Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Progressive Groups Target Baucus with Ad Backing Public Option

Updated 3:49 p.m.
By Dan Eggen
Two progressive groups continue their attacks on centrist Democrats today with an advertising campaign targeting Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), whose role in attempting to forge a compromise health-care bill with Republicans has raised the ire of many liberals.

The ad from the Progressive Campaign Change Committee and Democracy for America comes as Baucus's Senate Finance Committee prepares to vote on a bill that likely will not contain a so-called public insurance option, which many liberals consider crucial to reform but which is strongly opposed by Republicans and private insurers.

The ad will be run in Montana and Washington, D.C., and features a young, uninsured father who faces more than $100,000 in medical bills because of a congenital heart defect.

"Senator Baucus, when you take millions of dollars from health and insurance interests that oppose reform and oppose giving families like mine the choice of a public option, I have to ask: whose side are you on?" asks Bing Perrine of Billings, Mont.

As they have during past campaigns targeting Sens. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) and Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), the two groups have launched a fundraising drive specifically aimed at extending the ad run. The groups say they have already dedicated $50,000 for cable television spots, with a goal of raising another $50,000 through Internet appeals.

"Help air an ad holding Sen. Max Baucus accountable for stalling health-care reform," the groups say.

Baucus spokesman Tyler Matsdorf said the senator's version of health-care legislation would prevent such situations from occurring and complained that the ad "falsely indicates" otherwise.

"As Senator Baucus has made clear, no longer can insurance companies deny people care because of a pre-existing condition, and to paint the chairman's mark any other way is inaccurate," Matsdorf said, referring to the health reform legislation currently under debate at the Finance Committee.

Matsdorf added that "Senator Baucus knows that there must be competition for insurance companies," which is why the current committee legislation includes a health-care co-op proposal. Baucus also included a public insurance option in a "white paper" he issued last year, Matsdorf noted.

By Dan Eggen  |  September 28, 2009; 11:46 AM ET
Categories:  Health Reform  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Kirk Is Sworn Into Senate, as Kennedy Family Looks On
Next: Today on the Hill

Comments

How is it that there can be any debate on the public option? How can there be protests to support the likes of Aeta, Cigna, WellPoint, etc.? - these 'healthcare' companies haven't given a Band-aid or a single Aspirin to anyone who's sick. They are insurance companies that make their money by NOT paying for operations and treatments. They don't provide any healthcare. Yet these Republicans who often go to church and talk about their faith would let the poor die who don't have coverage and don't mind if they go bankrupt due to medical expenses if their coverage isn't sufficient or they're dropped..

What did Jesus say? - let the poor rot? No, that's not right. Something about HEAL THE SICK. Medicare is more efficient in disbursing funds to pay doctors and hospitals than any private insurance company. Why? It's not for profit. Duh. And no multi-million dollar bonuses for CEOs who get paid for golfing at the club while trying to bribe Baucus. Why not just open up Medicare to all? If you have a SS number, you can buy into medicare. Baucus' plan has NO provision that insurance companies have to lower their premiums. You'll be forced to buy into it and the gov't will give more handouts to these same insurance companies because they no longer can drop you when you have cancer or some other nasty disease.

Posted by: UNLISTED | September 28, 2009 11:59 AM | Report abuse

Uh, you do realize Medicare is going broke don't you? Or that a lot of doctors have stopped accepting Medicare patients because the reimbursement rate is too low?

Posted by: RobT1 | September 28, 2009 12:08 PM | Report abuse

Obama repeatedly admitted during the campaign (but now blatantly lies about it) that he supports a single payer system, i.e. Socialized Medicine; and, his "Government Option" is designed to force private insurers out of the market in order to achieve precisely that goal. As Obama said: "I don't think we're going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately. There's going to be potentially some transition process..." Barney Frank then unashamedly admitted that Obama's "Public Option" was simply a Trojan Horse for surreptitiously introducing full blown Socialized Medicine. Which raises the question as to whether you can believe anything Obama says! With an overwhelmingly negative public response, the only question now is: In what disguised form will a stealth "public option" emerge? The American people have astutely spoken loud and clear that Socialized Medicine is anathema; but, Obama's Marxist psyche prohibits him from accepting free market reforms which should begin with shutting down illegal immigration and Tort Reform, both of which Obama unconditionally rejects. Obama's ACORN, funded thru Obama with Billions of YOUR tax dollars, is busily registering illegals; and, Trial Lawyers are among his principal campaign contributors. But the most insidious part of Obama's plan is the coming bureaucratic denial of life saving procedures for the elderly. (Does an Obama proposed 500 Billion $ cut in Medicare reimbursements sound any alarms?) As Obama says: "Take an aspirin" and just wait to die. (( Pg 30: SEC. 123. HEALTH BENEFITS ADVISORY COMMITTEE of HC bill - THERE WILL BE A GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE that decides what treatments/benefits you get. AND, PG 430: SEC. 1233. ADVANCE CARE PLANNING CONSULTATION Lines 11-15 The Government will decide what level of treatment you will have at end of life.)) The elderly should revolt over Obama's health care proposals. He learned from his wife Michelle that considerable sums of health care funds could be saved by the practice of "patient dumping" which Michelle employed in Chicago. Facts that are precisely why Health Care legislation, that HAD TO BE DONE BY YESTERDAY, does not take effect until 2013, i.e. AFTER the next presidential election when voters will then be blindsided by a pending disaster. And, just remember that Obama and his Congressional colleagues have EXEMPTED themselves from compliance with their own proposed health care debacle. If left unrestrained, Obama will do irreparable harm to the American economy. Greg Neubeck

Posted by: gneubeck | September 28, 2009 12:09 PM | Report abuse

I hate to tell you gnubeck, just because you shout the loudest and make a scene doesn't mean that you speak for the majority of the people. If you take a look at the current numbers the majority of Americans in both parties want a form of public option. Health insurance is a drain on our economy, it gives foreign countries a leg up on us and our companies. The more people get educated the more they understand public option is a must. The American people gave the Democrats a mandate to get things done and they need to start acting like the majority

Posted by: whatdyousay | September 28, 2009 12:22 PM | Report abuse

Note to our government. We are broke. People are starving and we continue to bleed jobs. Fix the economy, restore jobs. Stop fiddling while Rome burns. No to health care reform, no to cap and tax, no more too big to fail, no more bail-outs show them to the bankruptcy court. Stop borrowing and printing money. Enough of this stupidity.

Posted by: Bubbette1 | September 28, 2009 12:24 PM | Report abuse

Everyone may hate the insurance companies- but the public option will hurt mainly the patients, doctors, and hospitals - it is a BAD idea

there are many many more stories of people not getting good medical care in countries with socialized medicine- we are just choosing to not listen to those stories

socialized medicine is bad- that is why our cancer cure rates are so much better- even with our sky high obesity rates

We even have almost as high life spans with our obesity rates- that is because of our great health care- if we hade our high rates of obesity with a crappy socialized health care system- our life spans would plummet

Posted by: yosai | September 28, 2009 12:40 PM | Report abuse

We need to keep things in perspective. The more people talk about left and right, republican and democrat, and black and white, the more we will fail to reach consensus.

Have we asked for an examination of this $2.5 trillion healthcare cost to see what it truly is in the first place? Half of it is medicare/medicaid, and I'm convinced the government wants in on the other half, that other $1 trillion, becuase it's guaranteed money to be borrowed from. What is the other half? I don't wish to sound crass, but does it include the cost of things that are decidedly elective? Fertility drugs? Breast imnplants? Erectile disfunciton drugs? The prescription drug industry and doctors whose sole function is to keep Hollywood high? I would like to see the numbers that are truly relevant to American health vs. those that are hyper-inflated because of abuse.

There are also several important things that we ordinary people must remember to put things into some perspective: Of the 150 million working Americans, roughly 14 million are employed by the healthcare industry--that's almost 10% of the working population. Here in the US only about 12.3% of our 762K doctors are family practice, or 93,000 of them for a raitio of 3252 patients per doctor. The average doctor earns $150,000 a year (but can earn over $300,000 dependent on specialty), where the average American earns only around $42,000 and the poverty level is presently $36,500. If all of us were required to purchase catastrophic healthcare coverage at $5000 a year with a $2000 deductible, suddenly the average American is in poverty. What does the average Congressman earn? $192,000 a year. No one can legistlate greed--we're all decidedly human and decidedly selfish, and none of us wants to eat this cost, but do any of us understand what the cost truly is? There are about 150 million workers in the US. If Healthcare really costs us $2.5 Trillion, that is roughly $16,000 per year, per worker. There are 305 million American citizens. If each of us were to pay in our "fair" share, healthcare would cost $8196.72 per year per person. For the average family of five, that "Fair" share would be $40,983.60. Social systems are all well and good, but need some perspective as well. In 2008 13.2% of the US population was in poverty while 22% of the UK was in poverty.

Posted by: LuthienKennedy | September 28, 2009 12:41 PM | Report abuse

We were "broke" when Congress and Bush decided we could fight two wars at the same time, and do nothing about health care except the continue the status quo over the last 8 years. Give me a break! Fix health care before it bankrupts the middle class completely. The ultra rich can pay for what's left over after we squeeze all the administrative costs that comes from all the "deny the claim" games. They sure as hell didn't see their taxes raised to help pay for our wars while the middle class veterans and active duty men and women have lost limbs and lives. I don't give a damn what it costs...Let's take care of the real patriots in this country...the middle class and stop all this fear mongering. It's time to stop all the wild right wing lunacy talk and heal America!

Posted by: drowningbear | September 28, 2009 12:41 PM | Report abuse

to gnubeck

Pg 30 Sec 123 of HC bill The text of the bill reads" IN GENERAL.—There is established a private-public advisory committee which shall be a panel of medical and other experts to be known as the Health Benefits Advisory Committee to recommend covered benefits and essential, enhanced, and premium plans." There is no mention of treatment procedures or policies.
PG 430: SEC. 1233. ADVANCE CARE PLANNING CONSULTATION have you ever heard of a living will?

Barney Frank said nothing about the public option being a Trojan horse for socialized medicine. Stop treating quotes from O’reilly and Beck as facts. Educate yourself, form your own opinions from multiple sources not just the most convenient.

Posted by: ribbie1001 | September 28, 2009 12:44 PM | Report abuse

The American people gave the Democrats a mandate to get things done and they need to start acting like the majority

Posted by: whatdyousay | September 28, 2009 12:22 PM | Report abuse
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This is the problem. A 53% to 46% vote is NOT a mandate for anything. The one thing you are correct about is the fact that YOU are the majority. Therefore, anything that does or does not get done is solely your responsibilty and the people will or won't support those decisions in the next elections.

Posted by: AkCoyote | September 28, 2009 12:45 PM | Report abuse

This is what compromise with Republicans looks like:

'Asked by Leno if there was any way for Americans to bridge that divide, Limbaugh responded,"You give up what you believe in, agree with me, we'll get along."'

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/24/rush-limbaugh-jay-leno-sh_n_299190.html

Can we stop compromising with the unreasonable clowns who DID NOT get re-elected? They had their 8 years of driving this country over a cliff, we would have money for health care right now if they hadn't uncompromisingly lied to the public and gone to war with Iraq, and now we're expected to appease THEM? Seriously Baucus, who's side ARE you on?

Posted by: Terrorfied | September 28, 2009 12:46 PM | Report abuse

When I grew up i thought that these were the facts.

People buy health insurance betting that they they will get sick and would not have to pay from the pocket.

Heath insurance companies bet that people will not get sick and they will make money.

The whole thing is about betting like in Las Vegas and both are covering their bets.

But in the process Doctors and hospitals are being squeezed into the options of lower rates and profit or loss if the plan makes money or looses money. If plan makes money they get some of the reserve back or if it looses money they forfeit their reserve withholding.

On the other hand Government plan already discounts medicare and medicaid payment to 70% of the prevailing rates.

Now question is who is at fault and who is being benefited from the system.

I would say that Government( as they pay less than prevailing fees), Insurance companies ( to maximize the profits), Patients ( as they have to pay less from the pocket) and uninsured ( some choose to have no health insurance, other decide to be selfish and some who really can not afford the insurance premium).

Solution seem to be obvious that like auto insurance, health insurance should be able to sell insurance nationwide and people should be able to choose insurance to fit their budget and needs. Some may want just catastrophic insurance other may want high deductible or low deductible depending on their need to be supplemented with some government support for some with financial hardship and it will be cheaper than what is currently discussed in congress and senate.

Posted by: ak331 | September 28, 2009 12:52 PM | Report abuse

Uh, you do realize Medicare is going broke don't you? Or that a lot of doctors have stopped accepting Medicare patients because the reimbursement rate is too low?

Posted by: RobT1 | September 28, 2009 12:08 PM
------------------
You do realize that the only reason medicare is going broke is because they are the only way high-risk people can get insurance. The private insurance companies refuse to cover these people, and then make money off people who aren't sick.

The profits for health insurance are in charging people for insurance that they do not use, that is why private insurance companies deny claims.

Posted by: Independent4tw | September 28, 2009 12:52 PM | Report abuse

Liberals are being extremely reckless with
a public option. The CBO has stressed over and over that the numbers aren't adding up, That Means Taxpayers will be paying through the nose. Americans need to
be leery of anything thats "rushed through". There ARE ways to do health reform responsibly, however, the administration hasn't figure it out yet because they're too stuck on the public option.

Posted by: ohioan | September 28, 2009 1:07 PM | Report abuse

some doctors make more on medicare than they do major insurance carriers, at least medicare will make a payment most major carriers delay paying or tie in paper work. the major reason medicare is [going broke]is fraud and this medicare advantage they pay to major carriiers like human which is a rip off for the consumer.i have a doctor for a son in law and a insurance representive as a daughter[not man and wife]he married her sister dont you know what thanksgiving is like at our house.

Posted by: donaldtucker | September 28, 2009 1:08 PM | Report abuse

Thank you independent4tw! In the words of Maude Flanders, "Ned doesn't buy health insurance, he doesn't believe in gambling."

You buy insurance, betting on the odds that you will need medical attention at some point, and the health insurance company gambles that you will pay them more than you will cost them, so that they can turn a profit. Where is the sense in that?? And to make matters worse, "pre-existing conditions" give them a wild card to play whenever they need an excuse to keep your money and give you zilch in return for it. We need a public option NOW to put an end to this madness.

I'm still having a difficult time wrapping my head around the selfishness of the people saying poor people don't deserve health care because they don't work hard enough. It's not just poor people, this can happen to ANYONE! My-40+hr/wk-self included. Have they ever considered that maybe more of these people would be working if not for some kind of un-treated injury due to a lack of available health care?? We need to stop looking for surface-level, not-my-problem solutions to our obstacles and actually start working towards the betterment of our society as a whole.

Baucus is clearly not the man for the job. I'm ready to donate money to a primary opponent to run against him right now. Does anyone know if he has one yet?

Posted by: Terrorfied | September 28, 2009 1:13 PM | Report abuse

There is a push back on the mandate for health insurance from the GOP. If we have people in this country that do not want the public option and refuse to buy insurance their wages should be garnished if they go to the hospital. We should not have to pay for people who refuse insurance. (Tea party) We need to help the people who truly need and want the help. If the GOP wants out. Let them out. Give people 6 months to sign up for the public option or with their compnay insurance. If they miss the cut off or refuse the insurance then they will have to pay if they go to the Emergency room. They will have to give up a portion of their check monthly to pay all medical debt. They can sign a statement opting out of the program. The public or the hospital shouldn't have to pay for Tea Party people or the GOP who refuse the help. Help the people who need and want it. P.L.

Posted by: EAguard54 | September 28, 2009 1:14 PM | Report abuse

Americans should be Livid that Democrats are "all talk, no action" concerning health
reform. They wasted time pushing the public option and Totally Missed the Boat. They did not go after "true" cost reduction, all they did was shift costs. The only way to reform healthcare is to
"truly" reduce costs. The only way to get this done is through "true" competition. The free market system works when government stays out of the way. Open up interstate commerce of health insurance and
costs will go down; work on torte reform and costs will go down. Make costs transparent to consumers and then, and only then, can they "shop" for the best doctor, the best hospital, the best prescriptions, etc. The medical industry has been negligent in keeping their costs down because they've never had any motivation to do so.

Posted by: ohioan | September 28, 2009 1:19 PM | Report abuse

Baucus is on the side of the Republicans and big insurance who has had him on their feedbag to the tune of over $3 million. Limp-wristed Reid should kick him to the other side aisle where he belongs-with the rest of the "Christian" Huckabees in the Senate who believe the poor and already sick who can't afford medical care are being punished by the small and shallow god of Abraham for their sloth, not being born with silver spoons in their mouths and uh, er, uh....for their...uh, pre-existing conditions.

Posted by: coloradodog | September 28, 2009 1:21 PM | Report abuse

You do realize that the only reason medicare is going broke is because they are the only way high-risk people can get insurance.
Posted by independent wtf?
Medicare accepts everyone over 65 regardless
of their health. In fact they are forced into
it by law.
It's going broke because the government can't manage health care or Soc Sec. or the
Post Office...

Posted by: gaquote | September 28, 2009 1:23 PM | Report abuse

As a Christian, I greatly fear for our country. The religious right has used ignorance and fear to whip a large segment of our population into a frenzy. At this point, whatever a certain group of leaders says become "gospel" for this group, even when it directly contradicts the Gospels themselves. If not so pathetic, it would be funny to see "Christians" lobbying hard and heavy to keep the wealthy insurance companies well-stocked in expensive cars and massive executive bonuses.

So how does such a strange thing happen? I think a few things have happened to fuel this:

1. The concept that "all government is evil". Just 20-30 years ago Christians were extremely strong on civics and civic duty. Serving our country and our fellow citizens, especially those less fortunate was part and parcel of Christianity. After all, in America, government is us - it's of the people, by the people, and for the people. This has replaced by a deep-seeded hatred of the American governments and anything that has to do with it. What a strange twist!

2. Prosperity = Holiness. A large segment of the American church has be duped into believing that Prosperity, Financial Success, Worldly Power and Privilege - all are signs of God's blessing. The Gospel message of the Beatitudes has been replaced with Madison-avenue Christianity. Such shallowness leads to very shallow followers. Since government is just going to "waste" money on the unholy poor, it is best (especially because of #1 above) that the money stay with us blessed prosperous ones.

This all concerns me greatly. I am afraid our country is on a very dangerous path - one that leads to a very intolerant, abusive country. Even our sports athletes seem to often exude this intolerance through abusive language and behavior.

Mostly, I believe a very large group of leaders among the religious right are in for a VERY rude awakening on judgment day. While they have been wagging their fingers at the Sadducees on the Left, the blind Pharisees on the Right have been leading their blind followers into the ditch.

Posted by: fretinator | September 28, 2009 1:31 PM | Report abuse

Ohioan, I agree that purchasing health care should be more transparent, but I think a not-for-profit option would go a long ways towards creating competition. However tort reform would do little to alleviate the cost of the system.

http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/31/would-tort-reform-lower-health-care-costs/

"According to the actuarial consulting firm Towers Perrin, medical malpractice tort costs were $30.4 billion in 2007, the last year for which data are available. We have a more than a $2 trillion health care system. That puts litigation costs and malpractice insurance at 1 to 1.5 percent of total medical costs. That’s a rounding error. Liability isn’t even the tail on the cost dog. It’s the hair on the end of the tail."

However medical administrative costs amount to roughly 30% of total health care costs. Google howstuffworks.com's Stuff You Should Know podcast titled "How Health Care in the United States Works Right Now", it lays out all the facts, numbers and statistics in the most non-partisan way possible. The Teabaggers don't have a leg to stand on.

Posted by: Terrorfied | September 28, 2009 1:41 PM | Report abuse

So, we're supposed to pay this guy's medical bills? Why, exactly? He has a house, I'm guessing. Mortgage the house. I don't even have my own apartment, and I'm not asking for strangers to pay for my medical care. Where on earth did anyone get the idea that other people should be obliged to pay for their medical care? I'm sure not having a place of my own to live is having a harmful effect on my health. Should I go around asking complete strangers to pay for an apartment for me? Where does it end?

Posted by: sladevactory | September 28, 2009 1:42 PM | Report abuse

Nobody likes the proposed health care bill. You libs that like to complain about the Republican obstruction is a hoot. The Dems can't get their act together and they control everything. I can't wait until the Senate proposes Cap & Trade. That should blow the top off the congressional dome. By the way, I see Peter Pan is off to Europe to lobby for the Olympics in Chicago - now that is real important. As president, Obama has gotten the AF 1 bit down. He flies all over the world so he can be seen preening for the World Press. His performance as president could be the basis for a situation comedy.

Posted by: saelij | September 28, 2009 1:44 PM | Report abuse

Americans want health care reform not socialized medicine, and the public option is the backdoor way to get there.

We need More COMPETITION between private insurers to hold down costs. That means ending the monopoly some states have on health care insurance policies.

Unless this bill provides "more transparency" for users, more options for health care variations, and ability to discriminate among healthy and unhealthy lifestyles, it will do nothing to rein in costs.

But that's the liberals plan, anyway. When costs explode, they'll get socialized medicine.

Posted by: captcooke | September 28, 2009 1:45 PM | Report abuse

Hmmm -to all these repubs and/or PR astroturf guys posting -

So, if the Gov't is so bad at doing things, why are you afraid of a public option? If you don't like the public option, just don't buy into it. (That's why it's called an OPTION - duh...) You're free to keep your overpriced current coverage...

Oh and by the way, Medicare is very popular and have lower overhead costs than any health insurance companies out there. Why doesn't the GOP push to get rid of Medicare? Isn't it socialized medicine??? Oooooh scary. What hypocrites.

Posted by: UNLISTED | September 28, 2009 1:49 PM | Report abuse

I have the perfect way to cut government spending and help fund a big part of the reform effort. Abolish the current retirement system that all congressmen and senators voted for themselfs and require they all Enroll in social security. Right now they don't have to pay a dime for retirement and some can expect to make millions every year they are retired. You and I have to pay out of every paycheck and can only expect to see around $1000 a month. Elections are coming up in a couple of years just think about it. Look how fast things would get fixed. The problem is they don't have a personel stake in these decisions they make for everyone else. Take away their expense accounts. I have to pay for my transportation to and from work. I pay for my own vacations. These people get cars free every year and get to fly for free. This is our tax dollars. Health care would be a lot easier to fix if they had to enroll in these plans, (thats another thing they don't have a personel stake in).

Posted by: rainman2 | September 28, 2009 1:54 PM | Report abuse

yosai, Very interesting how you came up with the idea that the
public option will hurt mainly the patients, doctors, and hospitals
while the majority of all of them support it.

There may be many stories of people not getting good medical care
in countries with universal medicine, but many millions of them
are getting good care. Your not going to hear about it on fox.

If you don't like the word socialized, please reply and I will
send you my address so you can give me you socialized retirement
check each month.

The only reason our cancer cure rate is better (if it is), would
be for the reason that we have so much of it due to the animal
products that are ingrained into our society. Read the latest
article in google news about cancer cures.

Posted by: psychobeck | September 28, 2009 2:15 PM | Report abuse

The reason Medicare is going broke is because it insures only the disabled and old. If its universe of subscribers were enlarged to include the young and healthy, it would move toward solvency -- or at least be in much better shape. This is how the health insurance companies profit -- a universe that includes a lot of healthy people doesn't use up its premiums (including the compounding interest that grows from day one on those premiums) at the same rate. There are fewer payouts in relation to its universe. That's why, for instance, insurance companies promote accident insurance, the biggest moneymaker of all for them -- the chance of a person dying from an accident is very small; so the insurance company pays out only a small fraction of its premium intake -- which is constantly earning compounding interest -- to cover the relatively few claims within its universe. Opening Medicare to all would help bring Medicare to liquidity for the old and solve the uninsured problem for the young. And all those millions of dollers in profits the middlemen insurers are siphoning off for themselves for providing as few health services as possible could be used to reduce costs for government-provided health services for all. That money should be going to doctors and medical research rather than to non-productive, non-service-providing middlemen. And as for the argument that government "interference" would, for instance, dampen medical reserach because researchers would lose incentive because they would lose big profits -- we, the people, could hire them directly ourselves with the money we save by cutting out the middlemen. We, the people, as a "research company" could have the money ourselves to share with the researchers, rather than have that money go into the pockets of middlemen managers. We would all be much better off if researchers worked directly for us, the consumers of their research.

Posted by: fmodderno | September 28, 2009 2:29 PM | Report abuse

I have a proposition for all of you who would like a public option for your health insurance. What I would like you to do is to pool your money and buy a very nice restaurant. Get it going and build up a good clientel. With a lot of work and some luck, hopefully you will soon be making a profit.

What I didn’t tell you is that I’m the government and I’m going to take the tax revenue that I get and open a ‘non-profit’ restaurant right next to yours with a very similar menu. Since I’m ‘not for profit’, all of my prices are 15% to 25% less than yours. And since I’m the government, I’m going to write the rules and laws governing restaurants to my maximum benefit.

Under this scenario, would you be willing to take me up on this? Just how long do you think you will be able to survive? Would you as a consumer be satisfied with only one ‘restaurant’ to eat at? What happens when one company has a monopoly on an industry? Think about it.

Posted by: AkCoyote | September 28, 2009 2:33 PM | Report abuse

Sen. Baucus is of course an empty suit, but more relevant to the public are the ideas his committee is pursuing. Without naming it, they have fastened on the Massachusetts model of requiring health insurance and charging tax penalties for people who lack it.

The Boston Globe published this morning results of a poll indicating support for the state requirement by over two-thirds of adult residents. However the poll found declining numbers and growing alarm over failure to control health care costs. See the Globe article at www.boston.com/news/health/articles/2009/09/28/support_for_mass_health_insurance_overhaul_drops_but_is_still_strong/ .

Massachusetts has a form of public plan, managed by an strangely designed outfit called the "Connector" that is supposed to qualify health care insurance and broker it to the public. Its plans cannot exclude people with "pre-existing conditions," so it outlaws the worst feature of private health insurance in most other states.

Connector services have been contracted out to a small business organization that for many years has brokered its own set of health care plans, setting up an inherent conflict of interest. As one might expect, the Connector has failed to assemble the large groups of participants who could exert financial leverage. If it did that, the small business organization's plans might lose subscribers.

Over three years of operating its approach to health care reform, Massachusetts has so far failed to start any program that might restrain costs. That is the core cause of declining support, although the level of support remains fairly high.

In contrast to Massachusetts, the NY Times today has a story about opposition to required health care insurance in ten other states, Arizona the most polarized of them. See the Times article at www.nytimes.com/2009/09/29/us/29states.html . Legal arguments the Times rehearses are murky, but they seem to favor a federal requirement, if one is enacted.

If there were a place to work up a legal case, Massachusetts would be it, since the state has become the proving ground for its unique approach to health care. Surprisingly, perhaps, because the state has plenty of unreformed reactionaries despite a liberal reputation, no such case has advanced.

Posted by: AppDev | September 28, 2009 2:35 PM | Report abuse

AkCoyote, that's a terribly weak arguement. If it's the same menu at both restaurants, wouldn't I be tired of eating at both of them at the same time? Wouldn't the first restaruant have the option of changing it's menu to offer upgrades over the government restaurant in order to remain competitive and viable? Why exactly are you arguing that we should have to pay 15-25% more for the same thing? Is capitalism a charity case now? Are you retarded? Think about it.

Posted by: Terrorfied | September 28, 2009 2:57 PM | Report abuse

Dont worry your little Progressive heads about it, Baucus is just posturing to try and save his butt for his re-election. You will get him on-board by November...

Once you do, I recommend you and the rest of your Treasonous and Anti-American group of Lenonists move to England or France where you will feel right at home, as well as be able to witness first-hand the results of what you are trying to do here.

The rest of us LIKE to learn from history so leave us alone...

Posted by: indep2 | September 28, 2009 3:16 PM | Report abuse

AkCoyote, that's a terribly weak arguement. If it's the same menu at both restaurants, wouldn't I be tired of eating at both of them at the same time? Wouldn't the first restaruant have the option of changing it's menu to offer upgrades over the government restaurant in order to remain competitive and viable? Why exactly are you arguing that we should have to pay 15-25% more for the same thing? Is capitalism a charity case now? Are you retarded? Think about it.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No, it is not a terribly weak argument and I am in no way saying that you should pay more. What I am saying is that if the government can charge less for the same thing, people will naturally go there and not to the 'capitalist' establishment. With fewer and fewer customers, the capitalist establishment will not be able to stay in business and still make a profit. As for being retarded? I have 2 college degrees and an IQ of 146. Good grief. Just like most leftists, you can't say anything without slinging mud.

Posted by: AkCoyote | September 28, 2009 3:17 PM | Report abuse

It's the internet. You make a stupid arguement, people are going to call you out on it. Get over it. Maybe in all your brilliance you can explain to me why it's such a bad thing if insurance companies go out of business, when 30% of what they're charging is just to line their pockets? They're obviously not earning what they're charging, as we have the most expensive health care system in the world, and it delivers the 37th best coverage. All you're saying is that they WILL go out of business (which is demonstrably untrue- in Europe, there are still insruance companies that offer upgrades) because the government can provide the exact same services for less. How do they not completely deserve to be run out of business by a cost-effective competitor? I was opposed to the auto bailouts because the execs. d*mn well knew they should have been designing fuel efficient and electric cars instead of Hummers, and they deserved to go bankrupt for their short-sightedness and greed. Again, is capitalism a charity case now? Sounds like you're the socialist here, comrade.

Posted by: Terrorfied | September 28, 2009 3:47 PM | Report abuse

It's the internet. You make a stupid arguement, people are going to call you out on it. Get over it. Maybe in all your brilliance you can explain to me why it's such a bad thing if insurance companies go out of business, when 30% of what they're charging is just to line their pockets?

Posted by: Terrorfied | September 28, 2009 3:47 PM | Report abuse
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Talk about stupid. The insurance insustry operates on a 3.3% profit margin. They rank 86th in all industries.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_otfwl2zc6Qc/SoMLoWBKM4I/AAAAAAAAK4g/wKdZyg5LxQ0/s1600-h/profits.bmp

Posted by: AkCoyote | September 28, 2009 4:12 PM | Report abuse

face it! the zombie minds are magnetized! and the congress are bought!

California will bring single payer through a referendum ballot - Washington is corrupt to the core - all of them!

Posted by: ryan_heart | September 28, 2009 5:09 PM | Report abuse

You do realize that the only reason medicare is going broke is because they are the only way high-risk people can get insurance.
Posted by independent wtf?
Medicare accepts everyone over 65 regardless
of their health. In fact they are forced into
it by law.
It's going broke because the government can't manage health care or Soc Sec. or the
Post Office...

Posted by: gaquote

-------------------------------------

Who's higher risk pal.........people over 65 or a group of 20 year olds trying to be appealing to the opposite sex?

Do the rest of us need to draw you a picture? Sheesh

Posted by: theobserver4 | September 28, 2009 5:23 PM | Report abuse

I can't see your link because "social networking and personal sites" are blocked on this comp. If they're operating at at 3.3% profit margin, why aren't they doing a better job, and why is 16.6% of our GDP spent on health care (which is more than we spend on defense, so if they actually are operating under a 3.3%, they're still making a killing, but I doubt the legitimacy of your facts in the first place), why are we placed between Costa Rica and Slovenia in terms of benefits, why have costs continued to increase since 1996 despite the mortality rate plateau-ing at that time, why are premiums increasing 4 times faster than wages, etc? This all info I pulled from Stuff You Should Know's "How Does Health Care in the United States Work Now". It's compiled by a community of researchers, and they derived their info from the Cato Institute, The World Health Organization and Americans for Insurance Reform (a consumer advocay group, not a special interest organization or some schmuck's blog).

The fact is, our health care system sucks. You can't argue that those poor insurance companies can't afford a public option, because THEY're the ones dropping the ball and failing our country in the first place! Why are you arguing against everyone's best interests on this? Why can't you answer any of my questions or refute any of my statements other than your 3.3% quote? I refute all or yours.
But just like most GOP schills on this page, you cherry-pick the arguements you're willing to address and stay willfully ignorant of the rest. Stop pulling your info from myspace and do a little research. I'm tired of pwning you on this topic.

Posted by: Terrorfied | September 28, 2009 5:27 PM | Report abuse

@the observer4: The 65 year olds. They've had longer to impress the opposite sex and @#$% up their bodies. That, and the medically more risky thing. Insurance companies aren't clamoring to get their business. We wouldn't need medicare if this was not true.

Posted by: Terrorfied | September 28, 2009 5:32 PM | Report abuse

I have a proposition for all of you who would like a public option for your health insurance. What I would like you to do is to pool your money and buy a very nice restaurant. Get it going and build up a good clientel. With a lot of work and some luck, hopefully you will soon be making a profit.

What I didn’t tell you is that I’m the government and I’m going to take the tax revenue that I get and open a ‘non-profit’ restaurant right next to yours with a very similar menu. Since I’m ‘not for profit’, all of my prices are 15% to 25% less than yours. And since I’m the government, I’m going to write the rules and laws governing restaurants to my maximum benefit.

Under this scenario, would you be willing to take me up on this? Just how long do you think you will be able to survive? Would you as a consumer be satisfied with only one ‘restaurant’ to eat at? What happens when one company has a monopoly on an industry? Think about it.

Posted by: AkCoyote

--------------------------------------------

Yea I would be; I just gave myself a 15-25% increase in disposable income by not wasting money feeding your obscene overhead. Only an ideological jackhole who insist on going to the place that willingly charges that much more while not offering anything of extra value. Would your restaurant also happen to make me pay my check before getting my food and withhold my main course because it hurts your bottom line to actually serve me food? Cause that's the type of place that Aetna and BCBS are.

Thanks for making our point for us.

Posted by: theobserver4 | September 28, 2009 5:33 PM | Report abuse

@the observer4: The 65 year olds. They've had longer to impress the opposite sex and @#$% up their bodies. That, and the medically more risky thing. Insurance companies aren't clamoring to get their business. We wouldn't need medicare if this was not true.

Posted by: Terrorfied

--------------------------------------------

Exactly. Our health system is set up like this. The young and healthy get to pay premiums to for profit companies where executives get bonuses in the tens to hundreds of millions of dollars (big money). This is easy money for insurance companies as the vast majority of people are going to pay well above their expense rate to the company. Their very existence is to capture more premium dollars and pay less benefits. If you get too sick then they decide to stop paying for your services at all.

The elderly belong to a high risk pool would be priced out of the market all together so we have Medicare. The design for Medicare is to provide health care to those most vulnerable citizens. So Medicare has the statistically most volatile group and despite all the calls that "it's going bankrupt" it is actually doing a fantastic job of getting services to our neediest citizens at a fair price. This is similar to the same boy who cried wolf scenario with Social Security. We can keep both the programs going and it's time to be adults about it.

Posted by: theobserver4 | September 28, 2009 5:42 PM | Report abuse

I'm sorry for this guy, but it's not appropriate to take tax dollars to rescue every dumb-a$$ who gambles and looses. There are many fine organizations (some even that I give to myself) that are set up to help people in need, and I applaude his bake sales and other efforts.
The government's job is not to take care of us, nor is it to protect those who fail. It is our job as human beings to help out the needy.

Posted by: Mrs_D | September 28, 2009 6:00 PM | Report abuse

Over the last ten years, two cousins of mine fought long battles with cancer and then died. Both were in their forties. Both had health insurance. In both cases, after their deaths, their families had to file for bankruptcy to pay what was left of the medical bills. In one case, my cousin's employer fought valiantly with his insurance provider to make sure my cousin would not be dropped from coverage. His siblings held a fund-raiser and raised $90,000, but it didn't even come close to covering what there was to pay.

Several years ago, I worked as a consultant in a large health insurance provider -- one of those you hear about for their enormous lobbying efforts to stifle reform. I've been a consultant for years. Never, either before or since, have I seen a place so overtly obsessed with their daily stock price, which was updated in real time for all to see on the company intranet and in the monitors throughout the buildings. I saw lots of ethical and even legal corners cut while I was there. It was no surprise to me later when it turned out they were illegally dumping people and denying coverage. Wall Street praises them for their profitability, and their CEO made nearly $12M last year.

The health insurance companies are headed by people whose prime motivation is greed, whose kindred spirits in the financial services industry nearly destroyed our economy and cost millions of people their jobs.

Shame on our representatives for putting their perverted self-interest before the welfare of our citizens. Even more, shame on us for letting them get by with it.

Posted by: phinneyridgekid1 | September 28, 2009 6:04 PM | Report abuse

@phinneyridgekid1:
I saw lots of ethical and even legal corners cut while I was there. It was no surprise to me later when it turned out they were illegally dumping people and denying coverage. Wall Street praises them for their profitability, and their CEO made nearly $12M last year. The health insurance companies are headed by people whose prime motivation is greed, whose kindred spirits in the financial services industry nearly destroyed our economy and cost millions of people their jobs.
- - - - -
When people or companies are breaking the law, the answer is not more laws. It is to enforce the law.
Also, please do not confuse a quest for profits with greed. Certainly their is greed, and that is bad, but making "profit" into the boogy man misses the point that earning profits is equivalent to earning a paycheck, only it has to be shared with all the stockholders.
We need to get back to free markets that would self-regulate using competition and pricing. So, if an insurance company scr*ws people over, that can take their business elsewhere. Let's see competition between states and more choices to pick and choose what we want in an insurance policy.
This is my opinion, for what it's worth.

Posted by: Mrs_D | September 28, 2009 6:20 PM | Report abuse

"Mostly, I believe a very large group of leaders among the religious right are in for a VERY rude awakening on judgment day. While they have been wagging their fingers at the Sadducees on the Left, the blind Pharisees on the Right have been leading their blind followers into the ditch."

Jesus wasn't a fan of either the Sadducees or the Pharisees and was apolitical. And I doubt he's impressed with either conservatives or liberals in this country. Most importantly, Jesus wasn't interested in seeing a political ideology rise and dominate, his mission and concern was and is consumed in bringing God glory through faith in him. Plus, a couple of other fun facts - Jesus was a rabbi and a Pharisee and it is ludicrous to suggest that he'd be a fan of abortion or assisted suicide.

Posted by: MHust | September 28, 2009 9:44 PM | Report abuse

We MUST have a public option. Making health insurance mandatory by forcing Americans to pay monthly premiums to corporations constitutes taxation without representation: UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!

For-profit corporations' first duty is to shareholders, not the insured (i.e. the TAX PAYERS); even non-profits will secure their own salaries first, with operating costs and corporate growth revenues BEFORE they improve coverage or maintain a level of coverage for their insureds (TAX PAYERS). Shame on any congressional representatives who seek to reward their campaign backers by levying a tax on Americans, payable to these favored corporations--all in the name of "mandatory" health insurance.

This is the nation that blew over a TRILLION dollars on an unfounded and illegal war in Iraq and an ill-advised and misdirected war in Afghanistan, using money from social security revenues! If there is a problem with medicare, it's due to past administrations' squandering of American taxpayers' hard-earned wages.

Whatever bill comes out of Congress should use tax revenues to make health care directly accessible to ALL Americans, without the middlemen, without allowing insurance corporations to profit from a government mandate that unfairly taxes the American people.

Posted by: IAmend | September 28, 2009 11:39 PM | Report abuse

Health care reform will happen now or it will never happen. This is a point in American history where the oil wars are going to bankrupt the country. Iraq and Afghanistan are delaying actions in the fight for cheap energy that we will inevitably lose. Oil is not the answer for the long run. Americans are going to have to face the reality that European countries have already embraced and are leading in, alternative energy sources. It will mean a drastic lifestyle adjustment for some, but not for those who are forward thinkers. People who think America has all the answers and is the most powerful nation in the world are living in a bubble. The same faulty thinking applies to health care. European countries do it better and cheaper. They think we are the barbarians, the idiots, and cannot understand why our citizens cannot make rational choices. Adapt or die, that is the rule in nature and also in the contest of nations. We are losing stupidly.

Posted by: seemstome | September 29, 2009 12:23 AM | Report abuse

Senator Baucus' spokespersons, publicity relations, glib rationalizations, convenient lies, skullduggery, sacrificing the American citiizenry for the interests of corporations. bending to lobbyists, sophists arguments and huge principle bending money for their campaigns - it just shows weak character and no spine as the plos are bought and sold.

This country was NOT struggled for and imagined to enrich the coffers of health care CEOs and lobbyists; it was created as a new way of respecting the uniqueness of every citizen, and not just the insatiable corporations which only legally came into existence in the 1860s, to gobble up our unique form of democratic government (and are not ever mentioned in the Constitution.)

It seems the Democratic pols now have the same weakness as the foul, polluted and feeble-minded republicons.
The solidly Democratic states pay most of the Federal taxes, and the GOP states are on the dole, so use GOP principles and just cut the Federal feed to the GOP/welfare states and they may come around, like the anti-govt. southeast states wondering where the hated "guvmint" is to help them now in their flooded straits.

Posted by: enough3 | September 29, 2009 12:26 AM | Report abuse

Where can I go to contribute money to have more ads?

Posted by: jimjenson | September 29, 2009 4:26 AM | Report abuse

Why do you call left wing nut cases "Progressive"? There is nothing progressive about them!

Posted by: pescaderotarzan | September 29, 2009 6:50 AM | Report abuse

Insurance companies have been abusing the American people for far too long, they should not even be at the table. Healthcare is a right as it is viewed in all of the rest of the developed nations, it should not be a profit generating system for insurance and pharmaceutical companies. That it is even called healthcare is absurd! It has nothing to do with healthcare but has everything to do with Corporate care. Insurance companies should not even be involved in Healthcare, they have no function except to reap profit at every corner and add cost. I am so frustrated right now, I am furious! Our government is bought and paid for with corporate money, working people don’t even get trickled on anymore. We are separated from our tax dollars only so it can be taken to modify markets to benefit special interests. I want single payer, that is what is fair and that is what the American people deserve. If we have a government option it will just be watered down by the insurance companies who have taken advantage of the American people far too long while politicians past and current facilitate the process.
The democrats won last November, Whitehouse and Congress why can’t they act like it?

Posted by: seandmc | September 29, 2009 6:57 AM | Report abuse

please, just because you might not agree with someone doesn't mean you should call them names, especially the word retard. you shouldn't have to have a family member with special needs to understand what I am saying. shameful. why would you want to pretend you're a 7th grader?

Posted by: jacobsfam | September 29, 2009 9:23 AM | Report abuse

Robt1 and Republicans want nothing more then to abolish Medicare. Reagan in 1961 called Medicare socialism, Tom DeLay bragged that he would privize Medicare and now Republian Chairman Steele says to seniors trust us on Medicare. Seniors know which party was responsible for creating Medicare and it sure wasn't the Tom Colburn/Jim DeMint party.

Posted by: leichtman | September 29, 2009 9:46 AM | Report abuse

Blah blah blah blah blah
Enough already... throw it out there and take a vote.

Posted by: EvreeMan | September 29, 2009 10:39 AM | Report abuse

Two choices should be offered to everyone to use either; free public care from a new national health system, or alternatively to use privately purchased private care.

Health care can be fixed for consumers, employers and taxpayers quickly, and save hundreds of billions of dollars annually, if the President and legislators would allow the use of what President Obama has called “government’s unfair advantages”, to be used to pay for and deliver high quality low cost health care, as part of the reform solution.

All government funded costs could be reduced drastically if distributed only through civilian government hospitals using the proven VA systems.

America’s Veteran Administration is the largest, lowest cost; best outcome producing at any cost, health care delivery system in the US, it uses the world’s best medical software, and it has been controlling the problems with access, cost, quality, and malpractice successfully for years.

This change, coupled with sales tax funding, would produce huge savings while providing better services, which could rescue our government from going broke as it honors its prior commitments for Medicare, Medicaid, and all other local and federal commitments.

Everyone, including seniors, selecting public care would receive all care and medications free, no restrictions, no insurance, and no co pays.

Employers who select public care for their employees would not be required to pay for or have any further involvement with health care.

Nobody can collect the money to pay for health care as cheaply as the government can through a national sales tax, and nobody can deliver high quality care and medications as cost effectively as the VA.

Going back and forth between free public, and user purchased private care, would allow unlimited choices, ultimate freedom, and always free public care would be available.

Posted by: BillWatson1 | September 29, 2009 10:54 AM | Report abuse

First Democrats like Baucas are NOT "centerist" Democrats; they are "right wing" (stealth republican?)Democrats. Medicare for All is what the majority of Americans want... a strong public option looks like the necessary starting point. Right wingers like Baucas and the republicans need to get out of the way.

Posted by: Souffiere7 | September 29, 2009 11:02 AM | Report abuse

I am NOT concerned about the health of the insurance industry - I'm concerned about the health of people. All the insurance industry does is to take your money, put it with the money of a lot of other people, and give it to health providers. And for that, they get a hefty slice of your money! And, oh - by the way - the less of your money they have to actually spend helping people, the more they make - so it is their best interest to not give you decent health care - which is what they do. If you look at those countries who do have "socialized" medicine (actually, there are many different kinds of plans), they ALL have better survivor rates than us, longer life spans, better childhood survivor rates, etc. We may have the best technology, but what good is it when only a few can afford it? I agree with one thing: Baucus needs to get out of the way. We need a public option. Obama needs to step to the plate and quit wimping out - if the plan passes with no Republican votes, that's fine with me (look at past health reform - most of it was passed by one party, and now Republicans, who were totally against it then, are claiming to be its defenders!).Let's get it on and get it over with - the longer it goes on, the less likely we'll have anything worth voting on (which is the current Republican strategy!

Posted by: garoth | September 29, 2009 11:24 AM | Report abuse

Health Care Reform without a Public Option is merely allowing a stronger monopoly by the Insurance Companies and HMO's. We want a Public Option! The Republicans are trying every dirty trick to keep Americans under the thumbs of these corporate crooks! The Democrats need to shove the Public Option down the throats of the 'thugs, like they rammed Iraq and WMD's down ours. We want a Public Option!

Posted by: rurik | September 29, 2009 11:25 AM | Report abuse

"there are many many more stories of people not getting good medical care in countries with socialized medicine- we are just choosing to not listen to those stories"

FALSE. Every health care system has anecdotes, good and bad. That's not the way to make a decision.

The people in those countries you refer are laughing at us for using them as a bad example when we pay twice what they pay for results that are far inferior to theirs in outcomes. You just refuse to hear them laughing.

45,000 Americans die every year because of lack of health care in this country. You don't hear that either.

Perhaps you should stop getting your information from right wing propaganda outlets.

Between two thirds and three fourths of Americans support a public option once they've been disabused of the lies that have lodged themselves into your consciousness. If you were predisposed to educate yourself, you might also - but you aren't because that would violate your tribal allegiance to the Party of No who works for corporations, not citizens.

Posted by: trippin | September 29, 2009 11:43 AM | Report abuse

A very misleading ad.

A public option isn't the only way to address the issue. Certainly not the best or preferred option.

A majority of Americans oppose the public option and understand it will only lead to lower quality healthcare and uncontrolled cost increases.

President obama voted against healthcare reform when he was in the Senate and initiated nothing on his own to advance the issue. Where was his compassion then? Maybe Obama had different agenda for the future?

Obama and the democrats only care about larger government and more control over you and the money you make. They don't care about your healthcare. Healthcare is only a measure to control more and more of your life, your decisions, your money.

Posted by: attaboymail-friend | September 29, 2009 12:53 PM | Report abuse

"More than three out of every four Americans feel it is important to have a "choice" between a government-run health care insurance option and private coverage, according to a public opinion poll released on Thursday."

"A new study by SurveyUSA puts support for a public option at a robust 77 percent, one percentage point higher than where it stood in June."

It is really pathetic to read uninformed posts such as the one above that stated:
"A majority of Americans oppose the public option and understand it will only lead to lower quality healthcare and uncontrolled cost increases." maybe a majority of the baggers who equate Obama and Hitler feel that way but certainly not the sane voters in America.

Again Reagan called Medicare socialism and DeLay bragged how he would destroy Medicare by privatizing Medicare and Social Security.

As to Dems wanting a bigger government, it was W and Paulson that spent 1.3 trillion dollars on government bailouts. So you just might and try attaboy to get your facts correct rather than simply spewing disinformation that you heard on right wing talk radio. As you know Medicare is big government healthcare attaboy, would you like to pull the plug on grannie's Medicare?


Posted by: leichtman | September 29, 2009 1:12 PM | Report abuse

I love it!!!!! The liberals are eating their own! Eat hearty, oh dimwits! Eat hearty!

Posted by: panamajack | September 29, 2009 2:22 PM | Report abuse

The co-op plan Baucus is promoting will force people to buy from private insurance companies and the insurance companies love it. Forty-six million new customers!!!! And sure insurance companies will not deny coverage based upon a pre-existing condition. The premiums won't be affordable but they won't deny you coverage.

The money the insurance companies gave Baucus is going to be paid back many fold.

Posted by: thomgr | September 29, 2009 2:24 PM | Report abuse

How do we get such rascals in Congress?
Answer; because so many of us are ignorant AND stupid!

Posted by: lufrank1 | September 29, 2009 2:41 PM | Report abuse

Some have attacked Obama for advocating "socialist medicine." Most of the attackers are ignorant morons. We would do best under a REAL socialist agenda. Health care has NEVER been a free-market situation, and we should just admit it and go to a fully socialist system.

SINGLE-PAYER FOR ALL!!

Posted by: snortz_the_cat | September 29, 2009 2:53 PM | Report abuse

I don't understand why demonize supporters of healthcare reform that prefer reform without a public option. It's like vegetarians demonizing vegetarians that consuming dairy products. Among Democrats, the public option is a dishonest offering of compromise for a single payer system; it’s still big government and big spending.

Liberals and their extremist economic views are tearing the Democratic Party apart, and it will cost us dearly in 2010 if we don’t get our act together (the pendulum is swinging).

Posted by: NorthMan | September 29, 2009 4:59 PM | Report abuse

Good for them!

Posted by: asclepious2 | September 29, 2009 6:52 PM | Report abuse

"Liberals and their extremist economic views are tearing the Democratic Party apart"

Let me get this straight. 77% of Americans favor a public option, then by your logic 77% of Americans are either liberals or extremists. Curious how voters will view passage of healthcare reform if there is no public option, a mandate to buy healthcare, and premiums remain insanely out of reach for millions of Americans. As a self proclaimed Democratic moderate, I am not interested in protecting the 460% profits that Aetna, Bluecross and UNH have raked in over the last 10 years while millions of American families with healththcare currently, are forced into filing bankruptcy. Believe me, voters will punish Democrats even more severely if Democrats do nothing but pad bloated healthcare company profits with 46 million new policy holders, and do nothing to deal with the afordability of healthcare premiums. That would be political armageden for the Democratic party.

Posted by: leichtman | September 29, 2009 7:19 PM | Report abuse

obama says woman was dropped from her coverage because she had an existing condition of acne that she had not declared. this is only one of hundreds of lies he has told during past seven months. does he even know what acne is? pimples? come on obama,we are starting to catch on,and only foxnews is showing the rest. the rest that your supporters will not know about because they refuse to watch truth in news. we are waking up,and i no longer support ANYTHING you come up with.

Posted by: silusdogood | September 29, 2009 7:53 PM | Report abuse

by the way,80 percent OPPOSE government option,wake up,and start telling truth. government takeover will not happen. gov has enough power over the people,and if you want to live in venezuella,get out of here,go! go any place you think is better than the U S,we dont need you here anyhow,the world would be better off with you in a socialist country,where you WILL change your mind very fast. traitors.
my grandchild will have a more favorable opinion of me if i do NOT support the further wreaking of his future. how will your children remember you?

Posted by: silusdogood | September 29, 2009 8:00 PM | Report abuse

some of us here actually rely on facts rather than fantasy, hyperbole, and disinformation:

"A new study by SurveyUSA puts support for a public option at a robust 77 percent, one percentage point higher than where it stood in June."

I have read your constant posts today that 70% now at 8 pm 80% oppose the public option. Unfortunately most here understand that you are only part of your party's disinformation campaign. I site actual polling data, not fantasy data taken from Glen Beck's backside. If you expect this group to take anything you post seriously, I strongly suggest that you come here with actual facts, not just hate driven disinformation.

Posted by: leichtman | September 29, 2009 8:59 PM | Report abuse

Give me the public option all the way. And you know what? I hope if eventually drives private insurers out of business, because nobody should be in the business of making money for denying health care, and that is what the private insurance industry does.

I lived in the single payer Canadian system for four years, it was great. I never had to wait, and went to the Dr. I wanted, I got treatment when I wanted. You think government health care is bad? Try private insurance. They make you go to specific Drs. they only pay 65-80% if you're lucky. They go line by line and deny as much as they can why? Because that is their business. They make money off of denying you.

I am a small business owner who would LOVE for a Canadian style health care system. Since we're not going to get that I will take the public option instead, bring it on.

Posted by: lankychris | September 29, 2009 9:40 PM | Report abuse

The Senators have spoken. Public option be damned even if most want it. When asked if the poor, the sick and the needy should get funded or should we fund another war the finance committee answer was, "Fu@k the Poor!"

Posted by: seemstome | September 29, 2009 10:17 PM | Report abuse

Don't have healthcare reform, America. You won't be able to do Israel's bidding and bomb Iran for us if you spend it on yourselves. You greedy bastards.

Posted by: DaveMiner | September 29, 2009 10:43 PM | Report abuse

OK, I submit a bill that prohibits American tax dolars from paying for Senates health insurance from this point forward. I'd be willing to bet that the votes opposing this bill would be the same votes that opposed a public option.

Posted by: JD76 | September 30, 2009 12:26 AM | Report abuse

hey Terrorfied...
asking people if they are retarded because you don't like what they have to say is really way off. Not only does it demean people with special needs but it makes you look like an out of touch 7th grader.

Posted by: jacobsfam | September 30, 2009 10:32 AM | Report abuse

I can't beleve some of the comments I have read on here in the past few weeks. On one I read a person goes on to say that if no one smokes and everyone eat better along with not buying a newer car or bigger house instead using that money to buy health care we wouldn't need health care reform. Yeah and if I eat nothing but roses my farts would smell like flowers. Come on people think before you type.

Posted by: rainman2 | September 30, 2009 2:02 PM | Report abuse

RE gnubeck Is this Glen Beck in disguise? The similarity in tone is stunning! I live in Canada and have health care that is availble to all it's citizens. Why would ANYONE be against healthcare for a country providing something that could mean the difference inlife or death to a person? It is beyond us here why there is so much opposition to public health care for those who can't afford it. The answer of course lies in a concerted effort and widespread campaign by the insurace companies to stop this. Can you people not see? The insurance companies are going all out to stop the president from cutting into their bottom line. They have been exposed and they are fighting back tooth and nail. I'm so sorry for the President. He cannot win this one, especially when the people he is so desperately fighting for are not standing with him. All the things he campaigned on and is trying to push through, he is getting a fight. May God help him.

Posted by: cherylann_36 | September 30, 2009 3:15 PM | Report abuse

terrorfied, your wasting your breath friend. Trying to make a conservative, rightwing idiot see reason is like trying to part the sea.

We all must be prepared to drag the righties, kicking, screaming and no doubt, fighting what's good for them, till they figure out that a public option is not the monster that Rush, Beck and Co. tells them it is.

While your efforts are not lost on those of us who know common sense when we see it, until we see the end of the hysterical cries of the right, these poor lost soul's are just repeating what their master's have brainwashed them with. Poor bast*rds.....

Posted by: liberalwesterngirl | September 30, 2009 6:26 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company