
At a roundtable meeting with several health care reporters and bloggers this morning, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi once again predicted final passage of a far-reaching heath care bill by week's end--but she insisted that success will only be possible if she acts quickly, even if that means members and reformers will have to abandon some of their key priorities, and trust the Senate to pass an amending bill through the reconciliation process.
"I have no intention of not passing this bill," Pelosi said in response to a question from TPMDC. "Let me say it in a positive way: I have faith in my members that we will be passing this legislation."
Pelosi explained away a statement by her Whip, James Clyburn, that the votes aren't there "yet," by noting that the bill is still not yet complete. But getting a majority won't be easy. No vote is easy, Pelosi said, and she'll need members to focus on the big picture--insurance for 31 million people--without getting distracted by the demise of the public option, or the fact that the Senate may not be able to deliver what they say they can in reconciliation, in order to get it done.
"Time is important for us here, because this city is the city of the perishable and every special interest group out there who doesn't want this to pass--including the entire Republican party--benefits from any delay," Pelosi told those in attendance. "Delay is our enemy."
That's true even if it means members must move beyond the demise of the public option and other high-priority provisions. Pelosi said it's important that members "keep the focus on what is in this bill. Because the more we talk about public option, the more we talk about abortion, we're not talking about innovation, prevention, wellness. We're not talking about 31 million people."
Still, one key obstacle remains, and that is assuring her members that the Senate will be able to act to pass the fix bill in reconciliation. That may take a leap of faith.
"There has to be complete agreement on what the package is...I have asked [the Senate] to show me what it is they can show me that I would be able to convince my members to go forward," Pelosi said. "We're...willing to trust the Senate that they are able to pass the reconciliation package."
Pelosi avoided delving deeply into postmortems--Why didn't the public option survive? What should have been done differently?--but she did suggest, at a couple different points, that the White House was not a perfect ally in this fight.
"There will be plenty of time for whatever--in the executive and the legislative branch--as to how [the public option] evolved to what it is now," Pelosi said, suggesting that some fault lies with the White House.
Equally vexing for her have been elements in the White House who urged her to revert to a strategy of passing a small--rather than comprehensive--health care bill. "Those who are trying to say 'just do a small bill,'" Pelosi said gesturing out the window of her office, westward toward the White House. "In our midst there's the small bill crowd. Here and there. And that empowered [the insurance companies]."
And that's to say nothing about the White House/PhRMA deal."If you're asking me were we unhappy about the pharmaceutical thing?" Pelosi asked rhetorically. "Yes. Very. But apart from that, I don't know what else they've done with industry....We just thought, Wait a minute, the Senate and the White House and PhRMA made a deal, and we have to honor that?"
But now is not the time for that, she said: "After it's over I'm sure books will be written about how it evolved and the rest of that. Right now we're just focused on getting the job done."
Cornelius
March 15, 2010 12:57 PM
Sorry Nancy - Kill The Bill
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
George C
March 15, 2010 1:01 PM in reply to Cornelius
Right on, Kevin --
Let 'em die if that's what it takes to prove a political point.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
madmatt
March 15, 2010 1:42 PM in reply to George C
They'll die either way, the bill just forces em to buy a policy that doesn't cover anything, leaving them poorer when they die...what a worthwhile goal!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
LeeJo
March 15, 2010 2:08 PM in reply to madmatt
Again Matt, you are making statements that have no basis in fact. No one is forcing anyone to buy a policy that doesn’t cover anything. It is true however that the Republican approach to health insurance is to shift more and more cost away from insurance and on to individuals. This keeps insurance premiums down but does nothing to reduce health care costs. The point is to have coverage, not just a insurance certificate suitable for framing that offers no coverage as the Republicans have been proposing.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
madmatt
March 15, 2010 2:30 PM in reply to LeeJo
show me, easy enough, show me a mechanism that keeps rates down....it isn't in there and you know it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
George C
March 15, 2010 2:48 PM in reply to madmatt
Wrong response, Matt. Your issue wasn't health costs, it was "forc[ing] em to buy a policy that doesn't cover anything, leaving them poorer when they die". That's the system we have now (except the "forcing" part): people can only afford policies that don't cover any real claims, and they can be dropped should they have the nerve to file a claim anyway. The policies issued after HCR will be required to have particular requirements that don't exist now. Plus, there will be subsidies to cover any additional costs if those premiums are no longer affordable for some people who need them.
As far as the mandate goes, that just seems to be a necessary evil: if insurance companies are going to have be responsible for more claims, they have to have a source of revenue. Requiring people to buy insurance or pay a penalty seems to be the way to accomplish that. The only alternative, it seems to me, is to require people who won't buy health insurance to execute a waiver under which they won't receive any health care they can't pay for. The problem with this is that it seems cold-hearted and immoral (though that's what Repubs want to do with illegal immigrants) and it's inconsistent with any concept of public health (letting sick people spread their illnesses because they can't afford treatment).
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
madmatt
March 15, 2010 3:11 PM in reply to George C
How about a fucking waiver from the Insurance companies saying they won't take 30% off each policy for overhead and private jets. Show me those "special additions" that will make the Ins Co's honest players...if its not there now it won't be when the bill passes.
I understand the concept of a mandate and if it goes to a Public option with 5% overhead I am fine, but I refuse to accept that the scum at BCBS would play by the rules...they haven't in the past after all.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Johann
March 15, 2010 3:54 PM in reply to madmatt
Someone/anyone tell me what this bill does for the 46-50 million self-insured people in the USA, other than to either require them to buy expensive health insurance or pay a whopping fine.
.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MyMy
March 15, 2010 4:50 PM in reply to Johann
Fine for not buying is what--2% of annual income?
Mandates, by the way, were the Republicans' idea--I think it was Chuck Grassley who insisted they be there.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
March 15, 2010 3:59 PM in reply to madmatt
The bill requires insurance companies to spend at least 85% of its income on claims.
You'd know that if you weren't trying to be a lazy, mooching grifter who wants to spend your money at the peep show and force everybody eles to pay when you get sick.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Johann
March 15, 2010 4:05 PM in reply to FreeRider
85% to be spent on claims?
What provisions are there to control the costs hospitals and doctors charge for these claims?
Especially now that many hospitals are partnered with Health insurance companies.
It is easy to keep putting the costs for medical care up and up so the profits for the health insurance companies keep getting larger and larger.
.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
March 15, 2010 4:06 PM in reply to Johann
You want to introduce a new straw man into the argument?
Read the bill and stop spouting bullshit.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Overreach THIS!
March 15, 2010 4:17 PM in reply to Johann
So we start with a clean sheet of paper then, a year down the road, eh? That's original!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Measure for Measure
March 15, 2010 5:32 PM in reply to Johann
If you are self-insured and have encountered the health care system first hand, you would know that hospitals will charge you substantially more than they do to insurance companies, who have some bargaining leverage.
Self-insurance tends to be pretty expensive in that way.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
IndyLinda
March 15, 2010 3:14 PM in reply to madmatt
Yecch. What a gross attitude.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Overreach THIS!
March 15, 2010 4:13 PM in reply to George C
Precisely. It's the principle of it that matters.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
human
March 15, 2010 1:13 PM in reply to Cornelius
don't be an idiot.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
March 15, 2010 1:21 PM in reply to human
It's too late.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
March 15, 2010 1:33 PM in reply to FreeRider
It's too late is right. Forget it sista -
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
March 15, 2010 3:46 PM in reply to human
It's too late......
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AhTrini1
March 15, 2010 3:20 PM in reply to Cornelius
Go Nancy, go Nancy, go Nancy!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
madmatt
March 15, 2010 1:00 PM
Burn in hell Nancy, you pass a mandate with no Public option you are no better than the republican scum who sell us out to corporate interests every day. Never another vote or another dime for dem scum who pass this bill, fortunately you will be able to harvest citizen united money for years to come, you have finally found a way to get rid of those pesky voters who actually want things that benefit them as opposed to corporations.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mrut
March 15, 2010 1:10 PM in reply to madmatt
The Republicans all oppose this bill and have vowed to repeal it if it passes. Why would they do that if the bill suited their interests, as you say here?
Real citizenship requires a little perspective and the ability to distinguish the better from the worse. Our country needs more mature and active citizens; your fulminating doesn't help anyone at all (except you/your ego).
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
March 15, 2010 1:15 PM in reply to mrut
the GOP opposes everything the dems do. Everything. Regardless of what it is. It is not a barometer of the legislation itself.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
madmatt
March 15, 2010 1:20 PM in reply to mrut
Fine mandate money to a public option, any plan that requires me to subsidize corporate bloodsuckers is a NO GO and a craven sell out.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Why oh why
March 15, 2010 2:07 PM in reply to madmatt
Has Obama ever defended his secret deals with lobbyists to kill single payer, a robust public option and re-importation?
Thank God for Pelosi.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
March 15, 2010 1:34 PM in reply to mrut
madmatt is a troll. he posts the same crap on every story about health care.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
madmatt
March 15, 2010 2:31 PM in reply to lousgirl84
thats cause the bill sucks all the time!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rmwarnick
March 15, 2010 2:29 PM in reply to mrut
If you take what Republicans say at face value, then you have not been following politics very long!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
barbara63
March 15, 2010 2:38 PM in reply to mrut
Great response!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cornelius
March 15, 2010 3:20 PM in reply to mrut
"Real citizenship" -what's that mrut? You're sounding like a 'pub.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
human
March 15, 2010 1:16 PM in reply to madmatt
and you're no better than the Repubs who also want her to fail.
Again, don't be an idiot.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Watt Childress
March 16, 2010 12:51 AM in reply to human
Thoughtful people can disagree on whether to support or oppose the insurance mandate package that's being pushed by leaders. I hope many citizens on both sides will support a separate vote on the Medicare buy-in introduced by Rep. Alan Grayson. Linked below is a way to show support.
http://salsa.mydccc.org/o/30019/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=17
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mames, syr
March 15, 2010 1:02 PM
Why wouldn't you want 30 million people to have insurance if you're a Republican? I thought Jesus ws on their side and he was always running around healing people--no charge.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Johann
March 15, 2010 4:00 PM in reply to mames, syr
Why should 30 million people be required to buy expensive health insurance or pay a whopping fine? Just to save the bottom line for the health insurance companies?
.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
March 15, 2010 1:08 PM
even if that means members and reformers will have to abandon some of their key priorities, and trust the Senate to pass an amending bill through the reconciliation process.
bwahahaha? Oh man. Trust them? Bwahahahahahahahahahahaha! I'd trust leadership, Obama and the Senators to capitulate, sell out, and honor their corporate masters. At this point, that's about it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
March 15, 2010 1:12 PM
Look at the firebaggers having a meltdown because the speaker wants to prevent 45,000 deaths each year!
Nutters throwing a tantrum. I freaking LOOOOVVVVVVVEEEEEEE it!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
madmatt
March 15, 2010 1:24 PM in reply to FreeRider
No we are pissed because the bill doesn't do a damn thing except extend a decades long lifesupport system of BILLIONS a year to the scumsucking insurance companies that are the root of the problem.
You obviously are all for corporate welfare with no method of enforcing compliance to the "rules"
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
human
March 15, 2010 1:35 PM in reply to madmatt
And you are obviously for Americans continuing to die by the thousands without this lifeline. And believe me, I'm someone who wanted a much better bill, and will continue to demand the improvements that our elected representatives promised, but I'm not an idiotic "give me everything I want or screw everybody" scorched-earther like you and the GOP are.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
March 15, 2010 1:38 PM in reply to human
people will die even if this bill is passed.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
March 15, 2010 1:48 PM in reply to Indie Pro
Of course, people will die. No one ever claimed this bill was the secret to eternal life, you idiot!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
March 15, 2010 1:52 PM in reply to FreeRider
people with mandated health insurance will still die even after this bill is passed.
as in Massachusettes, where 25% of those with mandated insurance are still too poor to actually use it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
human
March 15, 2010 1:55 PM in reply to Indie Pro
so you're okay with far more people dying unless you get your perfect solution all at once. That nihilist attitude of yours is always so productive.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
March 15, 2010 2:00 PM in reply to human
you're okay with deciding others must die, instead of working on a truly comprehensive solution, because an election is coming and this needs to be done now? You're a self-serving jerk.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
March 15, 2010 2:06 PM in reply to Indie Pro
So you're saying that people will stop dying while we're working on this better system?
You're out of gas with your obstructionist bullshit!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
March 15, 2010 2:09 PM in reply to FreeRider
you're okay with deciding others need to die, instead of working on a truly comprehensive solution, because an election is coming and this needs to be done now? You're a self-serving jerk.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
March 15, 2010 2:11 PM in reply to Indie Pro
Spout lie. Repeat.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
human
March 15, 2010 2:33 PM in reply to Indie Pro
no, I'm for passing this as a way to more progressive reforms aftwards. I'm a self-serving jerk? I'll take that over a worthless nihilist jerkoff such as yourself.
Bottom line--fewer Americans die doing it my way, while more die waiting years until your perfect system is enacted all at once, if ever.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
March 15, 2010 2:35 PM in reply to human
you're okay with deciding others need to die, instead of working on a truly comprehensive solution, because an election is coming and this needs to be done now? You're a self-serving jerk.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
human
March 15, 2010 2:54 PM in reply to Indie Pro
can't think of a coherent response to an accurate statement of your position, so just cut and paste your previous nonsensical response to another comment--LOL!
I said nothing about the elections, only about wanting to save as many lives as possible right now. OTOH, you're willing to allow more people to die while holding out for your preferred all or nothing solution which will not happen any time this year or next or for many years if ever in the real world.
Many more Americans die following your purist path. Fact. Truth. Period. Deal with it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
March 15, 2010 3:38 PM in reply to Indie Pro
You get more incoherent every day. Nothing would satisfy you, nothing. You bitched and complained that the public option that was originally being considered was a pile of crap.. now this bill is going to kill people. You really are a whining moron.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
March 15, 2010 5:36 PM in reply to lousgirl84
you offer nothing but insults, and hero worship.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
March 15, 2010 1:59 PM in reply to Indie Pro
Another outright lie from IndiePro.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
George C
March 15, 2010 3:03 PM in reply to Indie Pro
Wow! This is a really vitriolic discussion which doesn't seem to go anywhere.
Indie --
I just did a Google search for support for your assertion that 25% of Mass residents covered by insurance die because they're too poor to use it. Can't find any.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed
March 15, 2010 3:10 PM in reply to George C
I think you've misread his comment which was that 25% of MA residents are too poor to get health care even if they're mandated by law to pay for insurance. It is among these people who are likely to die in MA even if they still have the state mandated insurance. Try googling that subset.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
George C
March 15, 2010 3:37 PM in reply to Schmed
Still can't find it. I did, however, find this quotation from a Boston Globe article on the health care system and the Vineyard:
"Since 2006, he said, the hospital has recorded a 40 percent drop in the number of uninsured patients who formerly received free care because they were too poor to pay. Many of them are receiving state-subsidized health insurance."
The person quoted is the CEO of a hospital on the Vineyard.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed
March 15, 2010 3:55 PM in reply to George C
I wonder what the CEO of a hospital in Roxbury would say.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
March 15, 2010 5:21 PM in reply to George C
It's 21%
According to a March 2009 Urban Institute report, health reform has improved access to health care services for newly insured and previously insured adults. Over ninety percent of adults in Massachusetts have a usual source of care and most reported seeing a doctor in the previous year. However, the affordability of health care remains a barrier to receiving care for some residents. Of the total population, 21 percent went without needed care in the previous year because of cost. People with disabilities and those in fair and poor health experienced the greatest barriers to accessing care.
http://www.kff.org/uninsured/upload/7777-02.pdf
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
March 15, 2010 4:02 PM in reply to Schmed
That's not what Indie Pro said. He said that 25% of the people who have the mandated insurance can't afford to use it to see a doctor. That's a lie, like most of the shit Indie Pro posts here.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed
March 15, 2010 5:02 PM in reply to FreeRider
I don't know if his 25% is the correct figure, but according to the Boston Globe, a large percentage of the poor who still haven't signed up for government subsidies are still crowding hospital ER's, creating a critical backlog for care and causing some to do without. The result is often fatal. I don't think that "lie" is appropriate to describe the suggestion that an undefined percentage of poor are dying despite the mandate.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed
March 15, 2010 5:03 PM in reply to Schmed
Damn you, cursed HTML tags!
http://www.boston.com/business/healthcare/articles/2008/03/18/safety_net_hospitals_strained_by_reform/
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
March 15, 2010 5:04 PM in reply to Schmed
What you posted to is not even remotely what Indie Pro said!
You're talking about people who *still* don't have insurance. IP is saying people *with* the insurance can't afford to use it.
IP is a liar and your defense of this bullshit is pathetic.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
March 15, 2010 5:32 PM in reply to FreeRider
Of the total population, 21 percent went without needed care in the previous year because of cost. People with disabilities and those in fair and poor health experienced the greatest barriers to accessing care.
http://www.kff.org/uninsured/upload/7777-02.pdf
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
March 15, 2010 6:03 PM in reply to Indie Pro
This has nothing to do with the outrageous lie you posted saying 25% of the people who have mandated insurance in MA can't afford to see a doctor.
Support that claim, you lying skunk! Can't? I'm sooo shocked!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
March 15, 2010 6:07 PM in reply to FreeRider
21 percent went without needed care in the previous year because of cost.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
March 15, 2010 6:06 PM in reply to Schmed
OK, give it up, dude. Even Indie Pro isn't defending that bullshit lie he posted claiming that 25% of the people who have insurance can't afford to see a doctor.
He's switched to a different argument saying that a lot of people can't afford care. Duhhhhh. Now that's a relevation, ain't it?!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
March 15, 2010 6:09 PM in reply to FreeRider
that a Kaiser study from MA, where insurance is mandated.
Mass care the model fo Obamacare.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
March 15, 2010 6:11 PM in reply to FreeRider
and this is what I said:
as in Massachusettes, where 25% of those with mandated insurance are still too poor to actually use it.
the study actually say 21%
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
March 15, 2010 6:36 PM in reply to Indie Pro
Do you have brain damage?! That report says NOTHING about people who got mandated insurance being unable to use it because of cost. It refers to the overall population of MA, some of whom still don't have insurance and others who had insurance before HCR.
"Since implementation of the plan began in late 2006, it is estimated that 430,000 people have gained coverage, representing
two-thirds of the estimated 650,000 people who were
previously uninsured."
It also states that "health reform has improved access to health care services for newly insured and previously insured adults."
The bottom line of the report YOU linked to is this" health reform has improved access to heath care."
Try to get around that. Just like you tried to get around the fact that you CAN (if you want) keep your 26 year-old kid on your insurance where previously they were forced off.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
George C
March 16, 2010 8:19 AM in reply to FreeRider
However, Free, I think IndiePro's quote is accurate from the Kaiser Report. There's no question but that your quote was accurate as well. The bottom line is that the Mass Health Care plan, which is a model for HCR, has been successful in ensuring many more people than before. At the state level, however, there is a problem with affordability. As I understand it, between expansion of Medicaid and increased subsidy levels, HCR is attempting to address the affordability issues to a greater degree than Mass could.
In reality, which immediately eliminates any Repub analysis of the issue, expanding the number of people covered by insurance is a real challenge. However, that's not an argument for not trying or for defeating this bill.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
March 16, 2010 10:17 AM in reply to George C
George C, Indie is arguing that the people of MA are worse off since HCR was implemented. The report says the opposite. Yes, there are *still* problems of affordability but HCR did not make that bad situation worse, as Indie has been saying. It says the opposite.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
madmatt
March 15, 2010 1:43 PM in reply to human
Show me any method of enforcing humane behavior by the ins co's...it doesn't exist, nothing but a bailout.
Kill the Bill, the Ins co's will just charge the sick more and conbtinue to ignore them.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
madmatt
March 15, 2010 3:14 PM in reply to human
they promised and they screwed ya, why would you trust em again? I bet you recommend sucking up to abusive spouses as well.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
March 15, 2010 1:37 PM in reply to madmatt
*snore*
I never take seriously anyone who (a) labels himself "mad" and (b) cares more about sticking it to the insurance companies than saving 45,000 lives each year.
"Yeah, I know 45,000 people will die for lack of health insurance each year but it's worth it if we stop the insurance companies from getting more customers," says madmatt.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
madmatt
March 15, 2010 1:45 PM in reply to FreeRider
you are for 30 million people being forced to buy shitty coverage instead with no guarantees that the ill you mention ever get to see a dr.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
March 15, 2010 1:51 PM in reply to madmatt
1. The vast majority of those 30 million desperately want to buy insurance but either can't afford it or are banned because of pre-existing conditions. This bill addresses those concerns.
2. The other part of your statement is a lie.
3. "Yeah, I know 45,000 people will die for lack of health insurance each year but it's worth it if we stop the insurance companies from getting more customers," says madmatt.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
March 15, 2010 1:58 PM in reply to FreeRider
The vast majority of those 30 million desperately want to buy insurance but either can't afford it or are banned because of pre-existing conditions. This bill addresses those concerns.
many of these 30 million people are young people. 18-29 Year olds have highest uninsured rate in the U.S.
I don't think all of these kids are desperate for the law to compelled to purchase the products of private companies.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
March 15, 2010 2:04 PM in reply to Indie Pro
should be:
I don't think all of these kids are desperate for the law to compell them to purchase the products of private companies.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
March 15, 2010 2:10 PM in reply to Indie Pro
You don't think. Period. The 18-26 can now stay on their parents insurance, which is private.
It's a talking point about being "forced to buy private insurance." The folks who don't want to buy insurance don't want to spend the money and would feel the same if there was a government option. The "private" part just an excuse from people who want to spend their money on surfing or eating out and then clog up the ER when they get sick and stick everyone else with the bill.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
March 15, 2010 2:15 PM in reply to FreeRider
The 18-26 can now stay on their parents insurance
so the people this bill says can be charged more than everyone else, older people, they get to pay for their adult children too. Higher premiums, and longer responsibility for their adult children. You coporate DLC Rahm loving chumps are scoring big time!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
March 15, 2010 2:21 PM in reply to Indie Pro
Gosh, you're stupid. Now, you CAN'T keep you kid on your employer-based health insurance policy, even if you want to. When this bill passes, your 26 year-old kid who's in grad school or can only find part-time work CAN (not must) stay on your policy OR purchase one on his own.
Only a fool would think that's a bad thing. Indie Pro, YOU are that fool.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
madmatt
March 15, 2010 2:30 PM in reply to FreeRider
fuck you liar, you give me a govt run option and I will be first in line, but if the ins co's take 30% off the top(approx 10 billion a year in instant profit), the bill is nothing but a giveaway.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
March 15, 2010 3:03 PM in reply to madmatt
Lying ass scumbag grifter! This bill prevents the insurance companies from taking that much off the top. The premiums for the public option would have been higher than the premiums for private insurance.
You are just an irresponsible fuck who wants to spend your money in titty bars and then crowd the ER when you get sick and stick the rest of us with the bill.
Fucking grifter SOB.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Johann
March 15, 2010 4:18 PM in reply to FreeRider
Please, everybody get a grip.
People do not die from a lack of Health Insurance. They die from a lack of Health Care.
Health Care in the USA is just fine. It is Health Insurance that needs reforming.
There are 30-50 million people in the USA who are self-insured, not people without insurance. This bill would require them to either buy expensive health insurance or pay a hefty fine.
To me, this is like requiring everybody to buy a new car every year to support the auto industry. Actually, it is worse, because there would be many jobs created in the recycling all those "old" cars.
LOL.
.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
March 15, 2010 4:25 PM in reply to Johann
>>People do not die from a lack of Health Insurance.>>
Who are we supposed to believe--a Harvard study published in the Journal of Public Health or a firebagging troll name Johann?
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE58G6W520090917
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SFCWallace
March 15, 2010 4:33 PM in reply to FreeRider
The next question should be: How many other risk factors (besides no insurance) did those people have? If you want to be "scientific" about it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
March 15, 2010 4:41 PM in reply to SFCWallace
You'd know that if you read the study, smegma breath.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
savefps
March 15, 2010 4:43 PM in reply to madmatt
Give me another government option and our practice will be the first not to accept it. We already don't take medicaid and the only way we can see as many medicare patients we do is that private insurances offset the loss. Right now we have a patient base of about 8% medicare, any more and we start to lose money and payroll becomes hard to make. I could only guess that any new government plan would have payments close to medicare. So count us out. Medicare rates need to come up at least another 10%.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
savefps
March 15, 2010 5:48 PM in reply to madmatt
Give me another government option and our practice will be the first not to accept it. We already don't take medicaid and the only way we can see as many medicare patients we do is that private insurances offset the loss. Right now we have a patient base of about 8% medicare, any more and we start to lose money and payroll becomes hard to make. I could only guess that any new government plan would have payments close to medicare. So count us out. Medicare rates need to come up at least another 10%.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cornelius
March 15, 2010 1:38 PM
Ha Ha
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
human
March 15, 2010 1:52 PM
yeah, people die every day no matter what, the point is that many, many more will die without it, specifically because they can't get insurance. You're okay with that, I'm not.
I also believe that the possibility of adding a public option is much more real now, if not with this bill then at some point not long down the road. But I guarantee you'll never get that or anything else you want if this isn't passed.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
March 15, 2010 2:05 PM in reply to human
But I guarantee you'll never get that or anything else you want if this isn't passed.
your "this or nothing" statement is complete bullshit.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
human
March 15, 2010 2:25 PM in reply to Indie Pro
it's an accurate discription of your rhetoric. If this doesn't pass, then the uninsured will be screwed for a very long time, because there won't be anything else passed. You don't want this passed because it doesn't meet your standards, and you can't see that this is the only way to get our foot in the door for more progressive reforms. It's your way or nothing for you. You're okay with that, I'm not.
Don't like my accurate description? Tough, it's 100% accurate.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
March 15, 2010 2:28 PM in reply to human
the foot is in the door. We have medicare, medicaid, SCHIP etc. Those could be amended, expanded, combined. The foot is in the door.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
human
March 15, 2010 2:43 PM in reply to Indie Pro
and the foot will be even further in the door when this bill is passed--they increase access to Medicaid, you ignorant jerkoff! They increase access to younger Americans by allowing them to remain on their parents' plans!
It becomes clearer by the minute that you're just an ignorant fool who doesn't even know what's in the bill, and you're basing your opposition on kneejerk ideology.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
March 15, 2010 2:47 PM in reply to human
and you can't see that this is the only way to get our foot in the door for more progressive reforms
the foot is in the door, it does not need to be more in the door. call me all the names you want, it will not change the fact that these programs could be expanded now.
the incremental/foot in the door argument is stupid.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
human
March 15, 2010 3:04 PM in reply to Indie Pro
the foot is in the door, it does not need to be more in the door.
Tell that to the millions who will receive coverage under the bill, they just love the condescending dismissive attitude of ideological purists like you.
call me all the names you want, it will not change the fact that these programs could be expanded now.
and you can call me all the names you want, as you started out by calling me a self-serving jerk when I didn't say anything about elections--this bill expands Medicaid and a whole lot more, and you favor maintaining the status quo indefinitely--becuase you don't have any idea whatsoever how or when your more perfect solution will ever be implemented.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
March 15, 2010 5:25 PM in reply to human
Like I said to your twin freerider, many of the uninsured are young, and healthy.
atleast Robert Kuttner is honest:
The compulsory mandate is a fundamental flaw, as Obama himself recognized during the campaign. There is a world of difference between true social insurance and a mandate to purchase a private product. The former reinforces the value of government and of social solidarity; the latter signals a coercive state in concert with private industry profits. The proposed tax on decent insurance was a tone-deaf assault on wage earners for whom good health coverage is a rare, reliable island in a rising sea of economic insecurity. The diversion of Medicare funds was a political gift to Republicans. And the back-loading of benefits purely for budgetary reasons made the bill a political piñata, with the risks evident and the gains deferred.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
March 15, 2010 2:29 PM in reply to human
and again:
But I guarantee you'll never get that or anything else you want if this isn't passed.
hyperbole does not equal accurate
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
human
March 15, 2010 2:39 PM in reply to Indie Pro
says the hypocrite who makes ridiculous, and by your own admission, ignorant, predictions about the Dems suffering worse electoral results if they pass the bill.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
March 15, 2010 2:40 PM in reply to human
my presiction is that this talking point will not sve the dems in november. it'll be a tough election for them with or without this bill.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
March 15, 2010 2:41 PM in reply to Indie Pro
my prediction is that this talking point will not save the dems in november. it'll be a tough election for them with or without this bill.
they are just alienating women, hispanics, liberals and progressives.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
March 15, 2010 2:42 PM in reply to Indie Pro
and the youth vote, once the mandates kick in.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
human
March 15, 2010 2:47 PM in reply to Indie Pro
...and your own glaring ignorance. Keep hoping for failure, good luck.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
March 15, 2010 2:49 PM in reply to human
name calling, you are as bereft of argument or logic as freerider.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
human
March 15, 2010 2:59 PM in reply to Indie Pro
you mean namecalling like calling me a self-serving jerk far upthread? So you're a giant hypocrite as well as completely ignorant--a twofer!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
March 15, 2010 3:45 PM in reply to human
Nice try human but trying to have a meaningful discussion with IndiePro is an effort in futility. Nothing will make indie pro happy, no matter what it says.....you can't talk sense to a box of rocks.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
March 15, 2010 5:27 PM in reply to lousgirl84
you are worthless
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Jackster
March 15, 2010 1:53 PM
One huge problem with this bill is that it gives so much money to the BIC's without tougher regulation. It allows them to profit nicely off of all these new customers. I don't believe IC's should be profit based institutions. They would survive nicely as non-profits and sell bonds for revenue. There is almost no strong oversight on these company's. Sweden's (?) system although private is tightly controlled and over seen. I don't see anything like that happening here.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Jarl van Hoother
March 15, 2010 2:12 PM in reply to Jackster
All I know is--Insurance Companies are spending millions of dollars in ads and lobbying trying to kill this bill. That alone tells me that there must be something about this bill that makes it worth passing.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
madmatt
March 15, 2010 2:36 PM in reply to Jarl van Hoother
They win either way, they just win more if the bill passes, thats why the root against it...reverse psych 101!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
barbara63
March 15, 2010 2:46 PM in reply to madmatt
That's crazy. I don't think they would spend millions of dollars on reverse psychology. I think they would put it in the pockets of their CEOs instead.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
madmatt
March 15, 2010 3:17 PM in reply to barbara63
They win EITHER way, its just a matter of degrees.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Overreach THIS!
March 15, 2010 4:32 PM in reply to barbara63
It's not crazy. It's the words of a blithering-idiot troll is all.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Peter Principle
March 15, 2010 3:44 PM in reply to Jackster
"I don't believe IC's should be profit based institutions. They would survive nicely as non-profits and sell bonds for revenue."
And how, pray tell, are they supposed to pay the debt service on those bonds? By holding bake sales?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Jackster
March 15, 2010 6:05 PM in reply to Peter Principle
In my opinion... Stocks have a greater greed factor than bonds. A guaranteed return on investment is different than being in business only for the sake of large profits and better stock prices. Sure, make enough profit to cover your bonds, but profit at the expense of human beings is inhumane.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Jackster
March 15, 2010 6:11 PM in reply to Jackster
BLOOD F'n Money
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dem4life
March 15, 2010 2:04 PM
Go Nancy!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
xargaw
March 15, 2010 2:21 PM
My family worked our tails off to get this President elected. One of his campaign bullet points was a competitive public element to insurance reform. From the get-go he has backtracked and betrayed those of us that supported him. A bill with a mandate to buy insurance from private corporations that have a track record of unethical practices and price gouging for obscene profits is a deal breaker for future support. People can call us nuts if the GOP takes over because we sat home on election day. So be it. All we have left are our votes. It is the only thing we have to compete with corporate money. Let them sell out, but who do they think will show up on election day? Liberals have to send the message even if it is painful. A weak or lying DEM is no better than the GOP. Kill the Bill.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rmwarnick
March 15, 2010 2:27 PM
Put the public option in the bill and then everybody's happy. Except the insurance industry lobbyists. With whom President Obama definitely does not have a secret deal, right?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
barbara63
March 15, 2010 2:51 PM in reply to rmwarnick
Pass this Bill and the Public Option might come in a few years. Don't pass the Bill and you'll be waiting decades for it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Johann
March 15, 2010 4:26 PM in reply to barbara63
Require a vote for the best bill possible, include a public option, a single payer option, and a self insurance option. Let the voters know who votes against the public's interests so we can vote them out of office.
This flawed bill is an albatross around the necks of the Democrats. The flaws they negotiated with themselves to put into it will be used by the Republicans against them in the 2011 elections.
.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
barbara63
March 15, 2010 2:48 PM
Thank you for this article, Brian. The headline is great and the picture of Nancy is terrific.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
likembrave
March 15, 2010 2:55 PM
Why sacrifice practicality for "pie in the sky" perfection? I say take what you can get NOW...run on it...improve it in the future. If you really think that a full, exclusive, non-profit, government-run health insurance system will ever be part of the US, then you are delusional. But killing the bill in spite of a full years worth of work and negotiations, will be a death knell of the democrats. They will certainly be tagged with "not being able to govern" (regardless of the full court opposition from EVERY REPUBLICAN) and ALL other progressive priorities will be sacrificed...and the country will again swing back to the bat-shit crazy right.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
madmatt
March 15, 2010 3:37 PM in reply to likembrave
all progressive possibilities will be dead, as the rethugs and centrist scum will realize that "progressives" will vote for any POS that comes down the pike.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
king buzzo
March 15, 2010 3:03 PM
Nothing rallies the troops like the confidence of a double negative!
Now if only she would have used the passive voice as well: "This bill will not have been not passed!"
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
king buzzo
March 15, 2010 3:11 PM in reply to king buzzo
Also, quite a contrast from her assertion that DC Is the "city of the perishable" which, when combined with the picture of her brandishing a fist, exposes her murderous intentions.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lynn Dee
March 15, 2010 3:12 PM
Brava, Nancy! She's awesome.
BTW, anyone who thinks it's Pelosi who killed the public option should read more about it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Brownbagger
March 15, 2010 3:15 PM
I'm with Paul. Get it done.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/12/opinion/12krugman.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
barbara63
March 15, 2010 3:28 PM in reply to Brownbagger
Thank you for this. You're right. Get it done.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Brownbagger
March 15, 2010 3:48 PM in reply to barbara63
Paul was right about the housing bubble, right about the looming casino banking fiasco, and he's right about this. Thanks.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cornelius
March 15, 2010 3:55 PM in reply to Brownbagger
I like Krugman, and it worked for me, but he is a front runner. He wasn't ahead of the curve on any of these "bubbles". Great hindsight but didn't see any of this coming. And I looked.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Brownbagger
March 15, 2010 4:01 PM in reply to Cornelius
Look again.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Brownbagger
March 15, 2010 4:12 PM in reply to Cornelius
By the way, what worked for you?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cornelius
March 15, 2010 4:41 PM in reply to Brownbagger
what worked for me you ask, well, the whole casino mentality of Wall Street as explained by economists like Krugman, who was originally a Hillary supporter who criticized Obama's health care plan early on. Play a lot of Texas Holdem so I enjoy the action so to say, especially the idea of credit default swaps; selling an investor into a rising tech stock and then buying insurance against that company just as it levels off and heads south. Criminal, maybe, but still exciting. And legal of course, with no sourcing permitted. How can you beat that.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Brownbagger
March 15, 2010 8:45 PM in reply to Cornelius
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Brownbagger
March 15, 2010 8:51 PM in reply to Cornelius
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Pete Bilderback
March 15, 2010 3:41 PM
After reading through some of the responses here, my hope is that this legislation will make it easier for Americans to afford anger management therapy.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Peter Principle
March 15, 2010 3:48 PM in reply to Pete Bilderback
my hope is that this legislation will make it easier for Americans to afford anger management therapy.
Only if it's approved by the death panels.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
runfastandwin
March 15, 2010 3:59 PM
A bird in hand is worth two in the bush. He who does not choose the lesser of two evils, will inevitably wind up with the greater. Half a loaf of bread will keep you alive, while with no loaf you will starve. It was ever thus, all these sayings are thousands of years old. There's a reason they've survived all these years.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Johann
March 15, 2010 4:33 PM in reply to runfastandwin
When that bird in the hand is a vulture tearing your eyes out, It would be much better to have two in the bush.
.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DKDC
March 15, 2010 4:01 PM
That won't be necessary, I think - I'm sure that the Firebaggers will soon move on to heaving their indignant bosoms at whatever financial reform package comes down the pike and forget that the world stopped on its axis when this health care bill passed.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
March 15, 2010 4:17 PM
Contact Nancy Pelosi and tell her, "NO PUBLIC OPTION, NO DEM VOTES IN NOVEMBER!"
(202) 225-0100
http://www.speaker.gov/contact/
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
likembrave
March 15, 2010 5:04 PM
The fact that the REPUBLICANS are doing everything to stop this means that they don't want it to pass for POLITICAL reasons. They know that if this passes, then ULTIMATELY their whole party will be forever seen as obstructionist and not wanting to change the status quo. The fact that it's not a perfect bill should not stop DEMOCRATS from passing it. PASS THE BILL...GET SOMETHING DONE...LIVE WITH THE CONSEQUENCES...WHICH WILL BE GOOD FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE!
If you are fighting this bill from the left, then you are insane and basically want to throw away any power to change anything in this country. Your stubbornness is not helpful. You may think it's noble...but in the end it's futile because you will have shot yourself in the foot...no, shot yourself in the head. Then you will have NO POWER TO GET ANYTHING ELSE DONE...for a very long time.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
June 12, 2010 7:35 PM
You don't think. Period. The 18-26 can now stay on their parents insurance, which is private.
It's a talking point about being "forced to buy private insurance." The folks who don't want to buy insurance don't want to spend the money and would feel the same if there was a government option. The "private" part just an excuse from people who want to spend their money on surfing or eating out and then clog up the ER when they get sick and stick everyone else with the bill.
m65 kamagra
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?