TPMDC

Democrats Push Reluctant Obama To End Antitrust Exemption For Insurance Companies

Spread the word. Share this article on Facebook!

Share

President Barack Obama

Share

Twitter Fark Reddit Send to a Friend

Send to a friend!

To email:    Your Name:    Your email:

With the public option now a distant memory, a group of House Democrats are now insisting that President Obama and Congressional leaders adopt separate measures to ensure competition in the health insurance market. Thirty four Democrats, lead by Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR) have signed their names to a letter, obtained by TPMDC, demanding that health care legislation include a provision repealing the industries antitrust exemptions.

"Since we all agree that containing the rising cost of health care is one of the overriding goals of health reform, we insist that the House demand an alternative cost cutting tool," the letter reads. "One tool that stands out for attracting strong bipartisan support is removing the current antitrust exemptions enjoyed by the health insurance industry."

The House must insist on the House language that repeals the health and medical malpractice insurance industries' exemptions from all federal antitrust laws. Subjecting the health and medical malpractice insurance industries to the antitrust laws is a vital step toward reforming health care, lowering prices for consumers and doctors, and leveling the playing field for American businesses. The Consumer Federation of American has said that consumers would save over $40 billion in insurance premiums if the antiquated law was repealed for all lines of insurance. It is estimated that subjecting the health insurance industry to federal antitrust laws would lower premiums by 10%.

President Obama says he supports the idea in principle. But unfortunately for House Democrats, Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) wants to maintain the exemptions, and with his vote absolutely necessary to pass health care reform, ending them completely will be a tough sell. Health care negotiators are working on a watered down approach to the issue--one which is unlikely to satisfy the signatories to this letter, but which Obama seems inclined to accept.

"I'm entirely supportive of that," Obama told DeFazio during a Democratic caucus meeting tonight, according to a Democratic aide. "But I want 60 votes in the Senate. I'm trying to get it done, I'll leave it at that."

You can read the entire letter here.


Comments (69) | Join the Conversation!

Recommend Recommend (0)

January 14, 2010 8:52 PM   

Yes, just fuck them where thry breath!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 17, 2010 10:47 AM    in reply to JorgeOrwell

Sorry, I think Dylan Ratigan is a duplicitous douchebag. Where was this Gabriel's Trumpet of financial reform before when the banks were behaving badly? Where was he when Bush was selling us to China to underwrite the wars while never balancing a budget? I dont buy his populist bullshit and his innocence in any of it as he probably made some hefty sums as a financial player. His browbeating Wasserman-Shulz just displays poor manners and an ego to match his newfound guise as 'savior of the peoples money and interests'. While the insurance companies need to be stripped down, Ratigan needs to STFU.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 17, 2010 2:02 PM    in reply to Marinus van der Lubbe

Oh and "STFU" is a fantastic culmination to your high horse post. Nice touch.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 17, 2010 2:44 PM    in reply to JorgeOrwell

High Horse? Ratigan is self serving populist ranter. Like I said...where was he when all this shitstorm of financial weirdness was happening? Where was he since 2003 when the economy started taking as budgets exploded and both wars were underwritten by the Chinese, plunging the dollar into the toilet and allowing the Chinese to manipulate the standing of the dollar and huan? He whines about the TARP as if it came of out Obama's administration, yet it didnt. He's right about stripping the insurance agencies of the anti-trust protection, the time has run out for those dogs, but dont tell me he's some kind of Saint who speaks truth to strength. He's just a whiny egotitst trying to sell his show like a Jim Cramer sans rolled up sleeves. Yes, and he needs to STFU. Sorry he's your hero du jour...

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 17, 2010 3:06 PM    in reply to Marinus van der Lubbe

He is a friggin reporter man! He's not a politician. But who gives a damn? He nailed it when he called her out on the talking points. She had no intention of being "interviewed" .

I don't put up with the talking points on the right or the left. Apparently, neither does he.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 17, 2010 4:50 PM    in reply to JorgeOrwell

I like my reporters to not be such righteous prigs with moussed hair and expensive suits who get indignant over shit they did nothing to stop and moan over spilled milk and start that 'i'm on your side hooey'. Maybe its generational between you and I, i'm in my mid 50's, retired military and teach now, and I really have a low tolerance for reporters who seem more self promotion than substance, right or left talking points. I respected Wm. F. Buckley even if he was a conservative. Wasserman-Shulz is a good egg and a strong Dem and didnt deserve a beating on air like that. Period. Ratigan isnt my advocate. He wants to be your advocate. He doesnt report news, he attempts to create himself in it or vice versa. Sorry, he's just a pogue. He's one of those guys if I saw in a train station or airport I would tell him to his face he's a dick.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 17, 2010 4:55 PM    in reply to JorgeOrwell

BTW,
done talking about it..he doesnt deserve all this print.
have a fine weekend..hope youre not a Cowboys fan.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 17, 2010 5:31 PM    in reply to Marinus van der Lubbe

Yeah, I guess I'm just not a "party" guy. Like it when reporters do their job rather than gulping what their given hook, line and sinker.

Still like Ratigan, better than that Rick Sanchez douche.

Wasserman-schultz is a climber, who will say anything to advance her career within the party. She's definitely no Bernie Sanders! We need more like him, with a pair of "good eggs"!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 17, 2010 5:34 PM    in reply to JorgeOrwell

Have fun! Cow who? Floored by the ass-whoopin the Saints handed out yesterday!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 17, 2010 8:29 PM    in reply to JorgeOrwell

That was fine game in NOLA..and as an Oakland fan for 45 years I was happy to see the Jets put the stick on those pansy Chargers...

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 17, 2010 8:30 PM    in reply to JorgeOrwell

Theyre all climbers...depends on what hill theyre on.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 18, 2010 12:50 PM    in reply to Marinus van der Lubbe

True. What I meant was she would say anything the apparatus asked her to in order to succeed in staying on message. Its a form of weakness and mediocrity that has brought this country to the brink of collapse.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 18, 2010 1:40 PM    in reply to JorgeOrwell

LOL..such drama...are we on the verge of collapse? Try living thru the time of drop drills, fall-out shelters, heartless commie athiests (tip of the hat to fellow blogmate), Castro under your bed at night, Viet-Nam on TV as we eat dinner, Kennedy/King/Wallace/Kennedy shot...These teabaggers and pols are transitory..just another phase...just bit actors. WTF? This is the USA..I mean this is lightweight shit. We're not the Chargers!!!!!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 18, 2010 2:59 PM    in reply to Marinus van der Lubbe

Look, I don't have a fancy military pension and VA health care backing me up. I am one paycheck away from financial ruin and I am not alone.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 18, 2010 3:35 PM    in reply to JorgeOrwell

#1 I earned my healthcare, and went to war as well. My wife also serves, and just stepped thru the door from the middle east Friday. I cant help your situation, but dont begrudge me mine. All I know is this: If I didnt have health care now, and applied for it, I would be rejected for a pre-existing condition. If the reform works, then that's good. So if a few hacks or hill climbers or jerk-offs make it so, then just dont sweat the pissants as the elephants come thru the jungle.
#2 Dont spend so much fucking time on TPM!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 18, 2010 4:11 PM    in reply to Marinus van der Lubbe

Hey, I work too. Been doing it for 25 years now. I'm not looking for a handout here. I don't begrudge you anything. I am pleased you have health care and a nice pension. You deserve it, just as every man, woman and child in this country deserves it. Health care ain't a privilege, it's a right!

And as far as spending too much time on this site. Well, my "representatives" in Congress and President don't seem to be listening, so I'm going directly to the public.

You'd be surprised at how many folks who don't comment see this stuff. Not to mention how many staffers check the direction of the wind here.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 18, 2010 4:49 PM    in reply to JorgeOrwell

OK...have we run the course here? I am falling behind in fucking with Silence and Sailormarlowe...want fun? Read their posts and see how pissed off you get.
Out.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 19, 2010 6:54 PM    in reply to Marinus van der Lubbe

Plenty of d-bags apologists here. Fortunately, I never get upset. Little something I learned from MLK. Just keep your eyes on the prize.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 14, 2010 9:30 PM   

Ever sense Obama and the Democratic leadership sold out the American public to Big Insurance by dropping the Public Option there poll numbers and also that of health care HAVE TANKED. Now things are so low there fighting for anti-trust (An idea supported by all, right and left) Scrap this crap and go reconciliation!! It is there only chance to stay in there seats in 2010. I will no longer vote for spineless democrats, it's Green party time for me, at least they'll legalize weed and end this stupid expensive drug war.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 14, 2010 9:38 PM    in reply to todd432

LOL you really think the Green Party would win any seats, let around be powerful enough to legalize weed and end the drug war? Wow, that's delusional, even for people like you.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 14, 2010 10:51 PM    in reply to todd432

todd432 - Lots of things in life don't work out exactly like you want them to. It is important to still make decisions that are for the greater good, and are not fueled by emotion. That is what separates adults from children and liberals from tea baggers. Vote Democrat because the alternative is conservatives. I'm sorry you are upset, I am too, but remember the Green Party cannot help you. We will maintain our majority in both houses because of conservatives who will refuse to support republican candidates in 2010.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 14, 2010 11:11 PM    in reply to todd432

I hear ya. The democrats have been very disappointing, unless you're a corporation.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 14, 2010 11:40 PM    in reply to todd432

The fact that you're a pothead explains why you're so stupid you don't know the difference between "there" and "they're."

Pot should not be legal. There are way too many retards in the world as is. We don't need more.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 15, 2010 12:19 AM    in reply to Kuyleh

Correction: There are too many retards in jail at the cost of $40,000 per year.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 15, 2010 12:59 PM    in reply to Kuyleh

First, no reputable studies have linked pot to cognition. This person is certainly displaying ignorance, but it's unfair to blame it on pot.

Second, I don't care how damaging a drug is, criminalizing it is worse. Only people who build prisons or sell drugs benefit from it. It doesn't lower usage rates, but it does discourage people from seeking help. It increases violent crime, reduces tax revenue, removes productive workers from the economy in two ways (the incarcerated and the incarcerators), puts a strain on the court system and costs a boatload of taxpayer dollars. And furthermore, it's an offence to individual liberty.

No one should ever be put in jail for using any drug.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 17, 2010 5:48 PM    in reply to Kuyleh

Amen! We need to criminalize all those opioid painkillers while we're at it.

We certainly don't need anymore retards like Rush on hand.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 15, 2010 5:18 AM    in reply to todd432

Sold out what exactly?
The left teabaggers have deluded themselves into thinking they had something to sell, something to give up.


Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 15, 2010 10:13 AM    in reply to todd432

No. Go peddle your b/s somewhere else.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 15, 2010 5:46 PM    in reply to todd432

Why would Obama end the anti-trust exemption? THEY put him in office!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 18, 2010 3:03 PM    in reply to JorgeOrwell

Let me amend that....WE put him in office and THEY have made him their bitch.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 14, 2010 10:00 PM   

It's about time Obama went and told ol Ben Nelson to go fuck himself and vote for the bill including ending the antitrust exemption. The ongoing excuse that one or another primadonna in the Senate won't allow something is bullshit. Obama can strong arm Ben Nelson if he wants, but the thing is he doesn't want to do it. Kudos to the real Democrats in the House insisting on some progress in the Obma health insurance profit protection bill!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 14, 2010 10:03 PM    in reply to oleeb

I agree that Obama should tell Nelson to go fuck himself cuz we need to have this exemption.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 15, 2010 12:24 AM    in reply to Maritza

Obama is the problem. Nelson is doing just what Obama wants! Obama is a corporatist, like Rahm. The guys who really want this fiasco of a corporate give away are a minority who are using the sixty vote rule to get their way. Obama is leading on this. Forevermore, a good percentage of your HC expenditure will go to extremely wealthy people who will use it to consolidate their hold on power. If you happen to get health care in the bargain, good for you.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 15, 2010 1:21 AM    in reply to dick c

OK, now you're venturing into tin foil hat territory. A president has precious little ability to tell senators what to do unless he's willing to use his veto and the senators want the bill badly. The fact is Obama wants this badly, and Nelson would be willing to have it die, so he gets all the leverage. What anyone thinks Obama could do to "strongarm" Nelson I hope you'll share with us.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 15, 2010 7:14 AM    in reply to ericf

Here we go.

As we've seen over the past week, the President can get very active and apply plenty of pressure when he feels strongly about something like the regressive excise tax. Yet, whenever someone asks why he doesn't fight for the PO or anti-trust exemption, etc., etc., etc., we get, "A president has precious little ability to tell senators what to do ..."

Who needs a tin foil hat?

You Obama-right-or-wrong types are starting to sound like Bush's 20%.

Are you supporting principles or personality?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 15, 2010 1:19 PM    in reply to cawleybo

Call it reality, not Obama right or wrong. It's very telling you couldn't answer my question.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 15, 2010 7:44 AM    in reply to ericf

First of all, Obama has a lot of leverage that matters to Nelson. If Nelson is standing in the way at this juncture, he will need to remember that he needs a lot of other things besides any posturing he wants to do for Mutual of Omaha. There are things Nelson needs from other senators who Obama can also cajole.
Besides. After the stunt he pulled for cloture, do you think he'd have ANY political credibility or power after voting this down?
Leiberfuk is another story.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

bdh

user-pic

January 15, 2010 11:35 AM    in reply to davcbr

"a lot of other things"
"there are things"

Thank god someone's finally offering specifics.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 15, 2010 7:57 AM    in reply to ericf

I thought Obama was head of the Democratic Party...threaten to kick Nelson out and pledge about $5 million from OFA to his competitor in '12. Then Obama can tell Nelson "I may or may not get re-elected, but you *damn* sure won't." President needs to play hardball on this, but he won't.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 14, 2010 11:07 PM    in reply to oleeb

And if he tells Ben Nelson to go fvck himself, Nelson will certainly fillibuster. Then he'll either retire after his current term ends in 2012 (if he wasn't going to do that already) or switch parties to better suit the Nebraska electorate. Either way, the Democrats will forever lose that seat in the Senate.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 15, 2010 12:01 AM    in reply to oleeb

"The ongoing excuse that one or another primadonna in the Senate won't allow something is bullshit."

But it is the bullshit that reality is made of.

It needs changing, this bill proves it more than any other, but giving up on the first real healthcare reform no matter how depleted by politics and primadonnas, just because we don't like the system, is counterproductive.

Pass the bill. THEN start changing the system. We have a really good yardstick (this bill) to measure and change that system by. Ponder for just a moment how many Americans are now aware that it takes more than a simple majority to get legislation through the Senate, because of this bill.

That alone opens new vistas of public involvement.

PASS THE BILL!

Then start raising hell about the system.

It will be interesting to see, after it passes, how many of our progressive HC bill opponents actually start taking on that lousy system once that bill is passed. I fear too many of them are more concerned with beating this bill than changing the system.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 15, 2010 7:46 AM    in reply to JEP07

Said entirely without irony: "...real healthcare reform NO MATTER HOW DEPLETED by politics and primadonnas ..."

This is exactly the point many of us have been trying to make. Many of you ("serious" people and "grown ups") appear to be willing to support ANYTHING that Obama calls HCR. There seems to be no point at which the thing will be "depleted" enough that you will cease to fight for it under the guise of it being "reform."

Supposedly, this is our "once in a generation" chance to pass HCR. Yet, we're so desperate to check off a box, we're willing to squander that chance on a gift to PhRMA and the Insurance industry that forces people to buy a cynically substandard product.

You can whine about the primadonna's all you want but any time you go into a negotiation telling the other side you absolutely have to have a deal at any cost, the result is predictable.

If the democrats fail to pass real HCR now, they will be punished - and deservedly so. But if you think they won't be punished for passing faux reform, I think you're kidding yourself. They are responsible for the no-win position they are in.

They should have put up true reform and refused to budge. Worst case scenario, republicans would have regained power and people would have been reminded of exactly why they voted them out. And hopefully more democrats would have been serious about reform the next time around.

True, it would have postponed relief for millions of people that desperately need it. But expending all our capital in this farce will have dire consequnces for millions for a much longer time.

But there are at lest two other possible scenarios resulting from that approach:

The voters might have punished those who obstructed good faith attempts at true reform. In that case, real HCR would have been delayed a couple years but won in a relatively short time - certainly much less than a generation.

Or the proponents of HCR may have won this time. You can say it would never happen but, since they gave up without trying, we'll never know.

The reason support for the democrats is so soft is not because people don't support their proclaimed ideals, it is because people sense democrats do not have any conviction for their own principles. This experience will just be more evidence of that.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 15, 2010 11:12 AM    in reply to cawleybo

Some people would prefer to actually make substantive progress, rather than stamp their feet and whine about how that progress isn't "true reform." Why, it's almost as if they want effective governance!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 15, 2010 1:10 PM    in reply to cawleybo

Many of you ("serious" people and "grown ups") appear to be willing to support ANYTHING that Obama calls HCR. There seems to be no point at which the thing will be "depleted" enough that you will cease to fight for it under the guise of it being "reform."

Well, sorry, but you are just plain wrong. There is certainly a point at which we would kill the bill. We're just not at that point, and frankly not even close. This bill will insure THIRTY MILLION uninsured people. It will lower premiums. It will force insurance companies to cover the people who really need them.

For your argument to be correct, this bill would have to be worse than nothing. And that's just about laughable.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 15, 2010 1:16 AM    in reply to oleeb

Amen, and Lieberman too...if Obama and Reid had half the balls Pelosi did, we would have had single payer months ago...maybe she can loan them out for a bit.
The system does need changing, unfortunately you still have to get 67 Senators to change the rules (I believe, I may be wrong however). So I doubt they will change it anytime soon. Even changing the rules to say you need 40 no votes instead of 60 yes votes would be an improvement.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 14, 2010 10:02 PM   

Obama should just tell Nelson that there absolutely needs to have an exemption.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 14, 2010 10:36 PM    in reply to Maritza

Yeah that'll certainly get Nelson to vote yes.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 14, 2010 11:06 PM   

There is no compelling reason for this not to be in the bill, except, industry is more important than people.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 15, 2010 1:26 AM    in reply to Indie Pro

And Nelson insists on it. He killed it in the Senate bill, and said he would join the filibuster if it went back in.

The problem isn't the bill. The problem is the Senate is dysfunctional. 58 were willing to go for the Medicare extension, and 54-55 were ready to for the public option. Considering we were well short of that when town hall chaos started, we actually did pretty damn good. Now let's just get something passed, and we can fix it, just like when Social Security first passed.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 14, 2010 11:30 PM   

I bet that Obama is thanking 'the gods' for the Haiti earthquake.
Rahm was seen doing a Pas marche' when CNN was showing the devastation.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 14, 2010 11:40 PM   

Pete Defazio rocks. And please note that he comes from the same kind of GOP-heavy district so-called blue dogs come from.

It can be done. But only if they grow a backbone. And do their homework the way Pete does.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 14, 2010 11:40 PM   

This sixty votes in the Senate thing has GOT to go. It's California-style, non-democracy legislative constipation that would make the Founding Fathers blow a gasket.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 15, 2010 7:49 AM    in reply to JimmyBobby

How about we make them actual filibuster instead of letting them get their way by just threatening a filibuster?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 20, 2010 12:59 AM    in reply to cawleybo

Works for me, as a start anyway.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 14, 2010 11:47 PM   

Oh, I don't know. It sends chills down my spine to think that there really might be 60 votes dedicated to taxing my health benefits to force me into a wretched policy and to discourage me from seeking medical care so that big insurance companies can maintain high profits and 60 senators may maintain their pockets full of cash.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 15, 2010 10:16 AM    in reply to bluebell

Ah spoken like a true republican. At least you don't claim to be a disgruntled progressive

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 14, 2010 11:54 PM   

Get the bill passed, THEN start fixing it, AND the Senate. I agree, there should be NO monopolies or anti-trust exemptions in our system, but for now, those monopolies will win if we don;t get this law on the books, regardless of this pareticular issue.

But for now, lets push this through and start fresh with amendments to an actual law instead of constant changes to a watered-down bill.

The best way to deal with Ben Nelson is to help find progressive political candidates in Nebraska, and don't even suggest there's no such critter, there are good progressives in every state, if we can just find a way to empower them to put up a good campaign fight.


Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 18, 2010 3:09 PM    in reply to JEP07

The 60 vote myth would be laughable if it weren't so tragic.

LBJ managed to destroy the opposition to his '64 Civil Rights Act by allowing the idiot Southern bigots to filibuster.

Obama, need to grow a pair and put the public option back in and let 'em rumble.

Look to LBJ, Dems! We have the benefit of hindsight here folks.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 15, 2010 12:41 AM   

Anyone who thinks repeal of the antitrust exemption will save is a single dollar doesn't understand how the market works. Insurers do not collude to carve up markets; they compete vigorously for the business they're all interested in. The exemption allows them to use common databases to price their product. Without those databases, pricing would be far more volatile - and higher, reflecting the increased risk associated with the inability to price accurately.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 15, 2010 8:03 AM   

This is all for naught if Coakley loses.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 15, 2010 8:06 AM    in reply to David Dunham

David,

if the Dems in MA let that Republican get elected then they deserve everything that follows.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 15, 2010 8:59 AM    in reply to David Dunham

If Coakley looses, the country may be ungovernable unless the fillibuster goes, too. It would be sad if, after all the compromises on health care, the Dems had to go nuclear on some other, lesser issue.

I believe the Republican threat to go nuclear was not to repeal the filibuster, it was to use the fact that it only takes a simple majority to choose not to enforce a rule. So the leaders violate the rule requiring cloture, the other side objects, and then a simple majority chooses not to enforce the rule that was broken.

It's funny how the mere threat to do this got the Democrats in line when Republicans were in control, but Dems won't even make the threat. I guess Dems love the country and its traditions too much, while Republicans were only concerend with winning, and were willing to destroy our institutions.

In any event, the filibuster has got to change so there is a cost to the party that uses it, and Dems will not even talk about Republican obstructionism. Like after the underwear bomber, I only read about the TSA appointee being on a Republican hold on the blogs, never a public statement that maybe the security efforts were hobbled by Republican obstructionism. Instead of saying "confirm my staff", Obama comes out with BS about taking responsibility for security himself.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 15, 2010 8:03 AM   

Obama is another Clinton, they give us supply side representation, the Corporate boys get fed first and
the public gets the scraps that fall off the table.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 15, 2010 11:58 AM   

Nelson is against getting rid of the anti-trust statute for insurance because insurance companies looooove their exemption. It enables them to go state by state and vacuum up as much premium as they possibly can. Since Nelson has made it clear that his loyalty is to Mutual of Omaha, not the good of the people, I really don't see what Obama can do.

At this point I think the thing to do is pass whatever you can and go to work on making it better over the next 3-4 years. Attach reforms as riders to must pass bill, run campaigns to expose the evil things insurance companies do and build support for real change, whatever works.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 15, 2010 12:54 PM   

I'm not in the whole reactionary, frustrated kill the bill vote for Republicans group. I think there have probably been some good fixes in conference and I am looking forward to this bill going into law.

A strong supporter of the public option it was whittled down to nothing. However I do like the national exchanges. The Dems by letting the Senate get out of hand could loose their seat in Mass. That would be something else to hang around Lieberman's neck.

He of course loving to grab center stage forgot to look at the big picture. The public option was nothing at that point but he made a big stink about it and here we are with voter fatigue, and anger at the sheer stubbornness of those politicians completely sold out to the status quo.

All that being said if this bill brings down cost for the middle class and says to the 1% uber wealthy - you need to contribute to the well being of this Country that has been so good to you - with its military, infrastructure and system of laws, and this bill makes them contribute their fair share - based on the giveaways they have enjoyed the past decade then I can support this bill.

The bottom line is that there is wide agreement across a broad market sector of the public, doctors, and business that the monopolies the insurance companies currently enjoy have abused our economy for decades.

In a Country based on a system of checks and balances we have to restore those checks and balances to the Insurance Industry.

Rolling back the anti-trust exemption and putting the power of the people onto the bargaining table not chopped up into 50 little pieces but through a "national" exchange is one way to do that.

Better times are on the way and more money in our 'national" pockets will make for a better more vibrant market and Country that can better compete globally than just the 1% getting richer and richer and richer and being the only ones benefiting from our laws.

That we might help single working mothers and those less fortunate than ourselves is the real mandate from above. It will be a better world for all when we all start doing the right thing....right Joe

Paul Burke
Author-Journey Home

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 15, 2010 3:40 PM   

Let me translate Obama's contortion on the antitrust exemption here and get at what he meant to say a little clearer: "No chance in hell."

People, this atrocity of a health insurance bill has around 30% public support at this point. People would have more respect for Obama for fighting for something and having it die than for passing the present bill. Obama has demonstrated in the past that he's perfectly willing to play hardball with liberal members of Congress - just not the obstructionists.

"The Democratic Party: We stood up for the ability of the IRS to fine you for not buying health insurance from the broken industry that we legally required you to buy from. Can we count on your vote in November?"

And don't feed us this bull about Obama having no leverage with Nelson. He has plenty if he wants to use it. "Listen up buddy, if you want another dime in highway funds for your state, you're voting for cloture on this. I may or may not be re-elected, but you sure as hell won't."

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 20, 2010 1:01 AM    in reply to Kall

It's an atrocity because it's a horse designed by a committee. What we need is single-payer, pure and simple. After a ton of Red-state morons who let themselves be seduced by social issues into voting against their own best economic interests have gone bankrupt, maybe we'll get something that works. People lack foresight, as a rule. It always takes a calamity to make change.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 6, 2010 9:20 AM   

Hey, I work too. Been doing it for 25 years now. I'm not looking for a handout here. I don't begrudge you anything. I am pleased you have health care and a nice pension. You deserve it, just as every man, woman and child in this country deserves it. Health care ain't a privilege, it's a right!

And as far as spending too much time on this site. Well, my "representatives" in Congress and President don't seem to be listening, so I'm going directly to the public.

You'd be surprised at how many folks who don't comment see this stuff. Not to mention how many staffers check the direction of the wind here.

m65 kamagra

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Leave a comment

Your response:

Follow us!

Most Popular

TPM Stories Now Surging on