Dean Slams Senate Finance Committee

Howard Dean guest hosted Countdown with Keith Olbermann at an opportune time last night, following reports that the Senate Finance Committee--helmed by Montana Democrat Max Baucus--is preparing to exclude a public option from its long-awaited healthcare bill.

"What if the Senate Finance Committee has already done the Republicans' dirty work for them?" Dean asked rhetorically at the beginning of show.

Dean has just authored a book on healthcare reform--detailing why America needs a public option--and knows quite a bit about the subject from his years as a doctor and governor of Vermont. He called Baucus's reported bill the "so-called compromise."

Dean asked Chris Van Hollen, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, why Baucus would "give away something something so fundamental to healthcare reform as a public option?"

"We‘ve got to have a public option in the plan that we send to the president‘s desk," Van Hollen responded. "We‘re all still hoping that the Senate Finance Committee bill will have a public option."

Dean noted that 72 percent of Americans, according to a New York Times poll, support a public option. "Is what Americans want already dead in the Senate?" Dean asked.

"No," Van Hollen answered. "I certainly hope not. It‘s certainly not dead with respect to the bill that we‘ll send to the president‘s desk." But it isn't clear what kind of leverage House Democrats have with the likes of Baucus, nor do we know yet whether they'll be able to keep their own Blue Dog conservatives in line.

"Voters were promised change they can believe in," Dean told Van Hollen. "Are you concerned about what may happen to our party in 2010 or 2012 if we don‘t get any change at all?"

Van Hollen said that Democrats will be judged on whether they delivered on a promised new direction. What they end up doing on healthcare will go a long way towards answering that question.

In the next segment, Dean asked Wendell Potter--a former spokesman for Cigna turned whistleblower--"ideology aside, what motive do Republicans and Blue Dogs have to defeat the public option?"

"I think the motive is to satisfy the expectations of the insurance industry," Potter responded.

As a riposte, Dean played a clip of Bill Kristol praising government-run healthcare for our troops.

Later in the show, Dean interviewed The Nation's Chris Hayes about the right-wing birther moment. He asked Chris if Republicans risked losing even more political capital by pushing such lies. "I'm not sure how much reputational capital is left in the Republican Party at this point," Hayes answered. Zing!

At the end of the show, Dean talked to Olbermann, who's vacationing in Cooperstown, about the possible reinstatement of Pete Rose to major league baseball. Dean admitted the talk show gig was "a lot harder than I thought it was."

He'll be guest hosting again tonight.

Comments (64)

1. Kristol on "Daily Show" was a hoot.

   Stewart got him to admit that a government-run health care system COULD BE "first class", discussing the system for the military.

   Then Kristol had to admit he said that and then tried to fumble around for why he just contradicted what he had said when the discussion began.

   Stewart was gracious though, pointing out that Kristol isn't ALWAYS wrong....as he was the only one to predict McCain would pick Palin.

   (Of course, then Kristol basically admitted she needed to "educate herself" and was not qualified "right now" to be President...contradicting the McCain/Palin 2008 campaign)

   Posted by Mask at 07/29/2009 @ 08:36am

2. Dean noted that 72 percent of Americans, according to a New York Times poll, support a public option. "Is what Americans want already dead in the Senate?" Dean asked. *********************** Howard Dean, in order to make his point, uses a thoroughly debunked and slanted NYT poll that is over six weeks old. Brilliant!

   I say if the current plan in the HoR is so great, vote on it! Queen Pelosi has stated that she has the votes to pass it. PROVE IT!

   Posted by fram at 07/29/2009 @ 10:15am

3. Isn't "guest hosting" an oxymoron?

   Posted by Mistral at 07/29/2009 @ 10:32am

4. Posted by fram at 07/29/2009 @ 10:15am

   Who debunked it, fram?

   Posted by Mask at 07/29/2009 @ 10:56am

5. beware of shona holmes, america.

   Posted by frosty zoom at 07/29/2009 @ 11:03am

6. slanted NYT poll that is over six weeks old. Brilliant!

   Posted by fram at 07/29/2009 @ 10:15am

   Right because six weeks ago the health and pharma lobbies had only spent 200m on lobbying and campaigning against reforms, now six weeks later they have spent 500m. So six weeks ago, most Americans were allowed to think for themselves on the is issue, now we have to account for the effects of the commercials and scare tactics being used to turn public oppinion. Therefore the old poll no longer counts.

   Posted by Extraneous at 07/29/2009 @ 11:48am

7. If anything, the current numbers for public funding of health care are higher now. In fact, an honest poll about national health insurance, (single-payer) would probably show a healthy majority now. HOpe someone does one. And that we find out about it.

   Posted by DavidSpero at 07/29/2009 @ 12:13pm

8. 'What a hoot. The Chinese Communists invaded Washington on Monday demanding not that we sacrifice our freedoms but rather that we balance our budget. Creditors get to make that kind of call. And the Marxists of Beijing, who have turned out to be the world's most prudent bankers, are worried about their assets invested in our banana republic.' -- Robert Scheer -- The Nation -- 29 July, 2009 -- http://www.then ation.com/doc/20090 803/scheer2

   Posted by HonestLiberal at 07/29/2009 @ 12:29pm

9. Isn't "guest hosting" an oxymoron? Posted by Mistral

   No the host is a moron.

   Posted by abell12ct at 07/29/2009 @ 12:40pm

10. Posted by Mask at 07/29/2009 @ 08:36am...

    Thanks for the change of pace! I find it almost exhilerating to read a post with your insight when it is not colored by what comes across as rather cynical political prognostications...;^)

    Thanks.

    The point is... the 'government option' is good enough for the military... and it is good enough for Congress... and it is good enough for the President...

    Is it only now to be considered by the 'average citizen' to be a perc for national service... as a 'reward' not due every citizen of the US...?

    If so... we ought to be clear about this and put the reasoning right out in the open where we can all see it for what it is.

    The point is... it could work really well.

    Posted by ttr at 07/29/2009 @ 12:58pm

11. The point is... the 'government option' is good enough for the military

    The point is... it could work really well. Posted by ttr

    Wasn't there some controversy about Walter Reed hospital and the terrible conditions for our military? Something about being infested with rat's and cockroaches?

    Posted by abell12ct at 07/29/2009 @ 1:08pm

12. Posted by ttr at 07/29/2009 @ 12:58pm

    Don't worry, ttr....you'll dislike me again soon.

    Posted by Mask at 07/29/2009 @ 1:15pm

13. So six weeks ago, most Americans were allowed to think for themselves on the is issue, now we have to account for the effects of the commercials and scare tactics being used to turn public oppinion. Therefore the old poll no longer counts. Posted by Extraneous

    So advertising takes away Americans right to think for themselves? Then we must fight the advertising for everything from Healthcare to Manmade global warming. We have to resist the fearmongering used by the government to promote cap and trade. The earth is warming. No shit. Its been warming and cooling since it was created. CO2 increases occur because the planet is warming, not the other way around. Let's have some scientific debate about it.

    Posted by abell12ct at 07/29/2009 @ 1:15pm

14. Posted by abell12ct at 07/29/2009 @ 1:08pm

    True, but the trick there might be...

    not having Republicans in charge of it, as they were the Department of Defense when that happened at Walter Reed.

    Posted by Mask at 07/29/2009 @ 1:15pm

15. The point is... the 'government option' is good enough for the military... and it is good enough for Congress... and it is good enough for the President...

    Posted by ttr at 07/29/2009 @ 12:58pm

    1. the attempts by the left to repeatedly cite the military healthcare as model leave out a critical fact. the military healthcare is because the military personnel surrender liberties so they have to give them that level of care that they don't have the freedom to pursue on their own.

    Now if you want all Americans to surrender their freedom of movement, time, and where they live in exchange for that kind of healthcare, simply put that forth as a proposal. I'm betting that most Americans prefer their liberty.

    2. The members of Congress don't have a "govt option for healthcare. they choose from over 400 private insurance plans contrary to popular opinion

    <Created by Congress in 1959, the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program offers over 400 competing private plans to active and retired Members of Congress and congressional staff, as well as active and retired federal and postal workers and their families--almost 9 million people. The FEHBP works well despite some problems of enrollment and design, and these problems could be dealt with easily in a redesigned Medicare program that significantly improves coverage for the nation's elderly and disabled.

    Federal workers and retirees can choose from a variety of health plans, ranging from traditional fee-for-service plans to insurance plans sponsored by employee organizations or unions to managed care plans. Approximately 40 percent of all federal subscribers and 18 percent of all federal retirees currently are enrolled in HMOs

    http://tinyurl.com/kmrs4x

    Posted by antisocialist at 07/29/2009 @ 1:25pm

16. not having Republicans in charge of it, as they were the Department of Defense when that happened at Walter Reed. Posted by Mask

    No I'm pretty sure it didn't get that way overnight. It was probably due to the huge cuts in Military spending by Billy boy.

    Posted by abell12ct at 07/29/2009 @ 1:27pm

17. Wasn't there some controversy about Walter Reed hospital and the terrible conditions for our military? Something about being infested with rat's and cockroaches?

    Posted by abell12ct at 07/29/2009 @ 1:08pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Wasn't there some controversy about a woman who died in the emergency waiting room while everyone in the (privately run) hospital ignored her? You know...the incident they got on video? Perhaps she died because she didn't have the right insurance?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lKUwBCIBzA

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 07/29/2009 @ 1:28pm

18. antisocialist-Veterans,also,get govt health care,but do not give up freedom to have it,like the military does.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 07/29/2009 @ 1:35pm

19. Wasn't there some controversy about a woman who died in the emergency waiting room while everyone in the (privately run) hospital ignored her? You know...the incident they got on video? Perhaps she died because she didn't have the right insurance?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lKUwBCIBzA

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 07/29/2009 @ 1:28pm

    Wrong turn Stephen.

    that was a LA COUNTY hospital that has been shut down for the lack of controls and poor healthcare administered.

    She was on MEDICAL, the state run healthcare.

    Posted by antisocialist at 07/29/2009 @ 1:40pm

20. So advertising takes away Americans right to think for themselves?

    Abel, your purposefully missing the point. We all know advertising works. We all know propaganda works. Does not matter if it is true or not. If you can scare enough people you can turn the tide of public oppinion. But you allready know that.

    Global warming? Your worse that I am in going off on unrelated tangents...

    But your right how can "scientists" have records C02 records going back 400 thousand years that show current C02 levels 30% higher than ever previously recorded, when we know the earth is only 6 thousand years old?

    http://tinyurl.com/gvrm6

    Posted by Extraneous at 07/29/2009 @ 1:51pm

21. McCaughey: Obamacare Would Hurt Elderly

    One of the nation's leading experts on government healthcare says both the Senate and the House versions of healthcare reform would destroy a U.S. system that is among the best in the world at prolonging citizens' lives.

    Moreover, former New York Lt. Gov. Betsy McCaughey says both versions of the bills being debated in Congress would end widespread medical choice and probably destroy private insurance plans such as Blue Cross/Blue Shield.

    McCaughey told Newsmax.TV's Ashley Martella that the most pernicious elements of the Obama-inspired plans would cripple cardio-pulmonary and orthopedic treatment for the elderly. These two fields of medicine have seen some of the most profound breakthroughs in medical science allowing Americans to live longer, more productive lives.

    See Video: Former New York Lt. Gov. Betsy McCaughey discusses how Obamacare could erode health coverage for the elderly - Click Here Now

    Unlike many in Congress, McCaughey not only has read the thousand-page bills but also has the expertise to assess them. A health policy expert, patient advocate, and constitutional historian, McCaughey was a major player behind the demise of the Democrats' first attempt to pass socialized medicine, in 1993.

    "It is disturbing to see how different the actual provisions of these bills are from what we've all been told," McCaughey said. "We've been told again and again that if you like your private health plan, you can keep it, that if you have one of those great Blue Cross/Blue Shield plans that lets you go to any doctor at any time, that's yours.

    Posted by BigPasture at 07/29/2009 @ 2:10pm

22. "But the bills make it very clear that those types of plans are history," McCaughey said. "What the bills say is that if you get your insurance through an employer, your employer will be given a grace period and then forced, legally required to switch you to an HMO-style plan . . . these are the plans that restrict you access to specialists."

    Even if there were no "public option" in the bills, McCaughey said, these proposals would drive people from established private insurance plans. The result would be a nation of managed care plans denying all but the very rich access to the doctors of their choice.

    "Managed care is very unpopular in the United States because people don't want insurance companies saying you can't see a doctor or you can't go to a specialist until you get permission from your insurance company," McCaughey told Martella. "Or you can't get a diagnostic test. And these bills will require you to switch to what the government calls a qualified plan, and HMO-style plan even if there is no public option.

    "The penalties are quite severe," McCaughey said. "When you file your taxes you'll have to attach proof on your form that you've enrolled in one of these plans . . . And if you haven't you will be fined thousands of dollars and then automatically enrolled in one of these randomly selected government qualified plans."

    Seniors will bear the brunt of this new era in healthcare, McCaughey said. The Obama-inspired plan is estimated to cost up to $1.6 trillion. Half of that would be paid with increased taxes, while the rest would be made up with about $500 billion in Medicare cuts. This will be happening at the very time Medicare enrollment increases by a third as a new generation of Baby Boomers reach their retirement years.

    Posted by BigPasture at 07/29/2009 @ 2:11pm

23. "Many more people, many fewer dollars and that will necessitate a cut in benefits -- fewer hip replacements, fewer knee replacements, bypass surgeries, and angioplasties. Those are the four procedures that most seniors need to avoid disability and enjoy their later years," McCaughey said.

    Intresting what occurs when people actually READ the new proposed healthcare bills! Now we know why Obama , Reid, and Pelosi don't want anyone to read them!!!!

    Posted by BigPasture at 07/29/2009 @ 2:13pm

24. Hey, RIO...

    what do you think Chuck Grassley and Max Baucus are going to produce over in the Senate?..."socialistic Obamanation socialism"?

    (Yes, deliberately redundant....it's RIO!)

    Posted by Mask at 07/29/2009 @ 2:19pm

25. "No I'm pretty sure it didn't get that way overnight. It was probably due to the huge cuts in Military spending by Billy boy."----Posted by abell12ct at 07/29/2009 @ 1:27pm

    Oh, so Bush "inherited the problem from his predecessor, and you can't blame him, because it's a mess that could take years to fix"?

    Posted by Mask at 07/29/2009 @ 2:21pm

26. TIME POLL TODAY (since wing

    survey respondents remain dissatisfied with the current state of health-care delivery and supportive of reform in principle. Forty-six percent of respondents said it was "very important" that Congress and the President pass major health reform in the next few months, and an additional 23% said it was "somewhat important." Only 28% found the immediate effort either not very or not at all important.

    In a separate question, more Americans said it would be better to pass "major reform" to health care (55%) rather than "minor adjustments" (43%).

    On the details of the plan, respondents remained supportive of many of the rough outlines of the health-reform effort as originally described by President Obama. Sixty-three percent said they would support providing health-care coverage for all Americans, even if the government had to subsidize those who could not afford it.

    Fifty-six percent said they supported a "public health insurance option" to compete with private plans. Fifty-seven percent support raising taxes on those with annual incomes over $280,000 to pay for the plan. Eighty percent said they would support a bill that required insurance companies to offer coverage to anyone who applies, even those with pre-existing medical conditions.

    Posted by judybrowni at 07/29/2009 @ 7:13pm

27. WANT REAL HEALTHCARE? -- ACTION!

    The August Plan to secure the Public Option

    We will turn the Congressional vacation to our advantage. As the hated Murder by Spreadsheet insurance industry pummels the American people via the public airways with nonstop lies,we will systematically be contacting every member of the Progressive Caucus to demand that they pledge to vote against any bill that does not contain a strong public option.

    We're rolling out a new tool to track the vacation schedules and movements of progressive members of Congress.

    We're asking you to let us know where they'll be, we'll then post this information and ask people (especially constituents), to meet progressives wherever they are during the recess, and explain to them why they must take the Whip Count Pledge to hold the line in the House come September.

    http://tinyurl.com/lhj6nv

    Posted by judybrowni at 07/29/2009 @ 7:16pm

28. REAL CANADIANS SUPPORT "SOCIALIST" HEALTHCARE

    "Amid all the hyperbole in the ongoing debate about the future of American health care, some of the most extreme public disagreements are over the experiences of our neighbors to the North, in Canada.

    Many progressives say the Canadian system of universal care is an excellent role model for our own country. The the upfront costs of establishing such a system, they argue, would eventually be offset by the competitive advantages to American business.

    By contrast, American conservatives see the Canadian approach as signifying the end of the freedom to choose your own doctor, the rationing of crucial treatments, and an enormous tax burden.

    The argument has played out in congressional hearings, in full-page ads in national newspapers, online and in television commercials.

    To see how well a universal health care system like Canada's actually works, the Huffington Post went straight to the source: actual Canadians.

    In a decidedly unscientific survey, we emailed about a dozen Canadians with three basic questions, requesting they respond and pass the survey on. We asked which system they would prefer -- their system of universal care, or the U.S. system dominated by private insurers. In addition, we asked them to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the Canadian system. And some respondents volunteered personal stories about how they have been treated.

    All of the two dozen people who wrote in said they preferred Canadian health care system.

    "Anyone who cries 'Socialism!' or 'Communism!' to prevent Americans from achieving universal health care is a liar and a thief -- and more to the point, has plenty of money of his own. He's got his!" wrote Lori Covington. "

    http://tinyurl.com/l725c6

    Posted by judybrowni at 07/29/2009 @ 7:17pm

29. On one of the healthcare threads on here, in response to the posted figure that around two-thirds of Americans want government sponsored healthcare, a wingnut responded with one of those heartless, and completely fabricated non-analogies they're fed by hate-talk radio: "And 100% of children want free toys for Christmas."

    Not only cruel, but not even an half-way decent analogy -- no children will be crippled, blinded or die of untreated cancer, if they don't receive toys for Christmas.

    A better analogy would be, "And 100% of health insurance CEOs want 10 million dollar bonuses."

    That's the real trade-off: actual healthcare for Americans, instead of the shell game of insurance pulled out from under them when they get seriously ill, versus dirty, blood-drenched and obscene profits for the health insurance industry.

    In every industrialized nation of this world (and some of the developing countries) government-supported healthcare exists side-by-side with insurance companies making a profit.

    Perhaps not obscene profit, but profit never-the-less.

    In nations with government-supported healthcare, the citizens enjoy better healthcare than ours. No one is bankrupted by medical care (62% of American bankruptcies), no one dies from lack of access to health care (versus 17,000 Americans a year.)

    My parents raised three kids with all the knocks (and pre-vaccination) diseases, broken bones, and even a congenital condition, back when Blue Cross and Blue Shield were non-profits.

    I look back on those years, compare them to the health insurance industry now, and know that my family would have been bankrupted and broken several times over in our current system.

    While wingnuts equate healthcare to toys.

    Posted by judybrowni at 07/29/2009 @ 7:18pm

30. From the Wall Street Journal this morning:

    ""The health insurance industry is one of the most regulated industries in America," said Sen. Jon Kyl (R., Ariz.) on the Senate floor Monday. "They don't need to be 'kept honest' by the government."

    From the Los Angeles Times, reporting on Congressional hearings last month:

    The documents show, for instance, that one Blue Cross employee earned a perfect score of "5" for "exceptional performance" on an evaluation that noted the employee's role in dropping thousands of policyholders and avoiding nearly $10 million worth of medical care.

    WellPoint's Blue Cross of California subsidiary and two other insurers saved more than $300 million in medical claims by canceling more than 20,000 sick policyholders over a five-year period, the House committee said....

    The committee investigation uncovered several rescission practices that one lawmaker called egregious, including targeting every policyholder diagnosed with leukemia, breast cancer and 1,400 other serious illnesses. Such investigations involve scouring the policyholder's original application and years' worth of medical and pharmacy records in search of any discrepancies. "

    Nothing to see here, move on.

    http://tinyurl.com/lgnndl

    Posted by judybrowni at 07/29/2009 @ 7:19pm

31. BREAKING - WAXMAN GETS A DEAL - markup restarts @ 4

    "Some comprimises on various excemption levels, but looks okay. Looks like getting under $1 trillion was key. Public option is still included but also options on co-ops.

    The blue-dogs will also not stand as a group when voting.

    The Blue Dogs also succeeded in cutting $100 billion from the overall cost of the bill, bringing the total price tag under $1 trillion. The legislation will now exempt small businesses with a payroll greater than $500,000 from paying for any government-sponsored health coverage - double the $250,000 in the initial draft.

    Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) has cut a deal to reconvene his committee and vote on the Democrats' sweeping health care bill, with a goal of completing work by the time lawmakers leave town for the summer on Friday.

    There won't be a vote before the full House before the August recess, but the committee breakthrough – after tense negotiations with Blue Dog Democrats – is a significant step for the Democrats.

    "After two weeks of very long and intense negotiations, I'm proud to report that we've reached an agreement that will allow health care reform to move forward," said Arkansas Rep. Mike Ross, a top negotiator for Blue Dog Democrats on the Energy and Commerce Committee.

    Some more info on co-ops.

    The new version of the bill also has a breakthrough on the concept of health care "co-ops," seen by some as an alternative to a public plan. States would be allowed to create co-ops for residents to buy private insurance. But the Waxman-Ross deal will also keeps the "public option" of government-sponsored health care. "

    http://tinyurl.com/mnrezd

    Posted by judybrowni at 07/29/2009 @ 7:20pm

32. The August Plan to secure the Public Option -- ACTION!

    Are you all talk, or will you take action?

    That is the question:

    http://tinyurl.com/lhj6nv

    Posted by judybrowni at 07/29/2009 @ 7:21pm

33. The Senate Finance Committee Regulates Lead Paint

    The time: somewhere in the past. The place: a stuffy office inside the Hill. The lead paint industry is in hot water because of all the problems associated with lead paint; there has been a huge public uproar. There's going to be legislation. Luckily, the lead paint industry has great lobbyists.

    Senator: "Golly, Mr. Lobbyist, people are really pissed off with your lead-based paint. We're thinking we're going to have to regulate it to remove the lead, or at least reduce the amount of lead in it or something."

    Lobbyist: "Well, you could do that... but that would interfere with the free market."

    Senator: "Good point. Well, we're all about being fair to the marketplace here. What do you propose we do instead?"

    Lobbyist: "For starters, I think it should be a law that everyone must buy lead paint every year."

    Senator: "Why, that's brilliant! Let's f---ing do it! Problem f---ing solved!"

    Lobbyist: "And there's rumor that the government is going to start making paint without lead so people won't get poisoned so often. We don't think we could compete against that without it cutting into our profits, since everyone would want non-leaded paint instead, so you should ban it."

    Senator: "Fantastic!"

    Lobbyist: "Oh, and my friends in the paintbrush industry are alarmed that people might be getting their paintbrushes for half the usual price in other countries, so you should ban importing paintbrushes so that Americans have to pay the American price."

    Senator: "Of course, consider it done! What a spectacular reform effort this will be, the public will love it! Anything else?"

    Lobbyist: "At least this way if we're going to have lead paint reform, it will be bipartisan."

    http://tinyurl.com/nz

    Posted by judybrowni at 07/29/2009 @ 7:22pm

34. Flashback: Republicans Opposed Medicare In 1960s By Warning Of Rationing, ‘Socialized Medicine'

    Tomorrow is the the 44th anniversary of Medicare, a government-sponsored health care program that provides health coverage to virtually all of the nation's elderly and a large share of people with disabilities. While Medicare is not without its problems, it has dramatically improved access to health care, allowed seniors to live longer and healthier lives, contributed to the desegregation of southern hospitals, and has become one of the most popular government programs.

    At the time, conservatives strongly opposed Medicare, warning that a government-run program would lead to socialism in America:

    Ronald Reagan: "[I]f you don't [stop Medicare] and I don't do it, one of these days you and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it once was like in America when men were free." [1961]

    George H.W. Bush: Described Medicare in 1964 as "socialized medicine." [1964]

    Barry Goldwater: "Having given our pensioners their medical care in kind, why not food baskets, why not public housing accommodations, why not vacation resorts, why not a ration of cigarettes for those who smoke and of beer for those who drink." [1964]

    Bob Dole: In 1996, while running for the Presidency, Dole openly bragged that he was one of 12 House members who voted against creating Medicare in 1965. "I was there, fighting the fight, voting against Medicare . . . because we knew it wouldn't work in 1965."

    Despite Medicare's success and the unrealized fears of its detractors, Republican lawmakers are still regurgitating the claim that Medicare would create a "Soviet-style model" of health care.

    http://tinyurl.com/mcjyyu

    Posted by judybrowni at 07/29/2009 @ 7:22pm

35. GOP: We hate public insurance, but love Medicare

    "Here's Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN), Chairman of the House Republican Conference, appearing on Andrea Mitchell's MSNBC show earlier today:

    Transcript:

    PENCE: This is not a deal that will go over well with the American people. They understand what a governmentment run insurance plan will mean.

    PENCE: A government run insurance option that the President's insisted on is going to amount to a government takeover of our health care economy.

    PENCE (challenged by Andrea Mitchell on support for Medicare): Oh, no, I support Medicare, and have supported the program.

    Do the Republicans have any idea just how stupid they sound when they simultaneously attack the idea of government health insurance and lavish praise on the largest government health insurance program in the nation? (And do the BaucuCon Dems have any idea how futile it is to try and negotiate with these fools?)"

    http://tinyurl.com/nmzdub

    Posted by judybrowni at 07/29/2009 @ 7:23pm

36. Oh, so Bush "inherited the problem from his predecessor, and you can't blame him, because it's a mess that could take years to fix"?

    Posted by Mask at 07/29/2009 @ 2:21pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    With the Repubs, it's ALWAYS someone else's fault.

    Posted by jarshadow at 07/29/2009 @ 8:28pm

37. It was so funny when Kristol had to admit that the VA system was an excellent health provider but that this type of system was just too good for the rest of the citizens.

    These people just don't know what to do to get their pay checks from the insurance companies. It is time to acknowledge that some "industries" just won't put real economic value into a process and therefore are a negative contributor to economic growth.

    Hey Reps, for one time be honest, this is about the health of the nation. It is always the same, when they loose the arguments, they start their 'big old tactics: fear". They will tell you what to eat, what medical procedures to do, and when you are going to die. Hypocrites! We are more sensitive to human life and needs than you are. We will never put government over the individual, yet you put something nastier as money over the individual when supporting your bosses at the insurance companies.

    Even for the case of abortion, we privilege the person's (that is the woman involved) decision over government, insurance companies and physicians. On exchange, you privilege insurance companies' decisions to reject individuals for preexisting conditions. Let the people decide who is who but this time no mask will disguise the people that are acting defending insurance companies' interests.

    Why not in the midst of this discussion, we ask all people in the Hill to disclose who has contributed to them and in what amounts.

    Posted by Frank42 at 07/30/2009 @ 12:54am

38. "PENCE (challenged by Andrea Mitchell on support for Medicare): Oh, no, I support Medicare, and have supported the program. "----Posted by judybrowni at 07/29/2009 @ 7:23pm

    Mike Pence's "rock-ribbed conservative principles"...

    doesn't mean he's going to commit political suicide!

    LOL

    Posted by Mask at 07/30/2009 @ 08:13am

39. Rep. John Fleming (R-La.) is a practicing family physician of 33 years. He is serving his freshman term in the House, first elected to Congress in late elections from the Bayou State in December of last year. Fleming currently practices medicine in Minden, La.

    Last week, Fleming introduced House Resolution 615 which would oblige any member of Congress voting in favor of a government run health care bill to leave their private insurance plan and join the Democrats' "public option" boondoggle.

    Any member of Congress who votes against Obamacare wouldn't be obliged to sign up for it but those who do, would. So far, Fleming told me, the entire Republican leadership has signed his Fleming pledge.

    I asked him how many Democrats have signed the pledge. "Despite reaching out to the Democrats, including the Speaker, we've had no Democrats sign up for it."

    "Americans know that there's a disconnect between the American people and Congress," Fleming continued. "Congress and Washington in general have become sort of a ruling elite. We have a bad habit of passing laws that subject the population to all sorts of problems and headaches, yet we exempt ourselves. So I think it's time the American people hold Congress accountable. If Congress thinks that there should be a public plan, which would effectually lead to Canadian-style/United Kingdom-style socialized medicine, then they should be the first to sign up for it."

    ..Since he is intimately familiar with health insurance, and having recently signed up for his Congressional benefits, I asked Fleming talked about claims Democrat members were making from the House floor yesterday that their health care bill would offer the same plans that a member of Congress gets to choose from.

    "That is absolutely incorrect," Fle

    Posted by BigPasture at 07/30/2009 @ 08:45am

40. "That is absolutely incorrect," Fleming said. "The public option plan is what people on Medicaid have today. Government funded, government run, government regulations, very restricted, one-size-fits-all. What we have in Congress today in the Federal Employees Benefits Plan is really an exchange. I can go on an internet site and I can choose from hundreds of private insurance plans. In fact, the private insurance plan that I'm on is Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Louisiana, which is no better, no less certainly, than any other good private plan, but it is a private insurance plan. It is not a government plan."

    "To suggest that somehow Congressional members are under a government run healthcare plan, that is not the truth," Fleming said. "We enjoy private insurance and will continue to do so even under the Democrats' plan even though most of the nation will be pulled off of private insurance and onto a Medicare-style insurance program."

    Now you know the truth! Not ONE Demoncrat would place his family at the mercy of the "Obamacare" health rationaing plan!!!

    Posted by BigPasture at 07/30/2009 @ 08:46am

41. Any politician who takes campaign contributions from health insurance companies and Big Pharma should recuse themselves from the ongoing healthcare negotiations. Otherwise their actions constitute bribery. The American people are being extorted by these companies with the help of all of the Republicans, and a small but crucial percentage of Democrats.

    Posted by desertrat at 07/30/2009 @ 08:50am

42. A five-year, $120 million contract was awarded to a firm run by a former executive from Halliburton, IAP Worldwide Services for base operations support services, including facilities managemen The privatization of support services and the cutting of costs was instrumental in skilled people leaving the facility. Before the contract, over 300 federal employees provided facilities management services at Walter Reed, according to the memorandum, but that number dropped to less than 60 the day before IAP took over. IAP replaced the remaining 60 federal employees with only 50 IAP personnel. Privatization not "government run health care" was at the root of the Walter Reed scandal.

    Posted by RainaP at 07/30/2009 @ 10:37am

43. But RIO, like Mike Pence....

    you support Medicare, right?

    Posted by Mask at 07/30/2009 @ 10:49am

44. Call Congress: Take the Pledge for the Public Option

    Enough talk -- take ACTION!

    http://action.firedoglake.com/page/s/publicoption

    Posted by judybrowni at 07/30/2009 @ 1:04pm

45. RE: Dean Slams ...

    Is Dean still alive? It's said Bush'd sent him to some gulag after '04 elections.

    Posted by HelenDAO at 07/30/2009 @ 10:36pm

46. But RIO, like Mike Pence....

    you support Medicare, right?

    Posted by Mask at 07/30/2009 @ 10:49am | ignore this person | warn this person

    That is a malicious dispicable thing for you to contemplate mAsK! It is incredulous that you want to cease medical care for the elderly , poor, and to take away veterans medical benefits!

    How can you even live with yourself? You have advocated doing so on so many occassions I can't believe you still want us to consider such a thing!

    Posted by BigPasture at 07/30/2009 @ 11:54pm

47. Illegal Immigrants Account for $10.7 Billion of Nation's Health Care Costs, Data Show Thursday, July 30, 2009 By Matt Cover

    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) (CNSNews.com) – House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said that "illegal immigrants are not covered" in the health care reform legislation that is now working its way through House committees. But when asked about illegal immigrants who go to public hospitals for care, Pelosi told CNN's State of the Nation on Sunday the law requires that they be treated.

    The cost of treating illegal aliens amounts to nearly $11 billion a year, according to calculations done by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), a non-profit group that opposes illegal immigration. And that cost is not expected to go away if a health insurance reform bill becomes law.

    "If you're in this country illegally, should you be able to get health care?" CNN's John King asked Pelosi. "No, illegal immigrants are not covered by this plan," she replied.

    "And so what happens to a public hospital then, if they walk into the emergency room? The hospital I was at this week, they said, you know, they do 6,000 births a year there and 70 percent of them are for undocumented [patients]," said King.

    "I don't know about that," said Pelosi. "But I do know that the law requires that if somebody comes in off the street and needs care, that is extended. What we see in this legislation is that people will have access to affordable health care, and it will diminish the number of people going into those private, public hospitals in the manner in which you described."

    Posted by BigPasture at 07/31/2009 @ 12:26am

48. According to FAIR's Director of Special Projects Jack Martin, illegal immigrants cost federal and state governments an estimated $10.7 billion a year in health care spending. The numbers are contained in a report that FAIR plans to publish in the near future.

    "The numbers that I've been running come up to a total of $10.7 billion a year," Martin told CNSNews.com. Those costs include the cost of so-called "anchor babies" – babies born to illegal immigrant parents in U.S. hospitals, almost always at taxpayers' expense.

    Martin said that he included this cost in his estimate because while the newborns are technically U.S. citizens, taxpayers would never have had to pay their mothers' medical bills had they not illegally entered the country.

    "If the illegal immigrants were prevented from coming into the country or were encouraged to leave the country, that cost would disappear," said Martin. "Emergency medical care for the delivery of children is the biggest [cost]."

    Each anchor baby costs taxpayers an estimated $10,000 each on average, Martin said. These costs are usually paid through Medicaid, the federal program designed to aid America's poor.

    "It's the same [cost] as any other Medicaid birth, it's the delivery expenses that average in the neighborhood of about $10,000 per delivery," he said.

    Emergency room care for adults is another "significant" part of illegals' overall burden, Martin said, one that is primarily borne by states, which subsidize the hospitals whose emergency rooms must treat illegal immigrants, no matter how minor their illness might be.

    Posted by BigPasture at 07/31/2009 @ 12:27am

49. "It's a fairly significant contribution," Martin said, "it comes out of the pocket of the states for the most part because of the fact that it is not covered by Medicaid. The federal government has had a program of partial reimbursement of those expenses but that hasn't been renewed [by this Congress]. It didn't begin to cover those expenses [anyway]."

    That $10.7 billion is not spread evenly throughout the country, Martin explained, but is borne primarily by states with high populations of illegal aliens -- states such as California, Texas, and Florida.

    "In terms of locations, it basically flows with where the largest concentration of illegal immigrants are," said Martin. "For example, California is the largest and just within the state – not including federal monies – I get that [cost] at $1.6 billion per year."

    In fact, state governments bear the heaviest burden for subsidizing the health care of illegal immigrants. Martin said he calculated that, all told, states pay $6.9 billion per year to care for their illegal immigrant populations.

    "The estimates of the costs that are paid by the states in total run to about $6.9 billion," he said. "The difference between that and the over $10 billion figure is the amount that is paid out of federal funds."

    Martin's figures are similar to those reported in a 2004 study published by the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), which showed that illegals accounted for $6.4 billion of federal health care spending – the CIS study did not examine states expenditures.

    The CIS study did include federal programs for which illegal immigrants are legally barred, such as Medicaid. However, federal funds still flowed their way due to the fact that illegal immigrant parents gain access to federal welfare and health care

    Posted by BigPasture at 07/31/2009 @ 12:29am

50. through their U.S.-born children.

    According to the CIS study, illegals accounted for 13.1 percent of all federal costs of covering the uninsured in 2004, an estimated $2.2 billion per year. Seventeen percent of households headed by an illegal immigrant were using Medicaid, accounting for 1.7 percent of all Medicaid recipients.

    These trends look to continue if President Obama gets his way on health care reform, Martin said, because the legislation currently making its way through Congress would leave "very large" loopholes, loopholes that are not likely to be closed.

    "The current health care bill is looking as if it is leaving a very large loophole for medical coverage being provided to illegal aliens," Martin said.

    "There's one provision that says they won't be eligible, but the current legislation as it's being written does not establish any system of verification as to whether or not a person is legal or illegal

    Posted by BigPasture at 07/31/2009 @ 12:30am

51. Did any of you hear what William Kristol said ?

    William Kristol says '' kill healthcare reform '' William Kristol wants '' targeted healthcare fixes '' William Kristol said '' american public does not deserve healthcare, but the military troops in Iraq do ''

    Which begs the questions, do WWII vets deserve healthcare ? Or Vietnam vets, do they deserve healthcare ?

    William Kristol is a tool.

    Posted by timenotonmyside at 07/31/2009 @ 08:11am

52. Kristol, who got where he is because of his famous dad, has the most oleaginous smile.

    Posted by emile duBois at 07/31/2009 @ 08:35am

53. Posted by BigPasture at 07/30/2009 @ 11:54pm

    I notice you didn't answer the question.

    Posted by Mask at 07/31/2009 @ 09:02am

54. you first mAsK, answer yours!

    Posted by BigPasture at 07/31/2009 @ 10:40am

55. Posted by BigPasture at 07/31/2009 @ 10:40am

    No, RIO....my question was first.

    Do you support Medicare, as say Rep. Mike Pence does....or not?

    (BTW, everybody knows why you don't want to answer that, don't we?)

    Posted by Mask at 07/31/2009 @ 10:54am

56. Like I said mAsK, That is a malicious dispicable thing for you to contemplate mAsK! It is incredulous that you want to cease medical care for the elderly , poor, and to take away veterans medical benefits!

    How can you even live with yourself? You have advocated doing so on so many occassions I can't believe you still want us to consider such a thing!

    So just how can you even live with yourself?

    Posted by BigPasture at 07/31/2009 @ 10:58am

57. Posted by BigPasture at 07/31/2009 @ 10:58am

    Predictable as always, RIO.

    (BTW, thanks for that post on the other thread...calling for killing of people like....Rush Limbaugh a new record in nuttiness from you!)

    Posted by Mask at 07/31/2009 @ 12:46pm

58. Like I said on the thread you refer to;

    Oh, I gotta save that!....heheh

    Posted by Mask at 07/31/2009 @ 11:53am | ignore this person | warn this person

    Question is how is making a total fool of yourself a professional choice for you mAsK?

    Posted by BigPasture at 07/31/2009 @ 1:01pm

59. Question is how is making a total fool of yourself a professional choice for you mAsK?---Posted by BigPasture at 07/31/2009 @ 1:01pm

    YOU called for the wholesale slaughter of drug users....which would have included Rush Limbaugh (a fave of yours I know)...

    and I'M making a total fool of myself?!??!?!???!

    LOL

    Posted by Mask at 07/31/2009 @ 1:45pm

60. Posted by Mask at 07/29/2009 @ 08:36am: The most prepared people for the presidency are VPs who have held that gig a few years. Other than that it is very rare for anyone to be prepared for the presidency but Palin was more prepared than the blockhead we ended up with.

    Posted by pyeatte at 08/01/2009 @ 5:19pm

61. I just want to know how many of the nay sayers (big pasture) had procedures denied for reasons that saved big health money. We had coverage of an MRI denied for being out of the network. It was "only"$2300, I ask you people that are quoting different parts of proposed legislation , has this happened to you? Let's kill anything that has something to do with the government. That seems to be the battle cry. Did you people know how well Medicare is working for seniors. Both my mother and mother in law sing the praises of it. This arguement that the government screws everything up just isn't true. Furthermore, I ask people like John Boehner that say government doesn't work to resign from their positions because they haven't allowed the government to work right.

    Posted by whatizz at 08/01/2009 @ 7:26pm

62. WINGNUT LIES ABOUT HEALTHCARE REFORM:

    Recently one of the wingnut commenters on these threads, repeatedly posted false claims about the new healthcare bills in the works -- apparently based on a crazy wingnut mass email.

    "An independent health care analyst at the Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonpartisan foundation that studies health care reform ... has read and analyzed all the major health proposals, including those of the Republicans, and the foundation provides point-by-point analyses of the plans on its Web site.

    "It's awful," she said. "It's flat-out, blatant lies. It's unbelievable to me how they can claim to reference the legislation and then make claims that are blatantly false."

    FOR INSTANCE:

    "• Page 29: Admission: your health care will be rationed! FALSE! Section 122 outlines broad categories of benefits that must be included in an essential benefits package. It prohibits cost-sharing for preventive care and limits annual out-of-pocket spending to $5,000 for an individual and $10,000 for a family, indexed for inflation. It says nothing about rationing or limiting treatment.

    • Page 42: The "Health Choices Commissioner" will decide health benefits for you. You will have no choice. None. FALSE! Section 142 outlines the duties of the Health Choices commissioner, who is charged with regulating insurers. The commissioner should seek insurers to offer different types of insurance, including basic, enhanced and premium. Individuals will be able to choose among competing insurers who are regulated via the exchange. "

    MORE :

    http://tinyurl.com/n7v4jy

    35 MORE WINGNUT LIES ABOUT HEALTHCARE DEBUBUNKED:

    http://tinyurl.com/nxahut

    Posted by judybrowni at 08/03/2009 @ 12:38pm

63. IT'S THE INSURANCE AGENCIES, STUPID

    "Finally. The Democrats seem to be coalescing around a message for health insurance reform. It's about taking on the insurance industry. It is, indeed: With the House already gone and the Senate set to clear out by Friday, the terms of the recess battle are becoming clear. Republicans will assail the government coverage plan that Democrats and President Obama are advocating as a recklessly expensive federal takeover of health care. And Democrats will counter that GOP opposition represents a de facto endorsement of insurance industry abuses.

    "We know what we're up against," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) told reporters on Friday. "Carpet-bombing, slash and burn, shock and awe -- anything you want to say to describe what the insurance companies will do to hold on to their special advantage."

    It always has been about the insurance industry. No one likes dealing with their insurance company. Insurance bureaucrats ration care. They jack up our rates. They deny coverage. They cut off coverage. I'm not exaggerating when I say that almost everyone I know has done some kind of battle with their health insurer."

    http://tinyurl.com/lqqcz6

    Posted by judybrowni at 08/03/2009 @ 1:21pm

64. WITH WINGNUT LIES ABOUT "Killing Granny," Conservatives Aim to Kill Health Care

    "Who knew that a living will was but the first step that would set us down the treacherous path toward government-encouraged euthanasia? In a use any angle fear mongering campaign to derail the comprehensive US health care reform legislation now working its way through the Congress, conservatives are now pitching on right wing radio and on their blogs that living wills are the first step towards euthanasia. It is particularly offensive that this campaign is being targeted at seniors.

    The Washington Post provides the background:

    The controversy stems from a proposal to pay physicians who counsel elderly or terminally ill patients about what medical interventions they would prefer near the end of life and how to prepare instructions such as living wills. Under the plan, Medicare would reimburse doctors for one session every five years to confer with a patient about his or her wishes and how to ensure those preferences are followed. The counseling sessions would be voluntary.

    But on right-leaning radio programs, religious e-mail lists and Internet blogs, the proposal has been described as "guiding you in how to die," "an ORDER from the Government to end your life," promoting "death care" and, in the words of antiabortion leader Randall Terry, an attempt to "kill Granny."

    Though the counseling provision is a tiny part of a behemoth bill, the skirmish over end-of-life care, like arguments about abortion coverage, has become a distraction and provided an opening for opponents of the president's broader health-care agenda. "

    READ MORE:

    http://tinyurl.com/lju3kg

    Posted by judybrowni at 08/03/2009 @ 1:29pm