Are You Represented By a "Public Option Senators"

Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown, a health care reform champion who has (along with Iowa Senator Tom Harkin and West Virginia Senator Jay Rockefeller) led the fight for a robust public option has gathered the signatures of thirty senators who are committed to real reform -- even if the insurance companies don't like it.

The signers are not the only public option backers in the Senate. MSNBC's Ed Schultz got Senator Jeff Bingaman, D-New Mexico -- who did not sign the letter -- to commit to vote for the public option in bills and amendments during an interview Thursday night.

But the signers of the letter are the committed stalwarts, and they will be essential players as the battle over health care reform plays out in the Senate. Many are supporters of bolder reform -- including a single-payer system. Their message to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, and the Obama administration is that the public option is a compromise. They're not interested in compromising any further.

Here's what the letter to Reid says:

We have spent the better part of this year fighting for health reform that would provide insurance access and continuity to every American in a fiscally responsible manner. We are concerned that – absent a competitive and continuous public insurance option – health reform legislation will not produce nationwide access and ongoing cost containment. For that reason, we are asking for your leadership on ensuring that the merged health reform bill contains a public insurance option.

As it stands, the health insurance market is dominated by a handful of for-profit health insurers that are exempt from the anti-trust laws that ensure robust competition in other markets across the United States. Without a not-for-profit public insurance alternative that competes with these insurers based on premium rates and quality, insurers will have free rein to increase insurance premiums and drive up the cost of federal subsidies tied to those premiums. This is simply not fiscally sustainable.

We recognize that the two Committees with jurisdiction over health reform – the Senate Finance Committee and the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee – have taken two very different approaches with respect to this issue. However, a strong public option has resounding support among Senate Democrats – every Democrat on HELP, three quarters of those on Finance, and what we believe is a majority of the caucus.

The Senate Finance Committee included a cooperative approach to insurance market competition. While promoting more co-ops may be a worthy goal, it is not realistic to expect local co-ops to spring up in every corner of this country. There are many areas of the country where the population is simply too small to sustain a local co-op plan. We are also concerned that the administrative costs associated with financing the start-up of multiple co-op plans would far outstrip the seed money required to establish a public health insurance program.

Opponents of health reform argue that a public option presents unfair competition to the private insurance companies. However, it is possible to create a public health insurance option that is modeled after private insurance – rates are negotiated and providers are not required to participate in the plan. As you know, this is the Senate HELP Committee's approach. The major differences between the public option and for-profit plans are that the public plan would report to taxpayers, not to shareholders, and the public plan would be available continuously in all parts of the country. The number one goal of health reform must be to look out for the best interests of the American people – patients and taxpayers alike – not the profit margins of insurance companies.

Health reform is about improving access to health care, containing costs, and giving Americans a real choice in the insurance plan best suited to their needs. We urge you to fight for a sustainable health care system that ensures Americans the option of a public plan in the merged Senate bill.

Take a look at the list of signers.

Is your senator's name on it?

If not, it may be time to start making some calls.

Here are the signers -- so far: Sherrod Brown (D-OH), John D. Rockefeller (D-WV); Patrick J. Leahy (D-VT); Russ Feingold (D-WI); Daniel K. Akaka (D-HI); Tom Udall (D-NM); Kristen E. Gillibrand (D-NY); Roland W. Burris (D-IL); Ron Wyden (D-OR); Debbie Stabenow (D-MI); Barbara Boxer (D-CA); Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI); Michael F. Bennet (D-CO); Dianne Feinstein (D-CA); Jack Reed (D-RI); Jeff Merkley (D-OR); Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ); Benjamin L. Cardin (D-MD); Al Franken (D-MN); Robert P. Casey, Jr. (D-PA); Barbara A. Mikulski (D-MD); Daniel K. Inouye (D-HI); Edward E. Kaufman (D-DE); Arlen Specter (D-PA); Maria Cantwell (D-WA); Robert Menendez (D-NJ); Bernard Sanders (I-VT); John F. Kerry (D-MA); Herb Kohl (D-WI); and Paul Kirk (D-MA).

Comments (55)

1. Well I don't see my man Chuckie Schumer in this list, but he's for it too, isn't he?

   Posted by Webcorex2 at 10/09/2009 @ 09:35am

2. Don't worry Niuchols,

   The govt program will be shoved up are arse as you want, but YOU will never have to use it..

   Posted by YourJomamma at 10/09/2009 @ 09:53am

3. I live in Georgia. I didn't see any R behind the list of names....big surprise. The motto is, We don't need no yankee-bama health care down here. We liked getting screwed by the insurance industry. Keep them rates high please and by all means keep cranking up the co-pay for visits and pharmaceuticals.

   Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/09/2009 @ 10:20am

4. Posted by YourJomamma at 10/09/2009 @ 09:53am

   The public option will be just that - an option.

   Shoving things up your arse will remain your personal choice.

   Posted by drhammer at 10/09/2009 @ 10:25am

5. letter to Reid: "Opponents of health reform argue that a public option presents unfair competition to the private insurance companies...."

   If I run a non-profit outfit with its own printing presses, even while obligated to "report to taxpayers" (see all past BIG and SMALL initiatives by the Gubbers on how well `accountability' matters....start w/TARP), no one would stoop so low as to call my outfit as being `advantaged', now, would it? Of course NOT!

   Posted by Happy at 10/09/2009 @ 10:34am

6. Sell stocks! For PROFIT!

   Sold most of APA yesterday when it crossed $100....

   Sold all of APC yesterday near 52-wk hi.....

   Hope to be Selling some INTC today as it crosses $20....

   Hope to be Selling some GE today...

   Nice week to be back in the `real' saddle after Monument Valley and Vegas!

   Posted by Happy at 10/09/2009 @ 10:38am

7. Posted by Happy at 10/09/2009 @ 10:34am

   Let me guess?

   One of YOUR Senators is a signee to the letter?

   heheh

   Posted by Mask at 10/09/2009 @ 10:40am

8. Posted by Happy at 10/09/2009 @ 10:34am

   Just kidding...I know you're from Houston.

   And a Texas Senator's idea of health care reform is....you get to swab the arm with free alcohol provided by the Government...

   before the lethal injection.

   Posted by Mask at 10/09/2009 @ 10:41am

9. And a Texas Senator's idea of health care reform is....

   Posted by Mask at 10/09/2009 @ 10:41am

   Here's the real finish: "...reform is that Cali and the Blue states dive/opt in head-over-heel on imposing HC costs while TX opts out!"

   Posted by Happy at 10/09/2009 @ 10:51am

10. Yeah, where's Schumer? And his hand-puppet, our appointed senator Gillibrand?

    Posted by Citizen54 at 10/09/2009 @ 11:05am

11. Oops, my apologies to Ms Gillibrand. Lack of healthcare is affecting my reading cognition.

    Posted by Citizen54 at 10/09/2009 @ 12:00pm

12. Three conclusions easily drawn from this:

    1. It confirms what a Democratic Senator said last month; there are not 50 votes for a public option in the Senate, much less 60 votes.

    2. None of these Senators either knows the Constitution, or cares what it says.

    3. It identifies those Senators who prefer a marxist approach to govt rather than the constitutional path.

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/09/2009 @ 12:00pm

13. Both of my Oregon senators are on the list. Kudos, gentlemen.

    Posted by Sorelish at 10/09/2009 @ 12:32pm

14. Check this out, conservative pundit, Bill Kristol admits the government can provide first-class health care. But he also says that not all Americans deserver it. What do you think? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sa69puS7J0Q

    Posted by gcaliente at 10/09/2009 @ 12:40pm

15. Posted by antisocialist at 10/09/2009 @ 12:00pm

    Larry,

    Do you really think that by banging your head continually on the "I know the Constitution better than anyone else" wall, will actually change the opinions of anyone on this blog?

    I have no doubt that the Senators in question have read the Constitution and are familiar with it, since it is what they have sworn to uphold and protect. You seem to have sworn to uphold and protect an outdated conservative ideology that has nothing to do with the continued (and hopefully increasing) welfare of the American people. I know you believe that Americans should have to pay for their own health care and that you believe the big insurance companies deserve to make outlandish profits and that everything you believe in Constitutionally, derives from the 10th Command...um, the 10th Amendment.

    However, does it ever occur to you that you might be wrong? You are the one who told me I have a problem admitting I'm wrong, and yet I see similar symptoms in you. There are literally millions of smart Americans out there who disagree with you, not only about whether national health care is Constitutional or not, but that the Constitution can be interpreted in ways far different from your own.

    Or are all the rest of us just stupid?

    Perhaps you need psychological help in starting the process to admitting you're wrong. We're not all out to get you. We're not all socialists or marxists just because you say we are. We are upstanding people who love our country, our methodology and political way of life who happen to think the Constitution is more flexible than you do and that it covers EVERYONE, not just white male slave owners as it was when the document was written.

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/09/2009 @ 12:48pm

16. Good idea, Happy. Let states opt-in or out depending on their position. Then let Obama's plan come to fruition including NOT USING ONE PENNY of tax-payer dollars to support the public system. The premiums paid by its "customers" will be its sole source of revenue. Then we can watch what happens. If the public system can't stay profitable, then the system is automatically dissolved, never to be visited again by brain-dead so-called representatives in government. If it is anything like the post office, we'll have won this debate in less than 10 years.

    Posted by usc1 at 10/09/2009 @ 1:20pm

17. I am very happy to see my senators from NJ on the list. I am also glad to see one of the newest democrats Arlen Spector of PA on the list!

    Posted by fredjet at 10/09/2009 @ 1:20pm

18. Thanks be to God none of my Senators or Representatives are on this list of these constitution and freedom hating marxists!

    Posted by BigPasture at 10/09/2009 @ 1:51pm

19. Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/09/2009 @ 12:48pm

    Stephen, your worn out false accusations must tire even you.

    I do not believe that I know the constitution better than anyone else, nor have I ever said so.

    I have not said that "everything I believe in Constitutionally, derives from the 10th Command...um, the 10th Amendment." Nor do I believe that. It is a bizarre statement.

    We have had over 220 years of debate in this country going back to the Federalists and Anti-Federalists about the Constitution. I would not respect anyone who doesn't firmly believe their position to be the correct one. Yet you think those of us who hold to the view held by not only most of the Founders, but a great many constitutional scholars (and some on the Supreme Court) are not valid and worthy of debate.

    I have also repeatedly said that I am not interested in Insurance company profits. Which BTW if you think 2-3% is outlandish, you must hate all businesses.

    Finally, your final paragraph suggesting I'm a racist is offensive, bigoted and without basis. My family and I have fought against racism for over 175 years. You will likely never come close to the efforts we have made. I doubt you will apologize though, because your bigotry against conservatives doesn't allow for considering that most of us also hate racism. I cannot see any further dialogue with you without an apology for accusing me of being a racist.

    You might inquire from Mask who at least has more sense than you on this

    <No, Larry is no racist and anybody accusing him of that is off-base.

    Posted by Mask at 07/07/2009 @ 08:08am>

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/09/2009 @ 2:43pm

20. To Yourjomamma and similar fools:

    There is one health insurance plan that doctors like, that cannot drop patients for being sick, that covers everyone in its age group, spends only 3% of its total premiums on administration, and does not make obscene profits.

    clue #1......it's a public option

    clue #2......it covers the very sickest group of people

    clue #3......you will be entitled to it when you turn 65 years old, and so will John Nichols

    clue #4.....it is the kind of plan that every single other first-world nation has for ALL of its citizens.

    clue #5.....if we all had this coverage, we would not be ranked 50th in lifespan, and 4o-something in infant mortality rates.

    any lights going on?

    Posted by selan at 10/09/2009 @ 2:57pm

21. Posted by antisocialist at 10/09/2009 @ 2:43pm

    Sorry, Stephen, but Larry is absolutely right.

    I've never seen anything racist from him. He may be in with guys like Happy ("Magic") and that component (small, but there) of the Racist Right when it comes to certain right-wing issues...

    I'd also note he is quite "liberal" on immigration and has stated as such many times.

    but he himself has never demonstrated anything racist and I take him at his word that his wife is a Latino-African (of El Salvadoran nationality) and his children bi-racial.

    So...hypocrite...jingoist...authoritarian....but not racist.

    ((heheh...sorry for the back-handed, Larry!))

    Posted by Mask at 10/09/2009 @ 3:02pm

22. Posted by Mask at 10/09/2009 @ 3:02pm

    Thanks Mask (sort of).

    I can tolerate and accept a lot of different criticisms for being a libertarian, but the racism one just makes my blood boil.

    Racism is insidious and something I'm proud that my family has fought for so long.

    It should not be part of a left/right divide.

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/09/2009 @ 3:13pm

23. Finally, your final paragraph suggesting I'm a racist is offensive, bigoted and without basis. My family and I have fought against racism for over 175 years. You will likely never come close to the efforts we have made. I doubt you will apologize though, because your bigotry against conservatives doesn't allow for considering that most of us also hate racism. I cannot see any further dialogue with you without an apology for accusing me of being a racist.

    You might inquire from Mask who at least has more sense than you on this

    <No, Larry is no racist and anybody accusing him of that is off-base.

    Posted by Mask at 07/07/2009 @ 08:08am>

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/09/2009 @ 2:43pm

    My final paragraph in no way suggested you are a racist. It only suggested that your views of the Constitution are about 200 years out of date.

    I apologize if you mistook that for calling you a racist. That was not and is never my intent.

    The Founders were, for their part, incredibly intelligent men who simply could not see past their blind spot of slavery. I would argue that a modern day equivalent is conservatives who cannot see past their own blind spot of ideology.

    While I do not consider you a racist, I do consider you to have a (several) blind spot of conservative ideology: war for profit, health care for profit, torture, corporate rights over the individual rights of the People, a rigid view of the Constitution...I could go on.

    So, I do apologize if what I wrote offended you. For all of your faults, I believe you to be a thoughtful (if sometimes rude) person; I simply disagree with almost all of your thoughts.

    However, the overall point of my post was for you to admit you MIGHT be wrong about the Constitution, which I notice you didn't, or couldn't, do.

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/09/2009 @ 3:16pm

24. Posted by antisocialist at 10/09/2009 @ 3:13pm

    Nor will I tolerate a false charge, Larry.

    Now, HAPP?...and his endless references to "Magic ____" and "mentions" of Obama being black...and his Hero on the AM Band....that raises red-flags.

    Posted by Mask at 10/09/2009 @ 3:22pm

25. Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/09/2009 @ 3:16pm

    I WILL agree with that Stephen...

    Larry's views on the Constitution stalled at pre-Jacksonian levels....

    and as noted on the thread about his "Ben Franklin quotes" will likely NEVER admit he is wrong about anything.

    Posted by Mask at 10/09/2009 @ 3:25pm

26. Check this out. You think Georgia will have a health care reform senator while representing folks like this ahole? Repubs, he's one of you. yaaaaahoo.

    http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics /2009/10/09/dnt.ga.nword.sign.wgcl

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/09/2009 @ 3:30pm

27. nd as noted on the thread about his "Ben Franklin quotes" will likely NEVER admit he is wrong about anything.

    Posted by Mask at 10/09/2009 @ 3:25pm

    How could he ever be wrong? He's God's chosen right hand man to set the record straight and speak nothing but his truth. (his truth meaning Liv's truth, not necessarily what the rest of us would call the truth).

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/09/2009 @ 3:34pm

28. Interesting that Burris is on the list. Also interesting no one corrected the title, "Are You Represented By a "Public Option Senators'". Need to drop the "s" in Senators" John. Good editors make for good writers.

    Posted by srjenkins at 10/09/2009 @ 4:42pm

29. Hooray for Maryland. Both of our Senators are on the list doing what is right and MORAL for our country.

    Posted by jawolfe@comcast.net at 10/09/2009 @ 5:39pm

30. Most Americans are for universal healthcare. So why aren't we getting it? Congress members do not represent those who voted for them, but the industries who contribute to their campaigns. We truly do not have a republic; we have plutocracy...It is both sad and absurd Congress members have to fight for a "public option." They should be arguing about single-payer, which most Americans want, not an afterthought "public option" appended to a horrible plan that leaves millions uninsured and forces the rest to buy overpriced policies. Obama pre-emptively caved in to the industry. One doesn't start from a compromise position in any negotiation. So the health care bills are a bad, sad joke. And the Supreme Court is poised to strike down the few existing limits on campaign contributions by corporations and unions, thus allowing even MORE money into our election system. This will only increase the plutocracy's stranglehold on our elected officials.

    Posted by cholzhauer at 10/09/2009 @ 7:57pm

31. The multibillion-dollar projection for the Senate healthcare proposal is a government lie that ignores the fact that it would heap additional costs onto states, says best-selling author Martin Gross.

    "The $829 (billion) would be all right, but of course that's a lie," "The government tends to lie almost all the time in regard to money."

    Gross made the comments as he discussed the Congressional Budget Office report projecting that the Senate Finance Committee's healthcare bill would spend $829 billion on healthcare reform while reducing the budget $81 billion over 10 years.

    "They intend to put 15-to-20 million more people on Medicaid," said Gross, has testified six times before congressional committees on the question of waste and spending. "Who picks up the tab? The states. What do states do? They increase property taxes locally. So, this saying they're not going to raise taxes is a total lie, because the unfunded mandates of Medicaid which the states pay most of is off the books."

    Gross, the best-selling author of "The Government Racket," continues his indictment of government waste in his new book, "National Suicide: How Washington Is Destroying the American Dream."

    Gross alleges the government of the United States is a "juggernaut of mismanagement, malfeasance, and incompetence."

    "This is all an attempt to bankrupt the middle class America in the hope of using (the economic) crisis for a socialist revolution, and it seems to be working," Gross said.

    The United States spends $700 billion a year on welfare, Gross said. Costing $8,000 in tax dollars a family, it is a fortune they can't afford, Gross said.

    Posted by BigPasture at 10/09/2009 @ 10:19pm

32. ."The poor is becoming middle class, and the middle class is becoming poor. It's a scheme of the federal government (which has) absolutely no interest in the middle class except that they are the golden goose of money."

    "The middle class (is shouldering) the burden," Gross said. "And I tell you this, middle class people can't afford to live in America anymore."

    Gross also criticized President Barack Obama's stimulus package which he also called deceptive.

    For example, he said, "of $787 billion, only $48 billion was appropriated for infrastructure, and the report by the Department of Transportation just this week says $3.5 billion has been spent, but less than 1 percent of stimulus has gone to infrastructure. Where did the rest go? Education: $81 billion wasted. Cities, states to keep on federal, state, and county employees. Meanwhile, the middle class has no work."

    "So, the stimulus is an anti-stimulus. All it does is increase the deficit, and it has no value," Gross said. "If we come back, it's because the business cycle will enable us to come back -- not because of Mr. Obama or the federal government. "

    Posted by BigPasture at 10/09/2009 @ 10:20pm

33. not just white male slave owners as it was when the document was written.

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/09/2009 @ 12:48pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    As usual, the spiel used by leftists or a totally uniformed student of liberal revisionist history who neither understands nor comprehends the constitutional amendment process and the very necessary reasons to abide by it!

    Posted by BigPasture at 10/09/2009 @ 10:33pm

34. Most Americans are for universal healthcare. Posted by cholzhauer at 10/09/2009 @ 7:57pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Wrong, the most "optimistic" estimates are 50/50 and it has "legs on the ground" only because 15,000,000. are jobless and running out of "cobra" and unemployment benifits and the Demoncrats are using the actual 16% unemployed as leverage to socialize thier otherwise failing political power! Socialized healthcare is a boon to "in the red union benefits" which are running negatives 2nd only to medicare medicaid!

    Posted by BigPasture at 10/09/2009 @ 10:39pm

35. 2SEntence- What is a Marxist path? Start putting out examples of Marxist Governments. Your idea of Marxism most likely won't match up with governments.The DuNcE quotes a report that seems to say the states are not raising fees and taxes now. They also have shifted tax burdens to individual communities. Thank you, Mr. Gross what does you think about the non job recovery. Many jobs have been saved by the stimulus package. What a surprise he has a book out. At least he isn't Tom Cobern criticizing the government he works for.Nice Nobel Prize Barack. The world is happy the dark days of baseball bat diplomacy is over.

    Posted by whatozz at 10/09/2009 @ 10:44pm

36. Many jobs have been saved by the stimulus package. Posted by whatozz at 10/09/2009 @ 10:44pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    I would love to see you say that in your local state employment office really loud as I know it would be too bloody violent to make it to youtube!

    Posted by BigPasture at 10/09/2009 @ 11:07pm

37. Posted by BigPasture at 10/09/2009 @ 11:07pm

    The stimulus was never designed to staunch the bleeding entirely (though it should've been), several economists were saying this. Rather, it was expected to replace a decent sized chunk of lost output. The stimulus has performed about the way it was expected to.

    And openly pining to see someone get pummeled? What the hell is wrong with you?

    Posted by nkurland at 10/09/2009 @ 11:29pm

38. At least he isn't Tom Cobern criticizing the government he works for.

    Posted by whatozz at 10/09/2009 @ 10:44pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    (thats Coburn)

    Tom Coburn works for the people of the state of Oklahoma he was elected to represent and all healthcare patients in the nation. To bad the majority of the U.S. congress does NOT have that distinction! Neither have they had a successful medical practice for decades as he has had.

    Posted by BigPasture at 10/09/2009 @ 11:39pm

39. "Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton, D-Mo., had just finished addressing his Republican colleague Todd Akin Thursday.

    Skelton then turned to the side and muttered "stick it up your ass."

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

    And openly pining to see someone get pummeled? What the hell is wrong with you?

    Posted by nkurland at 10/09/2009 @ 11:29pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    You know you are right! It is so very true that "When you lie down with dogs you do tend to get fleas"! Plain to see why most conservatives and christians do not post to liberal sites!

    Posted by BigPasture at 10/09/2009 @ 11:54pm

40. Posted by BigPasture at 10/09/2009 @ 11:54pm

    So you're essentially admitting that it was an assinine statement.

    Posted by nkurland at 10/10/2009 @ 12:23am

41. Posted by BigPasture at 10/09/2009 @ 11:54pm

    Notice how the "lybrul" posters (including myself) aren't wishing harm on other humans.

    Posted by nkurland at 10/10/2009 @ 12:27am

42. Well DuNcE I have read in newspaper articles and on the internet that many state and local government jobs were saved as a result of the stimulus package. These "people" have husbands,wives,and children like your friends do. Tax cuts for the wealthy how have they helped? It lowered federal tax revenue which in turn affected other programs. Is Tom Cobern practicing medicine on weekends and Congressional recess? Is he a psychologist? I know he counseled John Ensign when he was screwing his aide. You want to be a moralist but seem to support violence versus others that don't support your views.The Republican Party is a highly organized ,efficiently run organization. Why can't the Garment Workers Union be, because they serve different functions? We both spit,why don't you think before you do.

    Posted by whatozz at 10/10/2009 @ 09:17am

43. Where is Amy K from Minnesota? She can go after 1 term.

    Posted by whatozz at 10/10/2009 @ 09:25am

44. what happened to the Schumer plan? any of those red states that don't want the govt. marxist health plan can opt out. then we can watch their health decline!

    also, ask your senator/congressman about his health plan? do you know that all those hypocrites enjoy Govt-run Socialized Medicine health care! now if they are opposed to "marxism" why don't they just opt out of the govt. plan and buy private insurance? apparently socialist medicine is good for them, but not good for ordinary folks.

    Posted by inedal at 10/10/2009 @ 4:28pm

45. Would they pay for it or would their campaign fund?On both sides they are posturing. Do you think Colin Peterson(Ag Committee Chairman) votes no to help his own legislation.

    Posted by whatozz at 10/10/2009 @ 5:59pm

46. Shoving things up your arse will remain your personal choice.

    Posted by drhammer at 10/09/2009 @ 10:25am

    Thanks for that one! I'm still laughing my "arse" off!

    Posted by chaoszen at 10/10/2009 @ 6:34pm

47. SINGLE PAYER NOW! (One of the few things I believe worth shouting).

    Posted by chaoszen at 10/10/2009 @ 6:36pm

48. Single payer NOW.

    Its worth repeating

    Posted by notsleepy at 10/11/2009 @ 5:40pm

49. Unfortunately that was negotiated away with the model T. Oh I just thought that is how long Max and his pals have been crafting their bill.Which insurance company's copy room has been working with Max to get the copies handed out each morning. The worst thing of the whole debate on health care is the sell out of the American public. Watching the length of time the Finance Committee has taken on this bill in order to not have a public option for the 65% of the public who support one is disheartening. At times you get the feeling it is a long term photo op for the Senators on the committee.

    Posted by whatozz at 10/11/2009 @ 7:01pm

50. antisocialist..... If it were up to me and others in here,,, you would be banned! You are a liar, and a fool and a scumbag! You represent the propaganda that rebublicans live by. Most of what YOU say is bullshit!!! It is YOUR party, the rebublican party that is communist!!! Got it fool!

    Posted by Tiger2Lover at 10/12/2009 @ 12:54am

51. The "mandate" is a done deal - Americans overwhelmingly support getting tough on the dirty, filthy, sleazy, "invincible" young Americans who refuse to pay Wealth Insurance protection to the CEOs. The only question is whether the "mandate" will come with an OPTION.

    Posted by DPGrassley at 10/12/2009 @ 4:16pm

52. I see the insurance thieves have ramped up their intimidation today. Let's revisit single payer,these people have no shame. They have rubbed our faces in the dirt even on their bonus round. Come on Dems and Repubs re-discover your backbones and honor. Do what you were elected for ,protect the public from crooks run amok.

    Posted by whatozz at 10/12/2009 @ 5:09pm

53. Public option is not a smart decision. In fact, nothing in this plan is a smart decision. Raise your hand if you spent an hour on the phone with your congressman's aide discussing the particulars of the reform plan? My hand is still up.

    The fact is this. Its a nice theory, but as any economist will tell you, theories are good for nothing.

    This plan supposes a few things.

    1. People who cannot afford health insurance will be intelligent enough to get regular checkups, and that by doing so, they will be healthier.

    2. The people who will now be able to get health insurance, will take the initiative to sign up for some plan other than the government option. I argue they won't. It's the path of least resistance, and if you are poor, or don't care about health insurance, its all you know.

    3. We will actually have enough doctors around to support that surge of patients, if they come.

    4. That even though we have programs trying to get people to eat healthier and live more healthful lives (obesity is our number 1 disease), and clearly those don't work, that this one somehow will. Just because you have access to a nutritionist doesn't mean you will suddenly be eating apples and broiled chicken over taco bell and krystal.

    5. That because most of the 60 million people who are currently uninsured will end up in the govt program, that the gov't will have a really tight leash on cost control, and that it will cause the quality of our physicians to decline over time, operating either for cash to wealthy humans (who come from around the world so demand for their services is still good) or moving to another country will more lax laws, and being part of one of the fastest growing industries, medical tourism.

    If that's what you want your money to be spent on, go ahead, but not me.

    Posted by sparkysj at 10/13/2009 @ 09:51am

54. PS my congressman is a Dem from Massachusetts

    Posted by sparkysj at 10/13/2009 @ 09:52am

55. Write, call, email to vent your frustration, but don't think it matters!

    We are not the constituents; just voters. The constituents are the funders of campaigns, the big funders.

    If the "good guys" in Congress, like Feingold, Kucinich, et al. really wanted to do something, they would form a new political party or support an independent candidate. We need an alternative on the ballot.

    Voting for the "least worse" does not improve anything.

    Proof: Barack Obama was considered the "least worse." He turned out to be like Bush in the issues that matter: war and peace, big finance, trade policy. He is no good and no better than could have been predicted from his record.

    Posted by goedel at 10/15/2009 @ 4:56pm