemption clause there is all you need to avoid violating states rights. Such a reform changes the whole playing field and I guarentee the AMA will be against it, despite how good it is for those of us who are not Doctors!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
December 29, 2009 2:23 PM in reply to Stroszek
not when the subsidies are irresponsible, like throwing subsidies at a private industry outside of anti-trust laws and meaningful regulations. That's throwing money at a problem. That's the corporate democratic party way, not the progressive way.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
G3
December 29, 2009 5:03 PM in reply to Stroszek
"Astroturf'd."
How about 'punked'...by a neo-lib captured President.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ericf
December 29, 2009 1:37 PM
I unsubscribed from PCCC, but I never knowingly subscribed, which makes me doubt their claim of 300,000 members.
How do they think Feingold et al have any power to change this? Can they disguise themselves as Nelson and Lieberman to cast their votes?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
condew
December 29, 2009 2:01 PM in reply to ericf
Just like the blue dogs, the Republican block voting "no" gives every progressive in the Senate a veto that is even more powerful than the president's veto because they can bargain with it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Clearbrook
December 29, 2009 3:59 PM in reply to condew
Although I don't like it, the shoe was on the other foot for Senator Reid in 2004 or so. At which time He was using this exact same tactic to block Fedral Judges from being appointed, hoping for the shift in power that he eventually got. That Sotamoyer did not suffer the same fate is quite suprising.
I expect that to get any bill to pass, the Democrats will have to call Biden into the Senate and "Go Nuclear" and even that assumes that the Pro-Abortion group in the House does not kill the Bill because it has a Stupak type Amendment. We already know Stupak has the Reach to Block anything without it in the House and has made that perfectly clear, although his support could suffer a "Nelson Type" buyout, I guess, but that will likely cost congressmen their jobs unless public opinion greatly changes, and the "Nuclear Option" will really polarize things beyond what they are now!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
condew
December 29, 2009 4:07 PM in reply to Clearbrook
Turning this into yet another abortion argument is probably the most underhanded tactic I have seen. Funny how the deaths due to lack of care for real people don't count, only the deaths of "potential" people. Same 'ol conservative "logic"; they care about people from conception to birth, after that they are on their own.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ericf
December 29, 2009 4:24 PM in reply to condew
That works only if they're willing to walk away with nothing. Centrists are willing to settle for nothing, but liberals want this pretty badly, and that's why it's been a weak hand. I don't see what else they can do but be glad for as many good things as are in the Senate bill and vote for it. Remember that conservatives are apoplectic not just because they want to beat Obama, but because even the Senate version establishes a big role for the federal government in health insurance and the principle that everyone should be covered.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
brewmn61
December 29, 2009 5:16 PM in reply to condew
Ever heard of King Solomon and the baby? The reason Feingold, Brown, etc. will support this bill is because they actually want to improve affordability and access to health care. This bill, flawed as it is, will do that.
Lieberman, Nelson, and the Republicans truly don't give a shit about whether ordinary Americans live, die, or are bankrupted by unaffordable health care bills. They have no qualms about killing any legislation that comes down too hard on the medical providers and insurance companies that fund their lifetime tenures in office and extravagant lifestyles while in Washington.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
condew
December 29, 2009 2:02 PM
Still nothing about what is in this bill that is worth a trillion dollars and a mandate.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Kevin Sutton
December 29, 2009 2:10 PM
Pressuring a guy to pressure another guy to pressure some other guys seems really inefficient. Pressuring Feingold to be less anti-reconciliation would be more efficient.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
todd432
December 29, 2009 7:26 PM
No public option then NO MANDATE. To be forced to buy insurance from companies that have been gouging us for so long is outrages. Even if the senate bill allows people to buy across state lines that don't due JACK. Ben Nelson had the anti-trust removed along with the public option for his vote and that is just SICK and ridiculous. So there ou have it Ben Nelson dose not want the public option or the anti-trust to prevent price fixing.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Paul Burke - Author Journey Home
December 30, 2009 11:59 AM
McCarran-Ferguson was originally designed to empower both the federal government and the individual states so that they could act to prevent insurance companies from becoming abusive monopolies.
How ironic that it has instead enabled the health insurance industry to achieve exactly the opposite result because the federal government has chosen not to pass legislation targeting insurance monopolies and the states have, for the most part, shirked their regulatory responsibilities.
States haven't gone after obvious Health Care Monopolies because their budgets are stretched too thin.
All 50 States need to bring legal action collectively and the Federal Government needs to join the suit.
Allegations of price-fixing, bid-rigging, exclusive sales contracts, local price cutting to freeze out competitors, and the dividing up of markets need to be full explored so we can get rid of our dysfunctional corporate health care system that's choking the economy to death.
On a macroeconomic scale it would return money to "our" pocketbooks and be more profitable for America. Less money out of our paychecks going to Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelsons friends at Well Point would be a boom for the economy. It would enable an increase in savings and investing as well as spending.
Our money is being horded by the few to the detriment of the overall market place. That money needs to be returned to the tax payers in mass and available to stimulate the economy across a broad sector of markets as a whole versus the gain of a few Senators from Aetna named Lieberman and Nelson and the hysterically wealthy and tone deaf CEO's they greedily represent.
As conservatives like to say - enforce the laws on the books! It's time to sue the Insurance companies regardless of the Healthcare Bill that Passes.
Paul Burke
Author-Journey Home
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?