Baucus Committee OKs a Health Bill, But Not Reform

If every kid in class finishes their homework except for one, guess which kid will get the most attention. That's right, the slacker.

And, when the slacker finally does turn in the assignment, it is invariably a slapdash job that fails to meet minimum standards.

So it is in the U.S. Senate, where the Finance Committee finally got around to finishing its health care reform assignment.

The vote on the measure -- which does not include a public option to hold insurance companies to account -- was 14-9, with all Democrats on the committee and Maine Republican Olympia Snowe voting Tuesday to toss the measure into the legislative sausage-grinder that will eventually produce final legislation for the Senate to consider.

The important thing to remember is that for all of Tuesday's attention to the finance committee vote, the full Senate will never vote on this particular measure.

Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee chair Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, has said throughout the process that "the bill that (the Finance Committee) proposes is just that – a proposal."

Harkin is too polite to state the obvious: The Finance Committee proposal is no more likely to become law than the slacker student's last-to-be-handed-in homework assignment is to be awarded academic honors.

That's a good thing because the Finance Committee bill falls far short of real health care reform. It steers billions of taxpayer dollars into the accounts of insurance companies while failing to provide a realistic, humane or fiscally-responsible alternative to their profiteering.

Of course, that embarrassing omission did not prevent the committee's chairman, Max Baucus, a Montana Democrat whose campaign accounts are overflowing with insurance-industry contributions, from hailing his "accomplishment."

Baucus has always fancied himself as the man who would define the parameters of reform. On the committee, he set up an elaborate process for achieving bipartisan "buy-in." He assured everyone that he would get all the warring camps of the Senate Democratic Caucus behind one bill. And he promised that it would be a good bill.

Baucus failed on all three counts:

1. He blew deadline after deadline, delaying action for so long that the entire reform initiative was put in jeopardy.

Baucus patted himself on the back at the start of Tuesday's final finance committee session for puttering away on the project "for 2 years now," as if that was some kind of accomplishment. It wasn't.

Instead of making it possible for the Congress to craft comprehensive legislation before the August break – and giving Americans something real to consider – Baucus delayed for so long and created so much confusion that extremists were able to take advantage of the recess to spin fantasies about "death panels," "massive tax increases" and "creeping socialism."

2. He never achieved meaningful consensus – between Democrats and Republicans and even on some issues among Democrats.

Comically, the chairman bragged on Tuesday that, "Six Members of the Committee – three Republicans and three Democrats -- held 31 meetings to try to come to consensus. We held exhaustive meetings. We met for more than 61 hours. We went the extra mile."

What Baucus did not mention was that the Democrats and Republicans who went through the "exhaustive" and time-consuming exercise did not come to any kind of consensus. (Only Snowe, a regular renegade from the Republican camp, sided with the Democrats on the committee.) In other words, it was a waste of time.

3. He produced a bill that satisfies no one and should infuriate everyone.

Even Snowe, in announcing she would vote for the measure, said: "Is this bill all that I would want? Far from it..."

The ranking Republican on the committee, Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley, said that "What this mark up has shown is that there is a clear and significant philosophical difference between the two sides."

Grassley's right, up to a point.

The point that the Iowan misses is that neither side – Republicans who oppose real reform and Democrats who favor it – look kindly on the Baucus bill. There's been every bit as much criticism of it from the Congressional Progressive Caucus members as from Grassley's "party of no" colleagues.

Even some key members of the Finance Committee -- such as West Virginia Democrat Jay Rockefeller -- did so over their own strong objections to the absence of a public option.

The problems with the Finance Committee's proposal extend far beyond the fact that it fails to establish a government-run alternative to compete with the private insurers that will be ridiculously enriched by it.

But the lack of a "public option" should make the Baucus bill a nonstarter. As insurance-industry insider turned whistleblower Wendell Potter explained in an advertisement produced by MoveOn.org, the Baucus bill would, if enacted effectively, "kill health reform."

"Take it from me," argues Potter, "the Senate Finance bill is a dream come true of the health insurance industry. If there is no public option insurance companies aren't going to change. The choice of a public health insurance option is the only way to keep insurance companies honest."

Potter's right.

And a lot of senators know that he is right.

That's why 30 senators have signed a letter declaring their steadfast support for a robust public option. Many senators who did not sign the letter have indicated that they will back the public option that Baucus has sought to block.

There is even broader support for a public option in the House.

Perhaps that is why the other four congressional committees that produced health-care reform bills – three in the House and the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee -- have included far more robust language with regard to alternatives to for-profit insurance companies.

HELP Committee chair Harkin has not gotten as much attention as Baucus.

But Harkin got his homework done on time – his committee got its work done in July and earned compliments from the late Senator Ted Kennedy, who said: "I could not be prouder of our committee. We have done the hard work that the American people sent us here to do."

It is Harkin, not Baucus, who is the serious health-care reformer in the Senate.

It is Harkin, not Baucus, who has consistently promoted the public option and who continues to argue that it can and will be a part of any final legislation. "Look," says Harkin, "five committees have reported a bill out on healthcare. Four of them have a public option. One doesn't. So you would think the weight would be on the side of having a public option in the bill – and that's where it is."

And it is Harkin, the chairman who gets his work done on time and right, that we should be paying attention to now that Baucus has finally finished his silly sideshow.

Comments (129)

1. Doesn't matter..the dems will pass it anyway.

   Posted by YourJomamma at 10/13/2009 @ 2:14pm

2. Mr Nichols it was NEVER going to be "single payer"...it was never going to be a "free market solution like the Right wants.

   If Obama and his folks and Mr Melber's progressive bloggers AND YOU and others had had a real war strategy....the Tea Partyers and Town Hollerers wouldn't have caught you off-guard and crashed support.

   But they did. Now? The final Conference bill will be the best you can get...and maybe that's a good thing.

   After all, the Right, though they will undoubtedly try, will have atleast a TOUGHER time calling it "socialism" and a "total Gov't takeover"...won't they?

   Posted by Mask at 10/13/2009 @ 2:16pm

3. Posted by YourJomamma at 10/13/2009 @ 2:14pm

   And whatever it is, it'll be "socialism" and "a Gov't takeover of the system"....right, John?

   Posted by Mask at 10/13/2009 @ 2:19pm

4. "After all, the Right, though they will undoubtedly try, will have atleast a TOUGHER time calling it "socialism" and a "total Gov't takeover"...won't they?"

   that's a pretty pathetic standard for reform, mask (i.e. making it difficult for the Right to call it what it isn't).

   remember, we're talking about the same people who came up with "death panels" and "pull the plug on gradma" etc, etc

   Posted by darladoon at 10/13/2009 @ 2:23pm

5. Posted by darladoon at 10/13/2009 @ 2:23pm

   Anything "more" than "medical savings accounts" and "tort reform"...is "socialism" to those guys.

   Naturally, the Repubs will echo it...all the while "forgetting" how they promised to defend MEDICARE just a few weeks earlier.

   Posted by Mask at 10/13/2009 @ 2:28pm

6. that's a pretty pathetic standard for reform, mask (i.e. making it difficult for the Right to call it what it isn't). remember, we're talking about the same people who came up with "death panels" and "pull the plug on gradma" etc, etc

   Posted by darladoon at 10/13/2009 @ 2:23pm | ignore this person | warn this person

   --mask isn't about what's "right"---he's about whatever his right-wing masters will let him get away with

   Posted by urmygyro at 10/13/2009 @ 3:15pm

7. If there is no public option, that's OK.

   A public option would destroy private insurance and we would be left with government as the health care provider. That would not be OK. That is what President Obama wants, of course.

   Mr. Nichols seems concerned that things are bogged down and will be a mess and this whole process has gotten complicated and convoluted and nothing might get done.

   Let's hope it stays that way!!

   That would be a good outcome for now because then the attempt to impose socialist medicine in this country would be stopped.

   Then perhaps some actual reform could take place which would:

   1. Not blame insurance companies for high costs and the reason some do not have insurance.

   2. Lower insurance costs by allowing people to tailor their coverage. If someone only wants to insure themselves against catastrophic illness and otherwise pay as they go for routine care, allow them to do that. That would then lower costs and make coverage for routine care more affordable for those who need to purchase it.

   3. Allow insurance companies to do interstate business rather than be limited to business in a single state. This would lower costs also.

   4. Costs could be lowered considerably if frivolous lawsuits were discouraged. Right now some doctors probably order lots of tests that may not be necessary in order to protect against them being sued for not doing so later on.

   5. Recognize that some of the 45 million figure continually cited as uninsured is made up of illegal aliens, and people who can afford insurance but don't buy it, and people who can't afford insurance but do not seek help that is available. Beyond that....the number is more like 10 million....provide help for those people rather than destroy health care through socialism.

   Posted by sjchermak at 10/13/2009 @ 3:25pm

8. Posted by sjchermak at 10/13/2009 @ 3:25pm

   can we have an original thought please...

   Posted by ADHD at 10/13/2009 @ 4:09pm

9. "can we have an original thought please..."

   bingo

   Posted by darladoon at 10/13/2009 @ 4:36pm

10. This bill as today is a fallacy and Obama is very pleased and desperate, he will sign any bill,any!! so he can take credit for it,real reform is not coming, is not even around the corner..

    Posted by robert-o at 10/13/2009 @ 4:48pm

11. >>>"Look," says Harkin, "five committees have reported a bill out on healthcare. Four of them have a public option. One doesn't. So you would think the weight would be on the side of having a public option in the bill – and that's where it is." <<<

    HARKIN has got it right! A non-profit option that provides competition for insurance companies and coverage for those who don't have it will probably be IN the final bill signed by the president.

    Budget reconciliation is where this is going to go, and this gets it around the 60 vote filibuster issue so that the Senate will be able to vote it up or down (51 votes).

    Posted by Metteyya at 10/13/2009 @ 4:50pm

12. This is CRAP. Baucus bill that just passed in committee will allow insurance companies to charge Senior Citizens 4x the amount of non-Seniors. Am I the only Senior here who thinks this is DISGUSTING CRAP????

    Posted by BBFmail at 10/13/2009 @ 4:51pm

13. The dems and Obama are the worst of spineless wimps. If we don't get real health care reform (and the Baucus excrement is far from it) then we have only Obama to blame. He refused to to come out forecefully for a strong public option and before that he abandoned single payer before negotiations ever started--screw him and the dems and the spineless dems he rode in on. The Baucus bill should have been voted against by any dem who truly was for a strong public option. Any bill without a true and strong public option will set the cause of real health care reform back for a generation. If we do nothing (as opposed to doing something worse than half-assed), then the system will eventually implode and we will be forced to real reform.

    Posted by gopfascist at 10/13/2009 @ 4:59pm

14. And whatever it is, it'll be "socialism" and "a Gov't takeover of the system"....right, John?

    Posted by Mask at 10/13/2009 @ 2:19pm

    If the gov t ends up with more then it isn't private sector, is it Mask?

    What would it be...?

    Posted by YourJomamma at 10/13/2009 @ 5:07pm

15. the system will eventually implode and we will be forced to real reform. Posted by gopfascist at 10/13/2009 @ 4:59pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    cut off your nose to spite your face, right?

    Posted by emile duBois at 10/13/2009 @ 5:08pm

16. From your mouth Metteyya, from your mouth!

    Posted by Denise29 at 10/13/2009 @ 5:10pm

17. Max should be ashamed of himself ,what has he accomplished? I agree with Mr. Nichols regarding some issues. This is a bill written by others not staffers. If it would have taken much longer Rip Van Winkle would vote on it . As a result every commentator in the country hammered his party. Every other committee had their legislation finished weeks ago. This is going to be a boondoggle for the insurance companies,what a sellout. Like I have said before follow the money.Max,Kent,and Chuck are just the leaders in the group that has the Brinks trucks working overtime. Where is Russ Feingold hiding? I thought he stood up for the people. Where is John Mccain at. Didn't those two get campaign finance reform passed with legislation in their names. They are hiding out because that sham is helping the big boys line the pockets of their pals in the Senate. Who is going to stand up in the Senate and demand real legislation? Can someone please add timeliness to the legislation.

    Posted by whatozz at 10/13/2009 @ 5:12pm

18. Posted by sjchermak at 10/13/2009 @ 3:25pm

    can we have an original thought please...

    Posted by ADHD at 10/13/2009 @ 4:09pm

    But this is THE original thought...

    If you fix 1-4 on this list, wouldn't that be reform?

    Isn't it worth a look or at least a try?

    The idea is HEALTH CARE REFORM, not health care take over or complete redesign...

    if you have trouble with the arrangement of seats on an airplane, you don't redesign the entire airplane and you certainly don't let govt committees design the plane..you let engineers who have SOME experience in aerodynamics do the work...

    same with health care...how about some non political doctors help design the coverage, instead of idiots in Washington, and if all Washington is going to do is make the payments and sets the prapmeters, then lets design a plan by the people who will work in it and present that to Congress...?

    Anything is better than what these guys will come up with.

    Posted by YourJomamma at 10/13/2009 @ 5:12pm

19. The problem for progressives is that Harry Reid is likely to just pick the bill he likes and leave the rest twisting in the wind. He'll support Baucus' committee-polished turd, and we'll get a huge giveaway to the insurance companies.

    I hope that the rela reformers will find a way to stop this from happening, and at least append an opt-out public option to this bill, or better yet, replace it wholesale with the bill from HELP or one of the other four committees. I'm not optimistic though.

    Posted by llachglin at 10/13/2009 @ 5:20pm

20. I read a slew of news every day, watch it on TV, get email "alerts" and suffer through Jewish Western Union wake-ups from my family. Most of it is incomprehensible, unverifiable drivel. John Nicholas has written a concise, thoughtful analysis of the Finance Committee's bill, the committee chairman and the legislative process. It's depressing but it's accurate.

    There will never be real health care reform - either a public option or a single payer system - until there is campaign finance reform - which is to say, publicly financed elections. The two are joined at the hip, inseparable and unavoidable. To think you can fix the former without first fixing the latter is simply fantasy.

    Posted by bushleeg at 10/13/2009 @ 5:38pm

21. Posted by Metteyya at 10/13/2009 @ 4:50pm

    Reconciliation is only available for bills with a major effect on the budget. That means the Democratic party would have to beef up both the size of the public option and the overall reform's price tag. This will likely cost the party that 51st vote. I for one never expected a public option, let alone one that was "robust."

    Posted by nkurland at 10/13/2009 @ 5:42pm

22. This kills me it's so funny. How can the Committee vote on a bill that hasn't even been written yet? No wonder they couldn't post it online so that American's could see what thet're up to. So much for transparency. Olympia Snowe should switch parties. She's as much of a joke as Arlen Spector is.

    BTW, was there anything in this bill about tort reform? Who knows?

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/13/2009 @ 5:51pm

23. "same with health care...how about some non political doctors help design the coverage, instead of idiots in Washingto"

    uh, you mean people like elizabeth fowler, former employee of wellpoint, who now serves as max baucus' chief adviser, who also wrote the baucus bill?

    you mean that "non political doctor"?

    yeah, she's a socialist! (snicker, snicker)

    http://www.healthcareroundtable.net/public/307.cfm

    and, please, maasch, do some research on what socialism actually is before you casually toss it around like some ignorant redneck.

    Posted by darladoon at 10/13/2009 @ 6:00pm

24. gunslinger and maasch are so easily fooled. guys, please, do some fucking research before you prematurely display your massive ignorance about what's really going on:

    this bill is a HUGE giveaway to health insurance companies, and was written by a former health insurance executive (liz fowler of wellpoint, inc).

    the industry today promised to raise premiums by 111% of this bill passes.

    kind of tells you who's side their on (hint: it's not the 'socialists' or the advocates of a 'government takeover')....

    Posted by darladoon at 10/13/2009 @ 6:04pm

25. actually, maasch and gunslinger, you should be fully behind this bill, because it represents exactly what you want: more private sector control of healthcare.

    this is anything but a 'government takeover,' unless of course you're ridiculously uneducated about the specifics, or beholden to fox news for your information (see: john maasch).

    Posted by darladoon at 10/13/2009 @ 6:07pm

26. bushleeg,

    You say: ".......until there is campaign finance reform - which is to say, publicly financed elections......"

    The actual campaign finance reform that is needed is to:

    1. Roll back all previous attempts at campaign finance reform.

    2. Have no restrictions whatsoever on who can donate to a candidate, nor how much.

    3. Have no restrictions whatsoever on how much a candidate can spend, and for what.

    4. No public financing whatsoever.

    5. The only requirement is that all donations and all spending be publicly disclosed so that all the electorate can see where campaign money came from and where it went.

    Any "reform" only winds up restricting free speech, while not solving concerns about influence of money in elections.

    The last attempt at "reform" placed restrictions on when candidates could advertise near the end of a campaign, thus if some editorial in the media or news item in the media raised issues about a candidate they were left without the ability to effectively (through advertising) be able to respond. At the same time groups found new ways to funnel large money amounts to campaigns.

    At the same time, there is no way that public financing can not influence and restrict the ability of people to speak out. Suppose 100 people decide to run for President. Who decides who gets financing, and how much? How could this be guaranteed to be totally fair?

    No restrictions will enable total free speech and disclosure of where the money was raised and where it went will enable the voters to decide.

    Posted by sjchermak at 10/13/2009 @ 6:08pm

27. darladoon,

    Before you get on your high horse too much with lecturing people on what socialism is or isn't or the significance of what may result from Congress now you need to take a step back and realize that.......

    What is happening now is happening now ONLY because the original intent of the Obama administration was stopped.

    You should remember the original attempt was to ram socialist health care down people's throats by the end of July, before anybody had any real idea what was contained in the legislation.

    Failing that, Obama still wanted Congress to wrap things up before recessing for the summer.....

    but fortunately that failed and then the tea parties and town hall meetings got started.

    Thus, you can not discuss current legislation in the context that it is the original plan, with you saying you don't like it because it is not socialism and people are wrong (in your opinion) to think it is.

    Any current legislation was not the original plan if it had been up to people like you the original plan would have been a done deal by now, creating socialist medicine.

    People have a right to be wary of anything that comes out of Congress, but maybe it is a positive sign that you don't like the current legislation, because if you don't like it then maybe the worst things that you and other leftists want and that the Obama administration tried to implement have been successfully stopped.

    Posted by sjchermak at 10/13/2009 @ 6:20pm

28. "The actual campaign finance reform that is needed is to: 1. Roll back all previous attempts at campaign finance reform. 2. Have no restrictions whatsoever on who can donate to a candidate, nor how much. 3. Have no restrictions whatsoever on how much a candidate can spend, and for what."

    (omg, dumbest post of the day, hands down)

    Posted by darladoon at 10/13/2009 @ 6:21pm

29. chermak,

    for the sake of clarity, can you please define "socialist medicine"?

    thank you.

    and also, what was the "original intent" of healthcare reform?

    and if you are opposed to campaign fincance reform, then you ABSOLUTELY no right to complain about the influence of the health insurance lobby in the crafting of any piece of legislation (but i completely understand that you are way, way too ignorant to grasp that, so no worries......you're half-witted, i get it, it's ok...)

    Posted by darladoon at 10/13/2009 @ 6:25pm

30. You should remember the original attempt was to ram socialist health care down people's throats by the end of July, before anybody had any real idea what was contained in the legislation.

    Posted by sjchermak at 10/13/2009 @ 6:20pm

    Amazing, you can pinpoint the part of your post where you lose all credibility. The plan Obama continues to support is just about identical to what he ran on: a $1 trillion reform for the next decade with a roughly $60 billion a year public option.

    None of the bills including a public option allow families with incomes over 500% of the poverty line to join. Even if they wanted to, the structure and size of the reform simply won't allow it. The public option has been designed to resemble a private health insurance plan. Mark my words, it'll fail before 2020.

    Posted by nkurland at 10/13/2009 @ 6:34pm

31. Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/13/2009 @ 5:51pm |

    The bill has been online for a while now. Simply google "America's Healthy Future Act full text"

    Tort reform has been tried in California and Texas without successfully lowering health care costs. Its only given the health insurance companies immunity

    Posted by nkurland at 10/13/2009 @ 6:37pm

32. darladoon,

    Socialist medicine as I see it is what they have in Canada, the U.K. and other places in Western Europe such as Sweden.

    Obviously they have socialist medicine in Cuba also but that is socialist medicine inside a communist gulag where people can do nothing about it, as opposed to socialist medicine in Canada where some people are beginning to call for reform. The reform they refer to is a more market oriented approach, opposite of what is promoted here.

    What comes next is that you will say what is currently proposed is not socialist medicine here. But after the insurance companies are driven out of business because of predatory pricing by the Government for the government option (or at least it would be considered predatory if a private company were to set prices at the level the government will), then we will have nothing left but government provided insurance.

    If you think somehow that government provided insurance will be simply government acting the same as a private company, once government is the only insurer, then you would probably also be willing to buy the Brooklyn Bridge if someone offered it to you for sale. (in other words, you are being fooled if you think government only insurance will not lead to complete socialist medicine at some point).

    Thank you for reminding me that I have no right to complain about the influence of the health insurance lobby. I appreciate your reminder, but I don't know why you are reminding me about that since I did not complain about the influence of the health insurance lobby.

    In fact, I would be willing to swear on a stack of Bibles ten feet tall that I have never ever done that on any of these threads, or anywhere else to anybody else.

    But I will keep your reminder in mind, in case I ever need it.

    Posted by sjchermak at 10/13/2009 @ 6:46pm

33. "You should remember the original attempt was to ram socialist health care down people's throats by the end of July, before anybody had any real idea what was contained in the legislation."

    it's next to impossible to have a conversation with someone who actually characterizes an inherently democratic process (passing legislation) as "ramming down people's throats," even while he previously advocates a system of 'pay to play' (i.e. no campaign finance restrictions), which health insurers are undoubtedly taking advantage to (quite literally) ram legislation which is hostile to consumers.

    if one can't see the inherent contradiction in that position, then one can't really see anything clearly, and frankly, i don't know how i can convince this person to change his mind.

    Posted by darladoon at 10/13/2009 @ 6:50pm

34. Posted by sjchermak at 10/13/2009 @ 6:46pm

    Ironic, considering that the Cuban healthcare system has been credited with preventing a humanitarian crisis that would have otherwise been caused by the embargo.

    A case can be made that onlY the UK has a fully socialized healthcare. Single payer simply leans that the government as the sole source of funding.

    And the public option has been designed to resemble a private plan. This is why it won't be able to negotiate drug prices, use reimbursement rates based on Medicare, and above all, will provide tiered coverage.

    Posted by nkurland at 10/13/2009 @ 6:53pm

35. All these pipe dream liberals who think they are going to get their totalitarian govt healthcare-not going to happen-yet.

    There are not 50 Dems who are willing to vote for a public option or single payer.

    It appears the current tally in the Senate is 45 Dems for a public option.

    http://tinyurl.com/yjfhxnt

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/13/2009 @ 6:54pm

36. sjchermak, since in your mind, the government cannot run any public service as well as the private sector, then how would it put said "out of business"?

    and even if that were true, then how would lower prices and more efficient service be inherently bad for the consumer?

    can't you see the rampant contradictions you are making?

    Posted by darladoon at 10/13/2009 @ 7:13pm

37. "All these pipe dream liberals who think they are going to get their totalitarian govt healthcare"

    ah, now it's "totalitarian." interesting.

    antisocialist, for the benefit of your readers, please define "totalitarian healthcare," and how the proposals currently residing in the congress resemble said definition.

    and also, are you eligible for social security, and if so, do you receive any social security checks?

    Posted by darladoon at 10/13/2009 @ 7:16pm

38. here, i'll define it for you (this should make larry look as painfully stupid as always):

    "a political system where the state, usually under the control of a single party or faction, recognizes no limits to its authority and strives to regulate every aspect of public and private life wherever feasible. Totalitarianism is generally characterized by the coincidence of authoritarianism (i.e., where ordinary citizens have no significant share in state decision-making) and ideology (i.e., a pervasive scheme of values promulgated by institutional means to direct the most significant aspects of public and private life)"

    and what baucus is proposing (and which was written by the former chief operating officer of one of the largest health insurance companies in the country) is a "totalitarian" proposal?

    larry? are you on this planet?

    Posted by darladoon at 10/13/2009 @ 7:18pm

39. darladoon,

    You misrepresented my comment about "ramming down peoples throats"....saying I was referring to an inherently democratic process of passing legislation in that regard.

    The comment ramming down peoples throats is applicable in this case because it is not that I believe passing legislation in itself by itself is ramming something down peoples throats....but because I was commenting about the manner in which this (being health care legislation that Obama wanted signed, sealed and delivered by July) was going to be done.

    He wanted something done at warp speed that represented a major change to essentially 1/6 th of our economy. Virtually nobody would have really known what had been done until after the legislation had already been approved.

    I can never in my entire lifetime remember any major initiative in Congress that in any way went through the whole process that fast...No way.

    Trying to do it in the manner he did is what was "ramming down people's throats"

    How that was all stopped is what is the real "inherent democratic process".....people speaking up in opposition.

    You see the "campaign finance reform" issue through the leftist prism and thus are unable to see that the "reform" invariably restricts free speech and does not accomplish it's intended objective anyway.......which is no different, I guess, than the result achieved through any other government "reform" or "solution".

    Posted by sjchermak at 10/13/2009 @ 7:20pm

40. Posted by sjchermak at 10/13/2009 @ 6:46pm

    The real lesson here is that writing a lengthy post plays no role in forming original or cogent thoughts...haha he

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/13/2009 @ 6:54pm

    Hitler was an antisocialist...muahhahaha

    Posted by ADHD at 10/13/2009 @ 7:20pm

41. today's american right wing (as exemplified by the likes of antisocialist, bigpasture, jomamma, et al) will likely go down in history as one of the most ignorant, paranoid, and hostile political factions in our nation's history. i guess that, in less than 20 years, artists and writers will characterize them much like they currently characterize extremely polarizing political figures like joe mccarthy.

    Posted by darladoon at 10/13/2009 @ 7:21pm

42. "I can never in my entire lifetime remember any major initiative in Congress that in any way went through the whole process that fast...No way."

    (see: patriot act)

    you must have alzheimer's.

    Posted by darladoon at 10/13/2009 @ 7:22pm

43. yes, but bush was a good, honest republican and would NEVER ram any legislation down people's throats.

    the patriot act was meant to protect us from the evil terrorists lurking in our midst....

    Posted by darladoon at 10/13/2009 @ 7:25pm

44. Posted by antisocialist at 10/13/2009 @ 6:54pm

    ...and boom goes the dynamite

    Posted by ADHD at 10/13/2009 @ 7:28pm

45. the patriot act was signed into law october 26, 2001, only 45 days after 9.11.

    Posted by darladoon at 10/13/2009 @ 7:29pm

46. oops my last post was meant to reference the one above it...shit punchline ruined!

    Posted by ADHD at 10/13/2009 @ 7:31pm

47. "The comment ramming down peoples throats is applicable in this case because it is not that I believe passing legislation in itself by itself is ramming something down peoples throats....but because I was commenting about the manner in which this (being health care legislation that Obama wanted signed, sealed and delivered by July) was going to be done."

    translation:

    i'm not saying that A = A, i'm saying that A = A.

    Posted by darladoon at 10/13/2009 @ 7:31pm

48. darladoon,

    1. The words government and the phrase "more efficient service" are not compatible with each other. One of the things government NEVER provides is more efficient service.

    2. Government would price insurance companies out of the market. Companies would convert over to the government plan, and people would choose the lower priced government option. .....But....the short term lower prices do not benefit the consumer once private firms are driven out of the market completely and there is no competition or alternative at all.

    Then there would be no more reason for government to have lower prices.....and if there is no other alternative then there is no limit or brake on the government having inordinate control over the whole process.

    With stuff like this (government intrusion in people's lives) it is always incremental........what would be at first would not be socialist medicine but there is nothing that would prevent it from becoming so over time.

    People are right to oppose initiatives by leftists/Democrats that will lead to increasing government intrusion.

    You try to play a con game by claiming that things initially presented are not socialism and are good for the consumer, etc...but these things represent incremental intrusion and once they become a way of life then the next step is proposed, etc......because invariably future leftists will cite "problems" or "wrongs" in some aspect of our lives that can be fixed by a government solution that people like you will claim in not socialism, etc.

    And bit by bit that is how people like you implement socialism.

    Posted by sjchermak at 10/13/2009 @ 7:33pm

49. Posted by sjchermak at 10/13/2009 @ 7:33pm

    I thought we made a rule that if you don't know what socialism means, you can't reference it...weren't we on the honor system?

    Posted by ADHD at 10/13/2009 @ 7:39pm

50. Posted by sjchermak at 10/13/2009 @ 7:33pm

    sjchermak, you don't make any sense. first you claim that the government is inefficient, and in the very next sentence, you claim that the government would takeover over the entire health insurance market.

    despite the fact that, as i've state over and over again, the private insurance industry is writing the very same healthcare "reform" bill which you claim represents a shift towards "socialized medicine."

    have you even read the baucus bill, sjchermak? because it is NOTHING like you characterize it. it is a bill designed by and for private industry.

    you know NOTHING.

    Posted by darladoon at 10/13/2009 @ 7:39pm

51. sjchermak, you should be applauding the baucus bill, because it represents everything you want: private control over the market, no public option, and higher premiums for consumers.

    that sjchermak sure displays an astounding amount of ignorance with each passing post....

    Posted by darladoon at 10/13/2009 @ 7:41pm

52. the conservative approach to healthcare: let the market fix it, deny more and more people coverage, and let people die.

    Posted by darladoon at 10/13/2009 @ 7:43pm

53. darladoon,

    You say (about Conservatives) : "....... i guess that, in less than 20 years, artists and writers will characterize them much like they currently characterize extremely polarizing political figures like joe mccarthy......."

    1. Of course they will.....most artists and writers are leftists! What are you saying that people don't already know. Talk about stating the obvious.

    2. What do you mean "in less than 20 years"?........in reality it is in less than NO years.......artists and writers characterize Conservatives that way now!

    You certainly must have seen, I am sure, rants by libs accusing Conservatives with "McCarthyism" for some miscellaneous "sin" or another. (sin in this case means being in opposition to liberalism).

    In fact, in this case I would say your comment is kind of water over the dam and maybe a few years too late, because from what I see visiting this site and other leftist sites.......is that "McCarthyism" is gradually being converted to "Swiftboating" in leftist terminology.

    More often than not, if a Conservative now does something a lib thinks is wrong he or she will be accused of "Swiftboating" now rather than "McCarthyism".

    So I, a Conservative, am more up to speed on your leftist terminology than you, a leftist, are!

    Posted by sjchermak at 10/13/2009 @ 7:44pm

54. "is that "McCarthyism" is gradually being converted to "Swiftboating" in leftist terminology."

    no, "swiftboating" would be trying to convince retarded americans that someone who volunteered to fight in vietnam, got shot, and who won the purple heart:

    a) didn't actually fight in vietnam at all

    b) shot himself to get out of vietnam

    c) and was a huge traitor to his country

    but, hey, that was all fair game, right?

    Posted by darladoon at 10/13/2009 @ 7:48pm

55. ah, now it's "totalitarian." interesting.

    antisocialist, for the benefit of your readers, please define "totalitarian healthcare," and how the proposals currently residing in the congress resemble said definition.

    and also, are you eligible for social security, and if so, do you receive any social security checks?

    Posted by darladoon at 10/13/2009 @ 7:16pm

    It is totalitarian when you are FORCED by law to purchase health insurance.

    It is totalitarian when you are FORCED by law to participate in the healthcare system.

    I do not participate in Social Security or Medicare. I do not participate in our healthcare system.. I do not have health insurance nor do I want it.

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/13/2009 @ 7:49pm

56. 1. The words government and the phrase "more efficient service" are not compatible with each other. One of the things government NEVER provides is more efficient service.

    Posted by sjchermak at 10/13/2009 @ 7:33pm

    It's almost incredible how in post after post you're able to show that you have zero credibility. To the best of your knowledge, what is the definition of socialism?

    Posted by nkurland at 10/13/2009 @ 7:51pm

57. ADHD,

    How does this "honor system" you say "we" agreed to (who is we?) apply to Conservatives on this site such as antisocialist, YourJomamma, and me?

    We know what socialism is, so it seems the "honor system" does not apply to us at all.

    It seems that people such as Darladoon and others who I have seen claim things such as "Obama is not a leftist" would be the ones who could not comment on socialism, according to the apparent rules of your "honor system"!

    Posted by sjchermak at 10/13/2009 @ 7:53pm

58. "It is totalitarian when you are FORCED by law to purchase health insurance"

    ok, listen, i am actually opposed to any provision which would require uninsured americans to buy healthcare, but it is not totalitarian. not even close.

    but one could easily argue that it is not constitutional.

    second, just because you don't participate in our healthcare system doesn't answer my question:

    are you eligible for SS, and do you receive it?

    sjchermak,

    come on, man, define socialism? are you afraid?

    Posted by darladoon at 10/13/2009 @ 7:56pm

59. We know what socialism is, so it seems the "honor system" does not apply to us at all.

    Posted by sjchermak at 10/13/2009 @ 7:53pm

    Then provide what you consider to be the definition of it.

    Posted by nkurland at 10/13/2009 @ 7:57pm

60. nkurland,

    they won't define anything because they know that, once they do that, their arguments won't fly.

    Posted by darladoon at 10/13/2009 @ 7:59pm

61. Darladoon,

    The items b and c you referenced above are pretty much established fact.

    You did forget to mention that PRIOR to swiftboating people were told (by John F. Kerry) that during his time in Vietnam he was also in Cambodia during Christmas time 1968, which he should not have been because the military was not supposed to be in Cambodia......and that President Nixon was lying to the American people about our military not being in Cambodia because he (John F. Kerry) was and thus he knew Nixon was lying.....and that the experience (him being in Cambodia and Nixon lying about it) was "seared, seared" into him (John F. Kerry).

    But AFTER swiftboating, people found out that the military personnel who were in close proximity to Kerry during that time and thus in position to know where he was recalled that based on where his unit was located and stationed he could not possibly have been in Cambodia, it would have been impossible.

    And on top of that, AFTER swiftboating, people were reminded that Richard Nixon, at Christmas time 1968, was not President of the United States, Lyndon B. Johnson was.

    1. Why would Richard Nixon be talking to the American people about the location of the U.S. military (let alone lying about it) when at that time he was in no way responsible for what the U.S. Military was doing?

    2. Please inform me why swiftboating is bad. It sounds to me like it is informative, not bad.

    Posted by sjchermak at 10/13/2009 @ 8:06pm

62. "The items b and c you referenced above are pretty much established fact"

    so, john kerry shot himself and was a traitor?

    ok. you have lost ALL credibility. not that you had any.

    sjchermak, back on ignore.

    <click>

    Posted by darladoon at 10/13/2009 @ 8:09pm

63. Posted by nkurland at 10/13/2009 @ 5:42pm

    No problema!

    It will meet the threshold for budget reconciliation and pass with 51 votes in the end WITH a competitive option that covers everyone who wants coverage.

    Posted by Metteyya at 10/13/2009 @ 8:12pm

64. I would say socialism is government control of things that should be handled by the private sector, and government involvement in things that government has no business being involved in.

    You libs are amazing. You live and breathe and advocate socialism but play games like insisting on precise definitions.

    But socialistic tendency is just as bad as pure socialism, where excessive government control over private enterprise is just as damaging as if government was running things completely (government run factories, government owned stores, etc).

    So when a Conservative uses the term socialism they are referring to anything that tends towards this....but then because you libs can not defend the practice you start trying to parse words and claim people do not know what socialism means.

    The things Obama advocates are movements towards more government control, whether it be more government involvement in health care that if allowed would eventually lead to the type of systems Canada, the U.K., Sweden, etc. have, or things like cap and trade legislation that will place restrictions on businesses in order to fight the "global warming" that appears more and more not to be happening anyway (there was an article on the BBC in the last couple of days asking "what happened to global warming")....to pressures by liberals to restrict free speech by bringing back the "fairness doctrine".........

    Almost always we are told we need these government initiatives to solve problems or make things fair, or better, or whatever, but what happens is that people give up control of their lives and the better or more fair never happens.

    So socialism (or tendency toward socialism) is inordinate control over peoples lives and loss of individual freedom.

    Posted by sjchermak at 10/13/2009 @ 8:18pm

65. Posted by nkurland at 10/13/2009 @ 5:42pm

    Even if the Public Option is subject to "sunsetting" - re-reviewed every 5 years because it adds to the deficit - it will garner 51 votes to pass through budget reconciliation.

    The irony is that the Public Option may be the only thing in the bill that will ENSURE that the deficit is not increased by keeping the insurance companies honest.

    http://tinyurl.com/kvz2lv

    Posted by Metteyya at 10/13/2009 @ 8:21pm

66. >>>From your mouth Metteyya, from your mouth!

    Posted by Denise29 at 10/13/2009 @ 5:10pm <<<

    What is THAT supposed to mean?

    I have been spot on with nearly all of my observations....what about you?

    Posted by Metteyya at 10/13/2009 @ 8:24pm

67. nkurland,

    I have to address this to you because Darladoon says she had me on ignore now and thus won't see this.

    She said above (about Conservatives and arguments about socialism):

    "..........they won't define anything because they know that, once they do that, their arguments won't fly........"

    Nkurland, if you do converse with Darladoon let her know that I have defined it (socialism) above and it looks to me like it is flying quite well, thank you!

    Posted by sjchermak at 10/13/2009 @ 8:24pm

68. So socialism (or tendency toward socialism) is inordinate control over peoples lives and loss of individual freedom.

    Posted by sjchermak at 10/13/2009 @ 8:18pm

    Completely incorrect.

    Here's an official definition: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

    But hey, according to your definition, Bush's FISA bill, patriot act, attempts to pass an amendment banning marriage, and much much more make him a socialist. So tell us, why did you support a president who fits your definition of socialism?

    Posted by nkurland at 10/13/2009 @ 8:52pm

69. for you that believe tort reform is part of the problem i sugguest that you to google "tort reform in georgia , dispelling the myth" basically we passed tort reform back in 2005 here in georgia with great promises that it would lower doctors and individuals insurance premiums , and guess what they continue to raise at the previous rate before tort reform .

    and i doubt allowing competition across state lines will help much after all there really is only a handful of parent companies of all the healthcare providers . and just like big oil they wont cut each others throats when they know if they work together they will all reap greater profits .

    Posted by darinmac at 10/13/2009 @ 8:53pm

70. Am I the only Senior here who thinks this is DISGUSTING CRAP???? Posted by BBFmail at 10/13/2009 @ 4:51pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    what the hell are you bellyaching for? you got medicare, a bonus from the tax payer. I'm paying almost $8,000 a year for health insurance.

    Posted by emile duBois at 10/13/2009 @ 9:04pm

71. nkurland, that's not a definition of socialism, or at least a very incomplete one, as is this:

    "So socialism (or tendency toward socialism) is inordinate control over peoples lives and loss of individual freedom"

    that is just simply ridiculous. this is socialism:

    "socialism refers to various theories of economic organization advocating public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources, and a society characterized by equal access to resources for all individuals with a method of compensation based on the amount of labor expended"

    direct worker ownership? that is not "inordinate control over people's lives". it's the opposite. it gives more control to the workers.

    Posted by darladoon at 10/13/2009 @ 9:04pm

72. lets face it , as long as we have a healthcare system that is driven by profits healthcare cost will continue to rise. capitalism 101 states charge whatever the market will bare . i have to believe the healthcare providers still think we can bare some more .

    socialized medicine , single payer healthcare , public option , whatever you prefer to call it , it is our only real chance that we all can get some affordable healthcare .

    so dont buy into the conservatives , tricky framing of the debate , or the screaming fools at the town hall meetings , that want to scare you with unsubstantiated facts that they heard on their favorite AM radio show and try to just use plain old common sense , and do some actual research on the subject before you make your mind up on this very important issue .

    Posted by darinmac at 10/13/2009 @ 9:06pm

73. loss of individual freedom?

    (see: patriot act, which sjchermak believes didn't pass "too quickly". read: 45 days not quick enough?)

    and in case you were wondering, healthcare reform didn't start this summer.

    it started like 65 years ago.

    Posted by darladoon at 10/13/2009 @ 9:06pm

74. Just give us all the congressional health care plan and insurance. It works well for them

    Posted by notsleepy at 10/13/2009 @ 9:23pm

75. ....as long as we have a healthcare system that is driven by profits healthcare cost will continue to rise....

    Posted by darinmac at 10/13/2009 @ 9:06pm

    So, the cost of Canadian, British and assorted European HC systems have seen NO cost increases?

    Ever thought of impact of mandating Davis-Bacon wage scales to build hospitals? Clinics? Hospices?

    Our Gubbers are "non-profit", how have they been doing on cost control? Our schools are "non-profit" and how are they doing for spending ~twice other countries?

    What have you been shooting up?

    Posted by Happy at 10/13/2009 @ 10:02pm

76. "So, the cost of Canadian, British and assorted European HC systems have seen NO cost increases?"

    uh, happy? you're the one shooting up. these countries spend 1/2 of what we spend, and insure everyone.

    and, btw, healthcare is a "good" cost.

    invading countries who aren't a threat to us? that's a "bad" cost.

    Posted by darladoon at 10/13/2009 @ 10:11pm

77. uh, happy? you're the one shooting up. these countries spend 1/2 of what we spend, and insure everyone.

    Posted by darladoon at 10/13/2009 @ 10:11pm

    Being stoned means you can't read?

    me: Our schools are "non-profit" and how are they doing for spending ~twice other countries?

    Posted by Happy at 10/13/2009 @ 10:18pm

78. are you eligible for SS, and do you receive it?

    Posted by darladoon at 10/13/2009 @ 7:56pm

    No, don't want it. My parents never received SS either.

    My mom lives on a 10 acre property that is paid for. Has her own well, solar and wind power with a diesel generator for backup. Has propane delivered twice a year.

    chickens, ducks, geese, vegetable and fruits grown on the property.

    What do you need SS for?

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/13/2009 @ 11:22pm

79. are you eligible for SS, and do you receive it?

    Posted by darladoon at 10/13/2009 @ 7:56pm

    Not to mention that I don't believe in retirement.

    I intend to work until I die. I'll still be creating businesses as long as I live.

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/13/2009 @ 11:24pm

80. The proposal above was to eliminate all campaign restrictions, but to require that all information be available for public evaluation. I agree: Quote: "5. The only requirement is that all donations and all spending be publicly disclosed so that all the electorate can see where campaign money came from and where it went." The implcation is a strict control on timing. Donations should start strictly one year before the actual election, and totally end three months before that election. So for President and Congress, start in early November, end in eqarly August. This leaves two main problems: Independent, non-coordinated expendatures, and the fact that many people are not yet focused on the upcoming vote a month before Labor Day.

    John D. Froelich

    Posted by balataf at 10/13/2009 @ 11:32pm

81. antisocialist,

    you are deliberately dodging the question of desperation.

    what if you get an advanced form of cancer, and can't afford to pay for treatment?

    are you goint to accept any assistance from the government, or are you going to be stubborn and reject it based on principle?

    and let's forget your personal feelings for a minute, and consider the possibility that other people might need to ask for help.

    btw, you can't win this argument, and as a "christian" i am surprised you are even going down that road.

    you see, this is even more evidence of why you are a fraudulent christian who has perverted the message of christ time and time again.

    Posted by darladoon at 10/14/2009 @ 12:17am

82. The bill passed today is already obsolete. And still no tort reform.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/14/2009 @ 12:18am

83. "The bill passed today is already obsolete. And still no tort reform"

    gunslinger, can you cite evidence of a specific state in which tort reform actually lowered costs?

    that's your pop quiz for today.

    (hint: it isn't california or texas)

    Posted by darladoon at 10/14/2009 @ 12:25am

84. antisocialist,

    you are deliberately dodging the question of desperation.

    what if you get an advanced form of cancer, and can't afford to pay for treatment?

    are you goint to accept any assistance from the government, or are you going to be stubborn and reject it based on principle?

    and let's forget your personal feelings for a minute, and consider the possibility that other people might need to ask for help.

    btw, you can't win this argument, and as a "christian" i am surprised you are even going down that road.

    you see, this is even more evidence of why you are a fraudulent christian who has perverted the message of christ time and time again.

    Posted by darladoon at 10/14/2009 @ 12:17am

    I've answered this a dozen times.

    If I get cancer, I would not seek medical treatment. I look forward to death and finally laying down this body to be with my Lord.

    We don't need the govt to give medical care to people in this country.

    I've never believed that and I've seen nothing to change my view

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/14/2009 @ 12:55am

85. btw, you can't win this argument, and as a "christian" i am surprised you are even going down that road.

    you see, this is even more evidence of why you are a fraudulent christian who has perverted the message of christ time and time again.

    Posted by darladoon at 10/14/2009 @ 12:17am

    Really, show me in the Bible where Jesus or any of the apostles called for govt action in our lives?

    We are called to help each other, but there is nothing in the new testament about govt charity, only individuals and the church.

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/14/2009 @ 12:57am

86. The no bell piece prize? Yes, Mr. President you received a prize but now it's time to pull together the pieces so we can all cheer once again to the sound of your bell. I was an avid supporter of your campaign and I enthusiastically voted for you. Like millions of Americans we projected our wishes on you after being starved and deprived by the worst governing in our history for the previous 8 years. We believed in you and our collective enthusiasm propelled you to the Presidency. When I was a teenager I worked for the Bobby Kennedy campaign as a coordinator of the college youth vote. I can say that I have not been excited about anyone else since 1968, until I saw your Iowa speech as the tears rolled down my cheeks. You were given this prize because the Nobel committee also believes their projections on you will result in the change you yelled about from the rooftops of the world. I know you wish to also change the tone of politicians but domestically that may not be possible, so please if you can't get the other side to agree, mow them down. They live every moment looking to chop you apart and discredit you in anyway they can up to and including their silence on the outrageous lunatic fringe comments about you. They literally are praying for your failure. If they needed to cross the water and you parted the sea for them they would accuse you of messing up the environment. If you single handedly found a cure for cancer they would call you a murderer and say that you had this cure as you watched people die. This week you were given two gifts, one was a non profit health care provider denying coverage to a healthy 4 month old child because in their view the infant was over weight, and the big one was Monday's report from the insurance companies that no matter what bill is

    Posted by Johnmolinari at 10/14/2009 @ 04:00am

87. I don't get it. There is no public option, insurance companies get huge injections of money, and liberals and the left are supposed to be happy. And the right is mad? Are we in la la land?

    Posted by trueleftist at 10/14/2009 @ 07:04am

88. "This week you were given two gifts, one was a non profit health care provider denying coverage to a healthy 4 month old child because in their view the infant was over weight..."----Posted by Johnmolinari at 10/14/2009 @ 04:00am

    Well OBVIOUSLY they HAD to do that...it's those damn trial lawyers and the fact they can't "cross state lines". Not the provider's fault OBVIOUSLY!

    Posted by Mask at 10/14/2009 @ 07:50am

89. this is still a work in progress, it's not over 'til it's over.

    Posted by emile duBois at 10/14/2009 @ 08:37am

90. After all, the Right, though they will undoubtedly try, will have atleast a TOUGHER time calling it "socialism" and a "total Gov't takeover"...won't they?

    Posted by Mask at 10/13/2009 @ 2:16pm

    This was the argument made by Mark Rich and other advisors to the Clinton campaign, and before that to John Kerry. It's been wrong every time because the media is just as ignorant and irresponsible as the right-wing noise machine.

    Posted by cka2nd at 10/14/2009 @ 09:12am

91. Since when was trying to make a living "profiteering"? Absurd! I think a better description of "profiteering" is power-hungry politicians destroying the insurance industry to purchase votes and make us dependent on a system they created. The fact is that thousands of people depend on insurance companies for JOBS. Are they greedy profiteers as well? Does the left ever consider that a lot of people might be out of a job if Congress succeeds in creating a government insurance monopoly? There is no way that private insurance companies can compete with a government program that does not need to turn a profit and can tap taxpayer money to cover shortfalls. A government insurance program will put many insurers out of business, destroying choice, competition, and jobs.

    It is an absolute lie that "profiteering" has led to higher rates. Government meddling in insurance has led to higher rates. Every time government passes a new law mandating all sorts of new coverages, it raises costs. What do you expect? My insurance covers all kinds of things that I will never use but are required by law, therefore my policy cost goes up. The best way to reduce healthcare costs is to get government out of the insurance business and allow people to shop across state lines for insurance.

    And finally, we are BANKRUPT. Adding a new $800 billion commitment to a budget that is already enormously overburdened is just irresponsible. We are ALREADY on the path to a destructive national bankruptcy, and huge new expenses will just make things worse.

    Posted by mroberts2 at 10/14/2009 @ 09:21am

92. Posted by cka2nd at 10/14/2009 @ 09:12am

    True...but it does have an impact. The Tea Partyers and Town Hollerers haven't "killed Obama-care" as they claim...but they put the public option on the ropes with a black eye.

    As I asked Wolf on the other thread, would they be landing such punches if there was not SOME suspicion of that in the general public, while still support for health care reform???

    Posted by Mask at 10/14/2009 @ 09:23am

93. Posted by sjchermak at 10/13/2009 @ 3:25pm

    2. Lower insurance costs by allowing people to tailor their coverage.

    --And if someone comes down with a condition that they were not insured for, they can go to the ER, costing both that person and the medical system more money.

    3. Allow insurance companies to do interstate business rather than be limited to business in a single state.

    --Just like opening up banking and utilities to interstate "competition" has lowered costs and improved services for the public at large, right? We'll end up with even larger and more debt-ridden insurance companies that can't be allowed to fail, which they inevitably will.

    4. Costs could be lowered considerably if frivolous lawsuits were discouraged.

    --Previous posters have pointed out that this has not been true in California, Georgia and Texas. Do you have any real world evidence to refute this, or will you be quoting more libertarian boilerplate for us?

    By the way, your "definition" of socialism is imprecise and ahistorical. Tryusing a dictionary to figure out the differences between "socialism," "social democracy" and "communism," not to mention "authoritarian" and "totalitarian."

    Posted by cka2nd at 10/14/2009 @ 09:24am

94. "We don't need the govt to give medical care to people in this country"

    (quote of the day, you simply cannot top this)

    Posted by darladoon at 10/14/2009 @ 09:57am

95. gopfascist: "The dems and Obama are the worst of spineless wimps. If we don't get real health care reform (and the Baucus excrement is far from it) then we have only Obama to blame. He refused to to come out forecefully for a strong public option and before that he abandoned single payer before negotiations ever started--screw him and the dems and the spineless dems he rode in on."

    Ding! That is correct.

    And not the least annoying thing about a lot of weak-kneed liberal coverage -- this piece being no exception -- is that it fails to mention one small detail: this "public option" is bullshit: not an option for most of the public. What we need is a publicly financed single-payer system with maybe -- I stress maybe -- a private option, preferably without. The right wing crazies and Senator Hatch wring their hands and say the public option is back-door single payer, destined to crush the private health insurance industry. Would that it were true!

    This lame-ass coverage keeps forgetting to mention John Conyers' HR 676, Medicare for All -- a simple, elegant, humane, rational, practical, responsible and BRIEF proposal (at mere 28 double-spaced pages of intelligible prose, unlike the 1000+ pages of obfuscation that comprise HR 3200).

    Posted by davidmintz at 10/14/2009 @ 10:03am

96. You are all the biggest bunch of idiots I have ever had the displeasure of reading. Each one of you is blinded by your position and never take the time to even consider the other persons views. I am ammazed at the lack of intelignece shown by all of you.

    Posted by american1st at 10/14/2009 @ 10:38am

97. Posted by american1st at 10/14/2009 @ 10:38am

    What an amazing intellect and demonstration of maturity. We are all better people now because american1st has blessed us with his valued input. He is so vastly superior to everyone that we should all realize that the behavior on this blog, even though it mimics that of politics around the world. But the enlightnened response of A1 is that we are all idiots. Thanks for nothing jerkweed.

    Posted by Extraneous at 10/14/2009 @ 11:03am

98. Posted by Extraneous at 10/14/2009 @ 11:03am

    Hmmm....sound familiar, doesn't it?

    heheh

    Posted by Mask at 10/14/2009 @ 11:29am

99. cka2nd,

    I did not advocate that people cover themselves on a condition by condition basis.....that would be absurd.

    Why would anyone get coverage to deal with diabetes, but not heart disease, for example?

    If you go back and read what I wrote, I said that the tailoring would be that a person may choose to pay for routine care out of their own pocket but cover themselves for catastrophic illness.

    When I said catastropic illness it was in reference to the severity of the illness and the associated cost with dealing with it, not on a condition by condition basis.

    And certainly if insurance is not having to pay for someone's routine care when they would be willing and able to pay that out of their own pocket as needed then the costs overall would be lower and thus premiums would be lower to someone who feels they need coverage for routine care because they can't afford the routine care but they could afford the insurance to cover for it.

    You say my definition of socialism in impricise. No kidding, I kind of said that already!!! That was part of the point, that socialism is not an absolute precise thing to define but a tendency towards more government control/involvement than is necessary, and which makes things worse for people and unnecessarily takes freedom away.

    In order to try and argue against Conservatives people on the left will start braying that the Conservative can not define socialism.......this is a tactic to try and divert attention away from the fact that the leftist is trying to implement socialism or is supporting those who are.

    Posted by sjchermak at 10/14/2009 @ 11:41am

100. cka2nd,

     If you are looking for communism to be defined, talk to Darladoon.

     In a post above she put forth a definition about socialism that seemed to refer to people having control of the means of production, etc.......

     According to Darladoon:

     =============

     this is socialism:

     "socialism refers to various theories of economic organization advocating public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources, and a society characterized by equal access to resources for all individuals with a method of compensation based on the amount of labor expended"

     direct worker ownership? that is not "inordinate control over people's lives". it's the opposite. it gives more control to the workers.

     =============

     That kind of language is beginning to drift over to the communist side of things........starting to talk about the workers having control....

     But don't forget, it seems that anytime you have a setup where the "Workers" and the "People" run things, the actual workers and actual people have no say in their lives whatsoever, they have no freedom at all.

     Posted by sjchermak at 10/14/2009 @ 11:48am

101. You say my definition of socialism in impricise. No kidding, I kind of said that already!!! That was part of the point, that socialism is not an absolute precise thing to define but a tendency towards more government control/involvement than is necessary, and which makes things worse for people and unnecessarily takes freedom away.

     Posted by sjchermak at 10/14/2009 @ 11:41am

     It's not an imprecise thing at all. The definition socialism= government shows just how limited your knowledge of the concept is. Look up any official definition of socialism, they all imply public ownership of what's called the means of production, or things such as factories, farms, transportation, etc.

     The current proposal for a public option does not include anything where the government takes over the hospitals, pharmaceutical companies or doctors, just the funding. There is nothing in the current Democratic party platform that meets the criteria of the definition of the word socialism. Nice try though.

     Posted by nkurland at 10/14/2009 @ 12:14pm

102. "We don't need the govt to give medical care to people in this country"

     (quote of the day, you simply cannot top this)

     Posted by darladoon at 10/14/2009 @ 09:57am

     Why don't you explain to us Darla why govt MUST be involved in providing medical care?

     Posted by antisocialist at 10/14/2009 @ 12:20pm

103. Ahh.. yet another example of our elected "leaders" postponing the inevitable - right along in the spirit of the long denial of minorities' and women's right to vote, and numerous other initiatives during the country's history whose time came and was left unresolved until later.

     Perhaps not this legislative session or the next or the one following that. Maybe not for ten years or more. But make no mistake, there will be a single payer health care system in this country sooner or later. Not for any moral reasons - this is congress after all - but because American corporations will not be able to continue to subsidize the health insurance "welfare queens" indefinitely. Not and remain globally competitive with those nations whose businesses carry no such burden.

     Our firm was just informed we will have a 20% increase in our premiums this year. This is on top of the 14% from last year. Even politically conservative business people will start to recognize this shakedown for what it is.

     Posted by lumenpro at 10/14/2009 @ 12:43pm

104. and a society characterized by equal access to resources for all individuals with a method of compensation based on the amount of labor expended"

     Posted by darladoon at 10/13/2009 @ 9:04pm

     Which current or former socialist state do you think we should seek to be like?

     Posted by sntauri at 10/14/2009 @ 1:01pm

105. Max Baucus blocked ALL discusion on single payer so it was never up for concideration. So wrong on so many accounts. If healthcare doesn't carry a single payer or public option, we have all wasted months of energy trying to get these Kings and Queens to recognize WE are in trouble out here and WE need help. The last few stunts of the Insurance Industry and truly angered me. Sueing a state so they can raise premiums 18%, denying coverage for a new baby because they deemed him fat when in fact he was not were near fat as it was determined by his doctor and they labeled it a pre existing condition, the threat to Congressmen and us that they will raise premiums if it is passed. I don't blackmail, AT ALL. They have become a bunch of greedy animals trying to take what is left after wall street and the bank fiasco. They operate on profit only. To even descibe them as a health care company is a joke in itself. If we don't get single payer, or public option, there is no reform to it. Just for once, can't these people represent those of us that voted for them and sent them to congress? Can't they do the job we sent them there to do? I am willing to work to get them OUT of office in the next elections. I am so tired of it all and we have no one on our side. We have Obama but I am a fighter and not too patient after 60 years waiting for reform

     Posted by greenriverkate at 10/14/2009 @ 1:57pm

106. Metteyya, I meant from your mouth to g-ds ears, I think you are one of the most sensible people who contributes here, along with a few others, thanks.

     Posted by Denise29 at 10/14/2009 @ 1:58pm

107. They operate on profit only. To even descibe them as a health care company is a joke in itself. If we don't get single payer, or public option, there is no reform to it. Just for once, can't these people represent those of us that voted for them and sent them to congress? Can't they do the job we sent them there to do? I am willing to work to get them OUT of office in the next elections. I am so tired of it all and we have no one on our side. We have Obama but I am a fighter and not too patient after 60 years waiting for reform

     Posted by greenriverkate at 10/14/2009 @ 1:57pm

     All this anger is misplaced. Why aren't you asking these questions of the people currently responsible for the policies and the conduct of the health insurers-the state insurance commissioners of each state?

     Posted by antisocialist at 10/14/2009 @ 2:13pm

108. "But don't forget, it seems that anytime you have a setup where the "Workers" and the "People" run things, the actual workers and actual people have no say in their lives whatsoever, they have no freedom at all."----Posted by sjchermak at 10/14/2009 @ 11:48am

     Just like when it's a group using the name "Citizens For ______"...it's usually not backed by "citizens" but by corporations? Or when the founder of "Americans for Honesty on Issues"....funds the Swift Boat attacks???

     heheh

     Posted by Mask at 10/14/2009 @ 2:14pm

109. Posted by Metteyya at 10/13/2009 @ 8:12pm

     Actually, it won't. Obama recently indicated that he'd be willing to drop the total price tag to $900 billion. There is no way the Senate parliamentarian Alan Frumin will approve this bill for reconciliation unless the price tag is bulked up. And 51 votes haven't even been secured yet so all this talk of reconciliation is entirely premature.

     Posted by nkurland at 10/14/2009 @ 2:27pm

110. ......because American corporations will not be able to continue to subsidize the health insurance "welfare queens" indefinitely. Not and remain globally competitive with those nations whose businesses carry no such burden.

     Posted by lumenpro at 10/14/2009 @ 12:43pm

     For the "globally competitive" businesses abroad that "carry no such burden", where does the money for HC comes from? The Gubber Tooth Fairy? And where does the Gubber TF gets its money? Maybe higher personal income taxes? Or, maybe a tax on the number of teeth each person has?

     Posted by Happy at 10/14/2009 @ 2:58pm

111. mroberts2: "My insurance covers all kinds of things that I will never use but are required by law, therefore my policy cost goes up."

     Like what? No wait, let me think up an example. You're male and don't want to pay for, e.g., maternity care. Won't need it. Never have, never will.

     One question: were you born?

     One thing that gets me about those who fulminate against the evils of "socialism" is the short-sighted, mean-spirited selfishness that seems to inform their attitude.

     Posted by davidmintz at 10/14/2009 @ 3:29pm

112. Posted by Happy at 10/14/2009 @ 2:58pm

     So you think American corporations are on an "equal footing" with foreign corporations who are not required to supply health insurance to their employees, but it's handled by the national government?

     Posted by Mask at 10/14/2009 @ 3:31pm

113. One thing that gets me about those who fulminate against the evils of "socialism" is the short-sighted, mean-spirited selfishness that seems to inform their attitude.

     Posted by davidmintz at 10/14/2009 @ 3:29pm

     Which current or former socialist state do you think we should seek to be like?

     Posted by sntauri at 10/14/2009 @ 3:34pm

114. So you think American corporations are on an "equal footing" with foreign corporations who are not required to supply health insurance to their employees, but it's handled by the national government?

     Posted by Mask at 10/14/2009 @ 3:31pm

     No, up to now, our corp. have NOT been on equal footing....we've enjoyed higher footing because of our NOT having UHC to burden our society!

     In case you forget, American corp. have dominated the global marketplace throughout our entire lives and today, more than HALF (54%) of the S&P 500's revenues come from foreign sales....chew that over! Does this also explain why so many of S&P 500's jobs are NOT located in the US?

     Why do Toyota, Siemens, Samsung have plants in the US?

     Now, as Magicnomics unfolds, higher HC costs for our companies is not among my top 5 concerns; nor I suspect, most CEOs!

     Posted by Happy at 10/14/2009 @ 4:42pm

115. This is CRAP. Baucus bill that just passed in committee will allow insurance companies to charge Senior Citizens 4x the amount of non-Seniors. Am I the only Senior here who thinks this is DISGUSTING CRAP????

     Posted by BBFmail at 10/13/2009 @ 4:51pm

     I'm not even a senior and I think that is CRAP. Seniors consume, on average, at least five times as much health care as non-seniors. Why are the young being forced to subsidize the seniors? Why aren't Seniors paying their fair share?

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 10/14/2009 @ 5:13pm

116. Mask,

     ??????

     You were questioning:

     ".......Or when the founder of "Americans for Honesty on Issues"....funds the Swift Boat attacks??? ......"

     Again, ???????

     Why are you bringing up "swiftboating" in the context or implication that it was not honest opinions about an issue along with information that seems credible?

     The reason I asked this is because I went back and forth up above earlier in this thread with Darladoon about swiftboating.

     If you go back and look at that you will see that swiftboating is quite informative and the activity of swiftboating can shed light on the activities of some people (one person, actually) who was saying he was in Cambodia with the experience of him being there when he was not supposed to be and having his President, Richard Nixon, lie about it as well seared, seared into him.

     And the light that was shed on this showed that individual could not possibly have been in Cambodia at that time and that his President was not Richard Nixon at that time to begin with, so that particular individual (in this case not Richard Nixon) was lying through his teeth.

     And it is a good thing that light gets shed on stuff like this since the individual in question showed up at a major gathering years later saying he was "reporting for duty" in the process of being nominated to compete for a job located at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in Northwest........and people were able to evaluate that individual's fitness for duty at that duty location and on election day come back with a verdict of Rejected for Duty!

     Without swiftboating to shed light on things the electorate would not have had all the information it needed to make a proper evaluation.

     So explain to me (Darladoon never did) why Swiftboating is bad.

     Posted by sjchermak at 10/14/2009 @ 5:20pm

117. sjchermak, what the swiftboaters did is lie, let me say that again, they LIED! What they did to Kerry was unconscienable, period! Swiftboaters are LIARS!

     Posted by Denise29 at 10/14/2009 @ 6:00pm

118. They, the swiftboaters, didn't shed light on anything, they LIED!

     Posted by Denise29 at 10/14/2009 @ 6:11pm

119. I listened to Mary Landrieu's reason for not being for the public option in the health care bill on one of the morning talk shows, because of insurance companies not being able to compete with government and people that were for the public option wanted their health care for free and she was a free market democrat. While she was on this anti government free hand out rant she was upset that Obama wasn't doing and giving enough free stuff to Louisiana from the rest of our tax dollars. Is there something in the Louisiana water? That isn't blue dog that is dumb dog.

     Posted by julien38 at 10/14/2009 @ 6:24pm

120. Mary Landrieu happens to be one of the most corrupt members of the Senate. Her opinions need to be tossed right out the window.

     Posted by nkurland at 10/14/2009 @ 7:29pm

121. I've got those Blue Cur Blues

     Sing a song of consequence! With a pocket full of "wry", Along comes ol' Max Baucus; And a plan that does mortify.

     Woeful they are, as well uncaring, That bogus Baucus gang of six, Offering up, on bended knee, A tattered, toothless healthcare fix.

     The bright side yields without a pause As the dark side takes and takes. Caution now oh Blue Cur Dem, Do dare not trust those prattle snakes.

     Compromise may be their dish, But many can ill-afford The "Pirate Sector's" wanton ways And Max's too supple spinal cord.

     Posted by abjure at 10/14/2009 @ 9:29pm

122. From davidmintz:

     >>mroberts2: "My insurance covers all kinds of things that I will never use but are required by law, therefore my policy cost goes up."

     Like what? No wait, let me think up an example. You're male and don't want to pay for, e.g., maternity care. Won't need it. Never have, never will.<<

     Why don't you check out the following link for mandated coverages for all 50 states:

     www.cahi.org/cahi_contents/resources/pdf/HealthInsuranceMandates2009.pdf

     A key quote from the document:

     "While mandates make health insurance more comprehensive, they also make it more expensive because mandates require insurers to pay for care consumers previously funded out of their own pockets. We estimate that mandated benefits currently increase the cost of basic health coverage from a little less than 20% to perhaps 50%, depending on the number of mandates, the benefit design and the cost of the initial premium."

     A good reason that insurance continues to increase in cost is that legislators keep heaping on requirements. Insurance companies can't be compelled to expand coverage without having raising their rates to cover the higher costs. It's simple math, even you should be able to get it davidmintz.

     >> One thing that gets me about those who fulminate against the evils of "socialism" is the short-sighted, mean-spirited selfishness that seems to inform their attitude.<<

     Utterly stupid statement, and one having no basis in logic or reasoning whatsoever. No, davidmintz, my opposition to socialism is not based on "selfishness" as you so shallowly concluded. It is based on careful study, through which I have determined for myself that socialism is unworkable, immoral, and utterly in opposition to individual freedom.

     Posted by mroberts2 at 10/14/2009 @ 9:50pm

123. Posted by sjchermak at 10/14/2009 @ 11:48am

     So, maybe you can finally show us which piece of Democratic legislation calls for public ownership of the means of production or central planning?

     Posted by nkurland at 10/14/2009 @ 9:52pm

124. ....as long as we have a healthcare system that is driven by profits healthcare cost will continue to rise....

     Posted by darinmac at 10/13/2009 @ 9:06pm

     No. As long as the cost of medical treatment continues to rise, health insurance will continue to rise.

     Do you blame your credit card company for not lowering the price of groceries? You pay money to Visa and Visa pays money to the grocery store. Is it Visa's fault that the cost of food continues to rise?

     Your employer pays money to your health insurance company and your health insurance company pays money to doctors, pharmacies, hospitals, mental health providers, chiropactors, clinics, dentists, medical equipment companies, etc.

     Why is it health insurer's fault that doctors, pharmacies, hospitals, mental health providers, chiropactors, clinics, dentists, medical equipment companies, etc. continue to increase prices?

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 10/15/2009 @ 07:01am

125. Cheney's ingenious socialism machine, the ^Halliburton hybrid^ was a spectacular creation which picked the ultimate low-hanging fruit - no bid GOVERNMENT contracts for no accountability bloated defense 'work'.

     Posted by winyahn at 10/15/2009 @ 07:07am

126. Darin-Why is it the fault of the board of directors that United Health employs that their CEO has made $700 million in 4 years. Did the insurance company do their math wrong in order to have this extra money on hand to grant these options. Get a better argument,you are in this type of theft business aren't you.

     Posted by whatozz at 10/15/2009 @ 08:09am

127. Darin-Why is it the fault of the board of directors that United Health employs that their CEO has made $700 million in 4 years. Did the insurance company do their math wrong in order to have this extra money on hand to grant these options. Get a better argument,you are in this type of theft business aren't you.

     Posted by whatozz at 10/15/2009 @ 08:09am

     Maybe it's because the Board of Directors approves the compensation for the CEO?

     Posted by antisocialist at 10/15/2009 @ 08:43am

128. I look forward to death and finally laying down this body to be with my Lord.

     Posted by antisocialist at 10/14/2009 @ 12:55am

     --sounds...kinda...gay!

     Posted by urmygyro at 10/15/2009 @ 09:25am

129. Posted by abjure at 10/14/2009 @ 9:29pm |

     Nice!

     Posted by snowball777 at 10/18/2009 @ 1:26pm