Round 1

[rushmc 23]

Won by common sense

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/29/senate-panel-debates-govt-run-health-plan/

Quote

A key Senate committee voted against creating a new government health insurance plan after senators sparred for hours Tuesday over the necessity of a so-called public option to compete with the private market.

The 15-to-8 vote by the Senate Finance Committee could forecast the fate of the public option in the Senate as a whole. The outcome was expected but still a defeat for liberals who view government-sponsored insurance for the middle class as a key component of President Obama's health care overhaul.

Five committee Democrats, including Chairman Max Baucus, joined with all 10 committee Republicans to defeat the measure by Democratic Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia.

The committee's top Republicans took aim Tuesday at proposals by liberal Democrats to create a government-run health insurance program, warning that the so-called "public option" would crush private insurance companies.

Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., and Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, sparred with Democrats on the Senate floor over the necessity of a public plan -- with Grassley saying lawmakers shouldn't take advantage of the shortcomings in the health care system to "denigrate" American health care.

Two Democratic Senators on the committee, Rockefeller and Chuck Schumer of New York, proposed separate amendments in an attempt to outline what a public plan should look like.

Rockefeller proposed a plan modeled on Medicare, the federal health care program for senior citizens, in which the government would set what it pays doctors, hospitals and other medical providers. Schumer proposed a government plan that looks more like a private insurance company and negotiates payment rates with providers.

Republicans and moderate Democrats, meanwhile, stood their ground in opposition to a government plan that would compete for subscribers with private carriers.

Ensign was quick to pounce on Rockefeller's amendment, arguing that his idea for a public option would deny doctors participation in Medicare for two years if they choose not to participate in a new government program.

Rockefeller, saying 70 percent of doctors support a public option, defended his proposal. He said it will protect American families, and he dismissed assertions that it will lead to a government takeover of health insurance. "It will be optional. No one has to do this," he said.

Grassley reiterated his opposition to a government-run plan and challenged Rockefeller's 70-percent statistic, saying another poll showed that not even a majority of doctors would support a public option that weakened the private insurance industry.

The United States is the only developed nation that does not have a comprehensive national health care plan, leaving about 50 million people without health insurance. The government provides coverage for the poor and elderly, but most Americans rely on private insurance, usually received through their employers. Others buy their own insurance or pay steep medical bills out of pocket.

Sen. Kent Conrad, D-ND, who has crafted an alternative plan that would set up a series of non-profit health care cooperatives, blasted Rockefeller's plan, saying, "The devil is in the details." Conrad said if the amendment is implemented, "every major hospital goes broke."

"I can't possibly support any amendment that does that," he said.

Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-NM, said he could support a public option, but he disagrees with Rockefeller's approach. "I think there is a problem with providing Medicare reimbursement rates," Bingaman said, echoing the concerns of Conrad.

As senators continue to spar over the public option, two liberal groups are launching a hard-hitting television and Internet ad featuring a young father from Montana. Bing Perrine, 26, who needs a heart operation and is uninsured and deeply in debt, looks straight into the camera and asks Baucus: "Whose side are you on?"

The ad is sponsored by Democracy for America and the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, which say Baucus is too cozy with insurance and health care interests that have contributed to his campaigns and oppose a government plan.

Baucus aide Tyler Matsdorf said the ad falsely implies that the senator doesn't care about the plight of people with pre-existing health problems. It's just that Baucus would address such problems differently than the liberals, Matsdorf said. For example, his plan calls for nonprofit co-ops to compete with the insurance industry independently of the government. Insurers also oppose co-ops.

"Win or lose, it's clear that the strong public interest and support for a public option will be well represented by the supportive senators," said Gerald Shea, a top health care policy expert for the AFL-CIO labor federation. "My sense is that our message about how vital the public plan is to the critically important issue of cost control is beginning to break through the bubble that has surrounded Finance for months."

The wild card in Tuesday's debate is Maine Sen. Olympia Snowe, a moderate Republican. Aides say she's considering offering a compromise that would use the public option as a threat, to be deployed only if private insurers fail to keep premiums in check after a reasonable period of time.

If there's a final bill this year, it's possible that Snowe's idea will be the one to carry the day.

FOX News' Trish Turner and the Associated Press contributed to this report.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[idrankwhat 0]

Common sense? No.
Bribery? Yes.




Industries have spent $585.7 million since 2007 on lobbying and campaign contributions


Washington, D.C. – A campaign finance watchdog’s analysis of insurance and HMO political contributions and lobbying expenses found the industries spent $126,430,438 over the first half of 2009 and $585,725,712 over the past two and a half years to influence public policy and elected officials. The group, Public Campaign Action Fund, found that in the first part of 2009, the industries were spending money at nearly a $700,000 a day clip to influence the political process and that the monthly pace of political spending this year has increased by nearly $400,000 over the average spent per month in the previous two years.

“The insurance and HMO interests are fighting health care reform with hundreds of millions of dollars,” commented David Donnelly, national campaigns director of Public Campaign Action Fund. “Why are so many in Congress willing to listen to an industry that is spending tens of millions every month on politics rather than on lowering their premiums or helping to address the costs of health care? They need the cash to pay for their campaigns. And that’s why we need Congress out of the fundraising game — which can happen if Congress adopts the Fair Elections Now Act.”

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the insurance interests have 875 registered lobbyists representing its concerns in Washington D.C., and HMOs have 920 registered lobbyists. The total figure for 2009, 1,795, is slightly fewer than 2,000 lobbyists the industries employed in 2008. It is possible that late hires during the important fall months will push 2009 figures past the 2008 record.

The research released today is the first of a two-part study on insurance and HMO industry campaign contributions and lobbying expenses compiled by Public Campaign Action Fund. The study was compiled with data available from the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics and the Senate lobbying disclosure websites. Tomorrow’s release will focus on the political spending by the top for-profit health insurance and HMOs.

(A Common Cause study earlier this year found that health care and insurance interests were spending a combined $1.4 million per day over the first quarter. This study looked at insurance and HMO spending.)

Public Campaign Action Fund advocates for the Fair Elections Now Act (H.R. 1826, S. 752), or comprehensive public financing of elections, The bill was introduced by House Democratic Caucus Chair John Larson (D-Conn.) and Assistant Senate Majority Leader Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and would provide qualified federal candidates the opportunity to run for office with a mixture of small donations and public funding.

The national nonprofit organization is dedicated to advancing comprehensive reform of America’s election laws and works to hold politicians accountable for the favors they do for special interests.


http://www.campaignmoney.org/HMO_insurance_spend_to_kill_reform

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Common sense? No.
Bribery? Yes.




Industries have spent $585.7 million since 2007 on lobbying and campaign contributions


Washington, D.C. – A campaign finance watchdog’s analysis of insurance and HMO political contributions and lobbying expenses found the industries spent $126,430,438 over the first half of 2009 and $585,725,712 over the past two and a half years to influence public policy and elected officials. The group, Public Campaign Action Fund, found that in the first part of 2009, the industries were spending money at nearly a $700,000 a day clip to influence the political process and that the monthly pace of political spending this year has increased by nearly $400,000 over the average spent per month in the previous two years.

“The insurance and HMO interests are fighting health care reform with hundreds of millions of dollars,” commented David Donnelly, national campaigns director of Public Campaign Action Fund. “Why are so many in Congress willing to listen to an industry that is spending tens of millions every month on politics rather than on lowering their premiums or helping to address the costs of health care? They need the cash to pay for their campaigns. And that’s why we need Congress out of the fundraising game — which can happen if Congress adopts the Fair Elections Now Act.”

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the insurance interests have 875 registered lobbyists representing its concerns in Washington D.C., and HMOs have 920 registered lobbyists. The total figure for 2009, 1,795, is slightly fewer than 2,000 lobbyists the industries employed in 2008. It is possible that late hires during the important fall months will push 2009 figures past the 2008 record.

The research released today is the first of a two-part study on insurance and HMO industry campaign contributions and lobbying expenses compiled by Public Campaign Action Fund. The study was compiled with data available from the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics and the Senate lobbying disclosure websites. Tomorrow’s release will focus on the political spending by the top for-profit health insurance and HMOs.

(A Common Cause study earlier this year found that health care and insurance interests were spending a combined $1.4 million per day over the first quarter. This study looked at insurance and HMO spending.)

Public Campaign Action Fund advocates for the Fair Elections Now Act (H.R. 1826, S. 752), or comprehensive public financing of elections, The bill was introduced by House Democratic Caucus Chair John Larson (D-Conn.) and Assistant Senate Majority Leader Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and would provide qualified federal candidates the opportunity to run for office with a mixture of small donations and public funding.

The national nonprofit organization is dedicated to advancing comprehensive reform of America’s election laws and works to hold politicians accountable for the favors they do for special interests.


http://www.campaignmoney.org/HMO_insurance_spend_to_kill_reform

I am glad somebody is fighting this at their level. It is terrible law.

And with less than 46% supporting this mess it is the people speaking as much as the those lobbying.

13 rounds left to go. Not over by a long shot but it is a good first step

Edited to add

the BIGGEST lobby will not allow tort reform unles the people want it. No different here

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

And with less than 46% supporting this mess it is the people speaking as much as the those lobbying.

Nope. Most people support a public option along with private insurance. The people are speaking but legislators are only listening to those with the most "free $peech."

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

And with less than 46% supporting this mess it is the people speaking as much as the those lobbying.

Nope. Most people support a public option along with private insurance. The people are speaking but legislators are only listening to those with the most "free $peech."

Nope

Quote

Only 41 percent of voters now support President Barack Obama and the Democrats' healthcare reform proposal — down from 44 percent two weeks ago and the lowest level of support yet measured by Rasmussen Reports.

Rasmussen's nationwide telephone survey also found that 56 percent of voters are now opposed to the plan.

Just 33 percent of senior citizens favor the plan, while 59 percent are opposed.

Other findings of the poll:


46 percent of respondents believe the reform plan will likely pass and become law this year, but 47 percent think it will likely not pass, including 15 percent who say it is not at all likely to pass.


While 23 percent of voters "strongly favor" the legislative effort to reform healthcare, 43 percent are "strongly opposed."


24 percent of respondents say the quality of healthcare will improve if the plan passes, and 55 percent say it will get worse.


54 percent say passage of the plan will increase the cost of healthcare, and 23 percent say it will lower the cost.


The overwhelming majority of voters — 78 percent — believe that every American should be able to buy the same health insurance plan that Congress has.


53 percent think tort reform will significantly lower the cost of healthcare.


48 percent of respondents want a prohibition on abortion in any government subsidized program, and 13 percent want a mandate requiring abortion coverage.

"The most important fundamental is that 68 percent of American voters have health insurance coverage they rate as good or excellent," Scott Rasmussen, president of Rasmussen Reports, wrote recently in The Wall Street Journal.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Channman 2]

Quote

Quote

And with less than 46% supporting this mess it is the people speaking as much as the those lobbying.

Nope. Most people support a public option along with private insurance. The people are speaking but legislators are only listening to those with the most "free $peech."

> "Most people support a public option..."

Not hardly dude, people don't support this bill, nor the Public Option. Typical Lib, saying, "Most Americans support...." before every sentance.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

And with less than 46% supporting this mess it is the people speaking as much as the those lobbying.

Nope. Most people support a public option along with private insurance. The people are speaking but legislators are only listening to those with the most "free $peech."

> "Most people support a public option..."

Not hardly dude, people don't support this bill, nor the Public Option. Typical Lib, saying, "Most Americans support...." before every sentance.

A quick search indicates that most polls support idrankwhat's assertion.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

And with less than 46% supporting this mess it is the people speaking as much as the those lobbying.

Nope. Most people support a public option along with private insurance. The people are speaking but legislators are only listening to those with the most "free $peech."

> "Most people support a public option..."

Not hardly dude, people don't support this bill, nor the Public Option. Typical Lib, saying, "Most Americans support...." before every sentance.

A quick search indicates that most polls support idrankwhat's assertion.

Ahhh, the Huffington Post is a poll? Or just their opinion.

Now, you might find a majority of those supporting the current bills supporting the public option but, I do not see he support you claim in your links.

If I have missed something in your links, please quote the portions you feel show I am in error

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Ahhh, the Huffington Post is a poll? Or just their opinion.

Now, you might find a majority of those supporting the current bills supporting the public option but, I do not see he support you claim in your links.

If I have missed something in your links, please quote the portions you feel show I am in error

Your brings to mind the words of Wolfgang Pauli:

"This isn't right. This isn't even wrong."

I linked to Google search results, not a particular article.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Channman 2]

I did about 45 seconds of research, because I'm a little lazy right now and found this...I want take the time to provide a link because, well I'm just to lazy to do it at the moment.

A perfect example is provided by recent polling from Rasmussen and CBS on the public option. CBS puts support for the public option at 65%. Rasmussen meanwhile puts support at just 35% for the public option. Is it really possible for either organization (with decent reputations) to be off by 30% in their projections?


CBS ask their audience about the public option with the following question:

"Would you favor or oppose government offering everyone a government-administered health insurance plan like Medicare that would compete with private insurance?"

Compare that question with the Rasmussen question which asks:

"Would it be a good idea to set up a government health insurance company to compete with private health insurance companies?"

The CBS poll is clearly more friendly to public option in asking about government offering a "plan" which is "like Medicare" to "compete with private insurance." The idea of a "plan" is much more acceptable than government setting up a "company" under the Rasmussen poll. In addition Medicare is a relatively popular program so setting up a "plan" like Medicare would increase support among many survey participants including seniors.

So what can we conclude from these polls? Like most things in politics the rejection or acceptance of an idea largely depends on who you ask and the wording of the question. Whether the public option is supported by a majority of Americans depends largely on whether you believe government is setting up a "plan like Medicare" or a "company."

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

I did about 45 seconds of research, because I'm a little lazy right now and found this...I want take the time to provide a link because, well I'm just to lazy to do it at the moment.

A perfect example is provided by recent polling from Rasmussen and CBS on the public option. CBS puts support for the public option at 65%. Rasmussen meanwhile puts support at just 35% for the public option. Is it really possible for either organization (with decent reputations) to be off by 30% in their projections?


CBS ask their audience about the public option with the following question:

"Would you favor or oppose government offering everyone a government-administered health insurance plan like Medicare that would compete with private insurance?"

Compare that question with the Rasmussen question which asks:

"Would it be a good idea to set up a government health insurance company to compete with private health insurance companies?"

The CBS poll is clearly more friendly to public option in asking about government offering a "plan" which is "like Medicare" to "compete with private insurance." The idea of a "plan" is much more acceptable than government setting up a "company" under the Rasmussen poll. In addition Medicare is a relatively popular program so setting up a "plan" like Medicare would increase support among many survey participants including seniors.

So what can we conclude from these polls? Like most things in politics the rejection or acceptance of an idea largely depends on who you ask and the wording of the question. Whether the public option is supported by a majority of Americans depends largely on whether you believe government is setting up a "plan like Medicare" or a "company."

The CBS question more accurately reflects reality. The government may set up a plan, but is very unlikely to establish a company.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Channman 2]

Well, I feel better now knowing you approve.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

I did about 45 seconds of research, because I'm a little lazy right now and found this...I want take the time to provide a link because, well I'm just to lazy to do it at the moment.

A perfect example is provided by recent polling from Rasmussen and CBS on the public option. CBS puts support for the public option at 65%. Rasmussen meanwhile puts support at just 35% for the public option. Is it really possible for either organization (with decent reputations) to be off by 30% in their projections?


CBS ask their audience about the public option with the following question:

"Would you favor or oppose government offering everyone a government-administered health insurance plan like Medicare that would compete with private insurance?"

Compare that question with the Rasmussen question which asks:

"Would it be a good idea to set up a government health insurance company to compete with private health insurance companies?"

The CBS poll is clearly more friendly to public option in asking about government offering a "plan" which is "like Medicare" to "compete with private insurance." The idea of a "plan" is much more acceptable than government setting up a "company" under the Rasmussen poll. In addition Medicare is a relatively popular program so setting up a "plan" like Medicare would increase support among many survey participants including seniors.

So what can we conclude from these polls? Like most things in politics the rejection or acceptance of an idea largely depends on who you ask and the wording of the question. Whether the public option is supported by a majority of Americans depends largely on whether you believe government is setting up a "plan like Medicare" or a "company."

The CBS question more accurately reflects reality. The government may set up a plan, but is very unlikely to establish a company.

I am sorry, but CBS has less than zero credibility. And as with all polls. The questions can be neutral or leading. Care make a call on the CBS line of questioning

It is interesting to me as I just spent some time using Google on both sides. Specific data and hard news appears to me to be hard to find. At least on the public option issue.

But the polling on the Gov taking over HC is declining fast by the accounts of the most reputable pollsters

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[wmw999 2,584]

Channman is dead right about the way that the question is worded making a difference in the poll. Of course, I find that neither of the questions is worded neutrally, but without an exact definition of what a public option is, there is no way to get a totally neutral and totally accurate wording.

But as soon as you put the words "compete" and "government" into the same sentence you're going to get one set of people all riled up. And "public" and "health" will work up another set.

Just remember the furor here on dz.com over the "death panels" if you want an example of how connotation really does matter as much as denotation.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

Industries have spent $585.7 million since 2007 on lobbying and campaign contributions

Hey, I've got an idea!

Let's pass a law requiring that every American purchase that industries overpriced health "insurance" or face criminal penalties!

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Channman is dead right about the way that the question is worded making a difference in the poll. Of course, I find that neither of the questions is worded neutrally, but without an exact definition of what a public option is, there is no way to get a totally neutral and totally accurate wording.Very good point

But as soon as you put the words "compete" and "government" into the same sentence you're going to get one set of people all riled up. And "public" and "health" will work up another set.again, well said

Just remember the furor here on dz.com over the "death panels" if you want an example of how connotation really does matter as much as denotation.

Wendy P.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

Most people support a public option along with private insurance.

Of the people I see face to face every day, I don't know anyone who favors a public option. Also, every poll I've seen indicates the opposite.

We are all engines of karma

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

I linked to Google search results, not a particular article.

So those websites know how to jack up their google results. That's one reasonable conclusion looking at that.

We are all engines of karma

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Senate Panel Rebuffs Obama; Restores Abstinence Funds

Tuesday, September 29, 2009 10:40 PM


WASHINGTON -- A Senate committee has voted to restore $50 million a year in federal funding for abstinence-only education that President Barack Obama had sought to eliminate.


The 12-11 vote by the Senate Finance Committee came over objections from its chairman, Democratic Sen. Max Baucus of Montana.


Two Democrats _ Kent Conrad of North Dakota and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas _ joined all 10 committee Republicans in voting "yes" on the measure by Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah.


The measure would still have to pass the full House and Senate. Hatch said abstinence education had been shown to work, though Baucus disagreed. Obama had proposed in his 2010 budget to direct money spent on abstinence-only education to broader teen pregnancy-reduction programs.


The vote came as the committee debated a sweeping overhaul bill.





© 2009 Associated Press.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

The bolded part in the text is intereting. Someone else posted to the effect of credit unions and how costs are reduced that way. I feel they should be allowed for insurance too (at least at first look)

Quote

Liberals Refuse to Give Up on Gov't Health Option
After a so-called public health insurance option failed to pass in the Senate Finance Committee, supporters vow to keep up their fight as the bill moves toward the Senate floor

AP

Wednesday, September 30, 2009

0 x
in order to recommend a story, you must login or register.
28 Comments | Add Comment
ShareThisPhotos

Sept. 29: Senate Finance Committee Chairman Sen. Max Baucus, left, talks with ranking Republican Sen. Charles Grassley on Capitol Hill. (AP)

Related Stories
Senate Finance Committee Votes Against Government-Run Health Plan

See More »
Health Care Mandate Sparks Constitutional Debate

See More »

PEOPLE WHO READ THIS ALSO READ
White House Starts Review of Afghan War Strategy 28025146
AP: Gov't Still Hiding Secrets After Obama Order 28026036
Beauty Queen Resigns After Lingerie Fraud 28025420
ACORN May Face Trial for First Time as Nevada Prosecutors Allege 'Widespread' Criminal Policies 28018122
Italy Foreign Minister: We Are Staying in Afghanistan 28010640
WASHINGTON -- A sweeping health overhaul bill has survived a major challenge from the left, but onslaughts loom from the right on thorny issues including abortion and insurance coverage for illegal immigrants.

Liberal Democrats failed in two efforts Tuesday to include a government-run insurance option in the legislation before the Senate Finance Committee. Finance is the last of five congressional panels completing work on President Barack Obama's No. 1 domestic priority, a top-to-bottom reshaping of the U.S. health care system to hold down costs and extend coverage to the uninsured.

The outcome was expected in the moderate committee, which is the only of the five not to have embraced an new federally-run insurance plan that would compete with private insurers. Advocates say the competition would help consumers while opponents say it would destroy private companies and result in a government takeover of health care.

The committee's chairman, Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., said he saw features to like in the so-called public plan but that it wouldn't get the 60 votes necessary to advance in the Senate. "My first job is to get this bill across the finish line," said Baucus, who'd proposed nonprofit, member-owned cooperatives instead.

Supporters of the so-called "public option" vowed to keep up their fight as the bill moves toward the Senate floor, and then to negotiations with the House. Democratic leaders in both chambers are pushing for floor votes in the fall.

"We are going to keep at this and at this and at this until we succeed because we believe in it so strongly," said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.

But first the bill has to get out of the Finance Committee, where hurdles will greet senators as they reconvene Wednesday for their sixth day of work. Among them: amendments expected to be offered by minority Republicans to strengthen prohibitions against illegal immigrants getting federal funding to buy insurance.

Also pending are amendments to ensure there is no federal funding for abortion.

Baucus has already tightened up language in his bill on both those issues, but they are highly fraught and critics see loopholes they want to close.

Those issues are also still pending in the House, where Democratic leaders hope to finalize legislation this week that would merge the work of three separate committees into one. Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., was to meet with the full Democratic caucus Wednesday morning to discuss issues including the final shape of a public plan she intends to include in the House bill, and how to pare the bill down to $900 billion over 10 years -- Obama's preferred price tag and about how much the Senate Finance version costs.

In the Finance Committee, a public plan amendment offered by Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., failed 15 to 8, with Baucus and four other committee Democrats joining all 10 Republicans to vote no. A moderated version by Schumer went down 13-10.

It's possible that the committee could take up the public plan issue again in the form of one or more compromises being debated among senators. One of those comes from Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine, the only Republican viewed as a possible "yes" vote on the final bill.

Snowe has proposed a public plan that would go into effect only in states where private companies weren't offering affordable enough alternatives. She said late Tuesday that she was discussing the so-called "trigger" compromise with committee Democrats and hadn't decided how to proceed.

The public plan votes were the highlight Tuesday as the panel pushed forward with legislation that generally adheres to conditions that Obama has called for. The bill includes new consumer protections, including a ban on companies denying insurance on the basis of pre-existing conditions. At the same time it provides government subsidies to help lower-income Americans afford insurance that is currently beyond their means. It also includes steps that supporters say will begin to slow the growth in health care costs nationwide.

In addition to the public option amendments, the committee agreed late Tuesday to a measure that would require lawmakers to shop for insurance within new state purchasing exchanges the bill would set up. The measure's author, Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, said it was only fair that if their constituents had to enter the exchanges, lawmakers should too.

The committee defeated an amendment, also by Grassley, that would have allowed states to opt out of a new requirement for every individual to purchase insurance coverage or pay a fine.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Quote

Most people support a public option along with private insurance.

Of the people I see face to face every day, I don't know anyone who favors a public option. Also, every poll I've seen indicates the opposite.

The question in question is 34a.
http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/documents/WSJ-NBC_Poll090617.pdf

And yes, wording in all of these polls, and the paraphrasing by our legislators and talking heads can be misleading. But from what I've seen, there is substantial support/acceptance for a public option. Not a complete takeover but another option to choose from.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

And with less than 46% supporting this mess it is the people speaking as much as the those lobbying.

I wonder how many people supported slavery abolition, women suffrage, and many, many other major changes? Yea, this is a win for elitist America; really defines what a toilet this country is when HC is apportioned or if you dare use ER, you're in debtor's prison.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

And with less than 46% supporting this mess it is the people speaking as much as the those lobbying.

I wonder how many people supported slavery abolition, women suffrage, and many, many other major changes? Yea, this is a win for elitist America; really defines what a toilet this country is when HC is apportioned or if you dare use ER, you're in debtor's prison.

nice straw man

keep on topic please

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[wmw999 2,584]

I think his point is that in this case "common sense" is defined by popularity (with popularity being defined by specific polls no less). And that sometimes popularity isn't the best determinant of right and wrong.

Which is very apropos to the topic.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Congress’s Secret Plan to Pass Obamacare
by Brian Darling
09/29/2009


President Obama and liberals in Congress seem intent on passing comprehensive health care reform, even though polls suggest it is unpopular with the American people. And despite the potential political risks to moderate Democrats, the President and left-wing leadership in Congress are determined to pass the measure using a rare parliamentary procedure.

The Senate plans to attach Obamacare to a House-passed non-healthcare bill. Ironically, nobody knows what that legislation looks like, because it has not yet been written. Yet many members plan to rubber-stamp Obamacare without reading or understanding the bill.

The Senate Finance Committee worked furiously last week to mark up a “conceptual framework” of health care reform. The committee actually rejected an amendment by Sen. Jim Bunning (R.-Ky.) to mandate that the bill text and a final cost analysis by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) be publicly available at least 72 hours before the Finance Committee votes on final passage.


The following four-step scenario describes one way liberals plan to work the rules in their favor to get Obamacare through the Senate:

Step 1: The Senate Finance Committee must first approve the marked-up version of Sen. Max Baucus’ (D.-Mont.) conceptual framework. Then Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D.-Nev.) can say that two Senate Committees have passed a health care bill, which will allow him to take extraordinary steps to get the bill on the Senate floor.

During the mark-up last week, members had difficulty offering amendments and trying to make constructive changed because they lacked actual legislative text and Baucus made unilateral last minute changes. For example, the AP reported that “under pressure from fellow Democrats, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee decided to commit an additional $50 billion over a decade toward making insurance more affordable for working-class families.”

Step 2: Sen. Reid will take the final product of the Senate Finance Committee and merge it with the product of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, which passed on a party-line vote in July.

Usually, a bill is voted out of committee, and then the Senate takes up the final product of the committee so that all 100 senators can have a hand in the process. With some help from the Obama administration, Reid will decide what aspects of the HELP and Finance Committee bills to keep.

Step 3: Now, Obamacare will be ready to hitch a ride on an unrelated bill from the House. Sen. Reid will move to proceed to H.R. 1586, a bill to impose a tax on bonuses received by certain TARP recipients. This bill was passed by the House in the wake of the AIG bonus controversy and is currently sitting on the Senate Legislative Calendar.

The move to proceed needs 60 votes to start debate. After the motion is approved, Sen. Reid will offer Obamacare as a complete substitute to the unrelated House-passed bill. This means that the entire healthcare reform effort will be included as an amendment to a TARP bill that has been collecting dust in the Senate for months.

Step 4: For this strategy to work, the proponents would need to hold together the liberal caucus of 58 Democrats (including Paul Kirk who was named last Thursday to replace Sen. Kennedy), and the two Independent senators (Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and Bernie Sanders of Vermont). These members will have to all hold hands and vote against any filibuster. Once the Senate takes up the bill, only a simple majority of members will be needed for passage. It’s possible one of the endangered moderate Democrats, such as Sen. Blanche Lincoln (Ark.), could vote to stop a filibuster then vote against Obamacare so as not to offend angry constituents.

Once the Senate passes a bill and sends it to the House, all the House would have to do is pass the bill without changes and President Obama will be presented with his health care reform measure. If this plan does not work, the Senate and House leadership may go back to considering using reconciliation to pass the legislation.

Adopting this secret plan will not strike most Americans as a transparent, bipartisan, effective way to change how millions of Americans get their health care.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln