Did they kill the public option?

[Kajsa]

They sure as hell are trying to,



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33069014/ns/politics-health_care_reform/

Senate panel rejects health ‘public option’
Baucus hopes to push overhaul measure through committee by week's end

NBC News

updated 47 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - In a long-anticipated showdown, liberal Democrats twice failed on Tuesday to inject a government-run insurance option into sweeping health care legislation taking shape in the Senate, despite bipartisan agreement that private insurers must change their ways.

The two votes marked a victory for Montana Democrat Max Baucus, the Senate Finance Committee chairman, who is hoping to push his middle-of-the-road measure through the panel by week's end. It also kept alive the possibility that at least one Republican may yet swing behind the overhaul, a key goal of both Baucus and the White House.

The developments occurred as Democrats in the House sought savings to reduce their companion legislation to roughly $900 billion over a decade, the price tag President Barack Obama has suggested.

[brentspeak]

1. "middle of the road agenda"

"Corporate agenda" is a more accurate.

[valerief]

22. That kills me. It's not America's road, that's for sure. It's the Corporate Expressway. nt

[Botany]

2. No

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6656936&mesg_id=6656936

video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q47bpOCTcaY&NR=1

[Kajsa]

14. Thank you, Botany!

This gives me hope.

[spanone]

3. as hard as they tried, they didn't kill the public option....

[timeforpeace]

4. Think you're pissed? This was Obama's #1, signature issue.

[mdavies013]

5. No public option = not one dime + not one minute of my time + definitely not my vote

[Kajsa]

11. I hear you!

Loud and clear!

:(

[regnaD kciN]

19. Not one dime, indeed, because...

...all your spare dimes (as well as quarters, ones, tens, twenties, and hundreds) will instead have to go to the private insurers whose products you will now be legally-required to buy at whatever prices they want. :grr:

[WonderGrunion]

6. The finance commitee killed the public option in it's part of the bill

The Public Health committee (under former Sen. Kennedy) already passed through a bill with a strong public option in it. The Blue Dog infested finance committee predictably tried to end it. All versions of the Senate Bills are then brought together before Reid submits them to the full house. this is the first chance to put the Public Option back in. Then when it passes the Senate, it must reconcile with the house version of the bill, which also has a strong public option in it. This is the second chance to reintroduce the Public Option to health care reform.

This battle isn't even close to over.

[fascisthunter]

7. look at that sick bastard laughing

while families lose homes, go bankrupt, some even die... sociopath

[Kajsa]

10. Isn't that the epitome

of TOTAL indifference to the plight of millions of people?

:grr:

[fascisthunter]

23. it certainly is

[timeforpeace]

8. Besides, there's always the next Congress.

[pnwmom]

9. No. This is just the beginning. n/t

[Kajsa]

12. That's what I keep

telling myself.

It's not over yet!

[Amonester]

13. Looks like there R only retardlicans in that picture.

Those posing as Democrats R really just imposteurs.

[HughMoran]

15. Fucking Republican troll Baucus is singlehandedly destroying it

I'd like to see him dragged out of there and ____.

[WonderGrunion]

17. As soon as this bill leaves finance

Baucus has no more influence over it.

[HughMoran]

20. Thank god - I never wanna see that smug Republican Baucus' face on TV

I hate that traitor mother-fucker. My family plan is $36000 this year and it's putting me and my small business owner boss (who pays 65% of it) out of business.

[ipaint]

16. Yes, but quite a while ago.

"I have described the “option” programs in the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee bill and HR 3200 in previous papers.

The Senate HELP Committee “public option” will be multiple “options,” and these will be run by insurance companies

“Public option” advocates circle their wagons around two useless sentences in HR 3200

HR 3200’s “public option” will not resemble Medicare

As I demonstrated in those papers, there is no meaningful difference between the “options” in the two bills. Both bills use vague language and provide few details. Both authorize the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to hire corporations to set up insurance programs (“options”) that will sell health insurance to the non-elderly. The “options” will be available for sale to only a small percent of the population, namely, that portion which will be eligible to shop for insurance within one-stop-shopping centers called “exchanges” and which will be eligible for subsidies. Both bills call for an “option” program that will consist of numerous insurance companies, not a uniform national program like Medicare. Neither bill gives the Secretary the tools necessary to guarantee that these “option” insurance companies will survive in most markets, much less become large enough to influence the behavior of the insurers in their areas."

snip

"What accounts for this strange behavior, this willingness to see no problems in the “option” proposals and to see calamity in the co-op proposal? The explanation lies, at least in part, with the failure of the “option” movement’s leadership to acknowledge that the puny version of the “option” written up in the HELP Committee bill and HR 3200 does not resemble the large version originally proposed by Jacob Hacker.

The most important difference between Hacker’s original model and the version drafted by congressional Democrats is that Hacker solved or at minimum greatly reduced the start-up problem by pre-enrolling tens of millions of Americans in the “option” before it opened for business.

If “option” advocates had acknowledged this important difference and had discussed it publicly, obvious questions would have arisen, such as, If the “option” can’t be guaranteed a large customer base on day one as Hacker originally proposed, where will the customers come from, who will recruit them, and at what cost? But the very significant differences between Hacker’s original version of the “option” and the Democrats’ version were never acknowledged by the “option” movement’s leaders. In fact, leaders of the movement have aggravated their failure to discuss the watered down version of the “option” by routinely comparing that version to the highly successful Medicare program. This combination of tactics – the failure to acknowledge how weak the Democrats’ “option” is compared with Hacker’s original version, and the constant comparison to Medicare – induced sloppy thinking by leading “option” advocates. It induced them to project onto the co-op model the doubts they should be having about the “option.” It facilitated groupthink."

http://pnhp.org/blog/2009/09/29/there-is-very-little-difference-between-the-co-ops-and-the-%E2%80%9Cpublic-option%E2%80%9D/

[placton]

18. '12 primary

Mr. Obama is NOT with us

[Ikonoklast]

24. What?

He didn't get to vote on a bill, yet.

Do you even know what exactly is going on here?

[valerief]

21. We know they're killing people with their lack of representation of Americans. nt