Reply #547: "but there is NOTHING that says the insurer has to make the coverage affordable"

[BzaDem]

Have you even read a summary of the bill? The bill doesn't just say the cancer patient cannot be denied coverage. It says the cancer patient can't be charged ONE PENNY MORE than a healthy person for health insurance. Everyone pays the same rate. And that rate enfoces a 15% profit/marketing/administrative costs/executive salary/etc limit, with the difference rebated to the customer.

"It should not be terribly difficult to convince a senator to support something that the vast majority of his constituent want."

His constituents were against the healthcare bill by 2-1.

"if you don't, we will put up opposition for your next reelection and YOU will be gone - you CAN'T make it without party support."

That would provide him a golden opportunity to distance himself from the party and ensure re-election. The more realistic statement is that in Nebraska, he couldn't make it WITH party support. Maybe the President could threaten to support him?

"Third point: seriously, HOW, between this bill which puts all the power in the hands of the private insurers and the Citizens United decision, which empowers the very corporations that benefit to pour massive resources into any challenge to that power, does this bill set up a future public option?"

Think a little bit. What would be easier in the future? Creating a bill with a mandate, insurance company regulations, health insurance exchanges, medical loss ratios (ALL of which would be required for a public option to not go bankrupt), AND a public option? Or just a single bill that has a single public option and nothing else?

The answer to that question should be utterly obvious. People nationwide were against the healthcare bill, with or without a public option, by 3-2. But when the public option was polled in isolation, it was supported by most. But without the stuff opposed 3-2 (like the mandate), a public option couldn't possibly work, so the public's inconsistent polling meant absolutely nothing.

On the other hand, now that we got the bulk of the bill passed, wouldn't it be MUCH easier in the future to pass a mostly-supported public option, rather than the whole shebang (which got low support)?

Your point about Citizens United doesn't support your argument at all. You wanted this bill killed. How the heck would Citizens United make passing a whole new bill from scratch with a public option any less difficult than passing a public option alone, given that we already passed the rest? It would make no difference when you compare the two. It might make BOTH harder to pass, but it doesn't make one harder to pass than the other.


In general, you don't make votes. You count them. Anyone who says otherwise has absolutely no understanding of how politics works. Politicians win victories by moving the bills towards the legislators to get their votes, not moving the legislators towards their bills to get their votes.

But EVEN aside from all of that, your substantive point about the bill somehow making it HARDER for a public option to pass in the future is dead wrong (and would cause a lot of needless deaths in the meantime).