The Note: Option Play: Health Care Moves from ‘If’ to ‘When’
EmailABC News’ Rick Klein reports: Remember when "triggers" and "opt-outs" were dangerous to play with?
It hasn't happened slowly or easily — and maybe it's too soon to say it's happened at all — but the debate over the public option, and health care reform more broadly, appears to have shifted in a subtle but important way.
The newfound air of inevitability around health care has been driven by a sense that compromises are taking hold. It means, ultimately, that all Democrats will be left short of being totally thrilled — but also (or so the calculation goes) short of totally angry.
Where once talk of triggers and optional public options sparked talk of revolt on the left, those ideas are now being discussed as versions of a public option. And the public option — in some form — lives.
It all moves the White House closer to the ultimate bluff-calling we've all been waiting for — and Democratic leaders have a better sense than ever of what cards are going to get played. (Though the last remaining wild card remains Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine.)
A momentum shift, real or imagined:
"With a growing sense that Democrats may have the votes to pass health-care reform, many participants are now attempting to shape the components of landmark legislation rather than to defeat it," Ceci Connolly reports in The Washington Post. "The shift into dealmaking mode is both good news for President Obama and an indication that the most arduous work is yet to come. Although Democrats are nearing a compromise on a government insurance option, large hurdles remain."
"Administration allies said Obama will return to his role as chief salesman when it becomes clear exactly what he is selling. Behind the scenes, he continues to nudge lawmakers without making explicit demands, Capitol Hill staff members said," Connolly writes.
In the Senate: "Top Senate Democrats are close to finalizing their health bill and could unveil a measure as soon as early this week that would include stiffer penalties on employers who fail to provide health coverage," Janet Adamy and Greg Hitt write in The Wall Street Journal. "Senate leaders plan to submit the bill to the Congressional Budget Office for a cost estimate as soon as Monday, and make the legislation public as soon as Tuesday."
What's driving it all: "Costs and the political calendar are catching up with health care reform. Having bet the farm, President Barack Obama needs a win and is willing to settle for a cheaper bill and a weaker public insurance option," Politico's David Rogers reports. "Democrats in Congress, increasingly worried about the 2010 elections, want stronger medicine for fear the reforms will prove to be a house of cards if working-class voters can't afford the coverage promised."
Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., to ABC's George Stephanopoulos on "This Week": "I think it gets done this year and I think we end up with some kind of opportunity to go to a public, not-for-profit option."
In the House: "Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) had hoped to ‘freeze the design' of the package last week, but moderate pushback to her preferred approach to the public plan — one that would reimburse doctors and hospitals at rates pegged to Medicare — forced another delay," Roll Call's Tory Newmyer and Steven T. Dennis report. "With debate over the shape of the public insurance option continuing to hamstring progress, Pelosi signaled new flexibility to deal on the issue."
"The remaining disagreements among rank and file Democrats revolve largely around the fees to be paid doctors and hospitals under the plan, and whether they should be dictated by federal officials or established in negotiations," the AP's David Espo writes.
More Espo: "Businesses would not be required to provide health insurance under legislation being readied for Senate debate, but large firms would owe significant penalties if any worker needed government subsidies to buy coverage on their own, according to Democratic officials familiar with talks on the bill."
Getting close: "The oft-vilified health insurance industry is on the verge of seeing a plan enacted that largely protects its financial interests," Noam Levey and Lisa Girion report in the Los Angeles Times. "That achievement, should it stand up in the final legislation, would be the capstone of a sophisticated lobbying and strategic campaign that began even before Obama was elected president."
Trouble in paradise — and a sure sign that things are moving quickly, at last: "President Barack Obama is actively discouraging Senate Democrats in their effort to include a public insurance option with a state opt-out clause as part of health care reform," Huffington Post's Sam Stein and Ryan Grim report. "The administration retreat runs counter to the letter and the spirit of Obama's presidential campaign."
White House pushback, from deputy communications director Dan Pfeiffer: "A rumor is making the rounds that the White House and Senator Reid are pursuing different strategies on the public option. Those rumors are absolutely false," Pfeiffer blogs at WhiteHouse.gov.
Responding on the left: "Here's what the White House needs to understand," Adam Green blogs in response, at OpenLeft.com. "Expressing a preference for the public option is not the same as fighting for the public option. Telling Harry Reid ‘good luck with that' is not the same as the president saying, ‘I am there helping Reid fight for those final votes.' "
The Progressive Change Campaign Committee, targeting Obama (yes, Obama) — in Maine: "You campaigned on a public health insurance option. We worked hard for it. We worked hard for you."
More from the left: "There is truly no reason to object to the robust option, and I continue to believe that one will pass the House when the final vote occurs," Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz., writes in an op-ed for The Nation.
Time for some skepticism about what the public opt ion means. It's being packaged as the whole deal, even though everyone involved knows it's nothing close to it:
"All the attention on whether Obama will get a public plan, as he says he hopes, misses the bigger point," Fred Hiatt writes in his Washington Post column. "The question is whether he will allow Congress to use the public option as an excuse to dodge the harder reforms, or whether he will insist on true cost control."
"In reality, the public plan, also known as the public option, is mostly an exercise in political avoidance: It pretends to control costs and improve access to quality care when it doesn't," Robert Samuelson writes.
Paul Krugman lets himself look ahead to the next round (just like the Yankees didn't): "If the Massachusetts experience is any guide, health care reform will have broad public support once it's in place and the scare stories are proved false. The new health care system will be criticized; people will demand changes and improvements; but only a small minority will want reform reversed," Krugman writes in his New York Times column. "This thing is going to work."
Can't do this unless you're confident: "Democrats are pushing Senate leaders and the White House to speed up key benefits in the health reform bill to 2010, eager to give the party something to show taxpayers for their $900 billion investment in an election year," Politico's Carrie Budoff Brown reports.
Coming to terms: "From time to time the American people participate in a mass delusion about how their government works. Such a delusion took place exactly a year ago, when a 47-year-old African-American who had once been accorded little chance of prevailing was elected president of the United States," Anna Quindlen writes for Newsweek.
"He is methodical, thoughtful, cerebral, a believer in consensus and process. In an incremental system, Barack Obama is an incremental man," she writes.
And about that C-SPAN thing: "It's hardly unexpected that major legislation on Capitol Hill, particularly on an issue as complex as health care reform, would be done in a small group and behind closed doors. The reform debate is now at a particularly sensitive stage, as House and Senate leaders have to make major political and policy decisions on what kind of legislation to send to their chambers' floors," Jennifer Haberkorn writes for the Washington Times. "But Mr. Obama's campaign promises have provided Republicans and other opponents of the Democrats' reform plans with an easy criticism of how he's crafting the legislation."
On the president's schedule Monday, per ABC's Sunlen Miller: "President Obama will hold his sixth meeting on Afghanistan and Pakistan with his national security team this morning. Those expected to attend are: Vice President Biden (via videoconference from Ohio), Secretary of State Clinton, Secretary of Defense Gates, General James Jones, National Security Advisor, Tom Donilon, Deputy National Security Advisor, John Brennan, Assistant to the President for Counterterrorism and Homeland Security and Rahm Emanuel, White House Chief of Staff."
Then it's off to Jacksonville, Fla., to meet with servicemen and women and make a brief speech.
The president's Monday night ends with a fundraiser in Miami for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
"When President Barack Obama swings into Miami Beach Monday night to raise money for Democratic congressional candidates, it will be the 26th fund-raiser of his maiden year in office, compared with the six appearances by his predecessor, George W. Bush, in his first year of office," The Wall Street Journal's Jonathan Weisman reports. "CBS radio correspondent Mark Knoller, who tabulates presidential statistics, said Mr. Bush raised $48 million in six appearances. The most-recent figures available show Mr. Obama raised $21 million after 20."
While in Florida, coming Tuesday: "In a speech on Tuesday in Arcadia, Fla., President Obama plans to discuss $3.4 billion in spending from the stimulus package to improve the electricity grid. White House officials said the government money would be matched by as much as $5 billion in private spending," Matthew L. Wald reports in The New York Times. "In Arcadia, the site of one of the nation's largest solar panel arrays, Mr. Obama will also highlight the administration's commitment to renewable energy sources like the wind and sun, White House officials said."
More this week on the energy front, per a White House official: Energy Secretary Steven Chu on Monday will announce funding for scientists doing energy research and development; Vice President Joe Biden will make an announcement regarding energy efficient automobiles on Tuesday; and Cabinet officials will testify before the Senate EPW Committee as it begins to consider the Kerry-Boxer bill — then they will fan out to states to make announcements about the smart grid.
The Chamber of Commerce strikes back — hard: "You think we are going to blink because a couple of people are out shooting at us? Tell 'em to put their damn helmets on," U.S. Chamber of Commerce President Tom Donohue tells The Wall Street Journal's Kimberley A. Strassel.
"Let's be clear, we haven't raised up the Cain. It came from their side of the street," Chamber lobbyist Bruce Josten said on "Fox News Sunday." And this is after Rahm Emanuel accepted the speaking engagement in front of the Chamber?
Politico's Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen: "The Chamber, like Fox News, says it's making the best of a fight it did not choose. It's unusual for a White House to take on critics so frontally, but aides to President Barack Obama said they decided in August they needed to be more aggressive in confronting their critics. And that revs up supporters on the left, who had hoped Obama would cater to them more quickly and gives the White House a foil to help argue its case."
Not-quite-friends: "Heather and Tony Podesta are conscientious objectors to the culture of change in Washington," Bloomberg's Al Hunt writes. "The husband and wife, with separate lobbying firms, are raking in millions from the insurance and drug industries, tobacco companies and corporate interests fighting changes to labor laws or the overhaul of the student-loan program. . . . Obama last year promised change in Washington, which he said was only possible ‘without the same policies, the same lobbyists, or the same Washington culture.' In nine months, the promise has exceeded the reality."
On Afghanistan — yes, it's been this long already: "A month into reviewing U.S. strategy in Afghanistan, President Obama appears to be operating in an increasingly narrowing space between reality on the ground in Afghanistan and political camps in Washington," ABC's Kristina Wong reports. "Middle ground for the Obama Administration could be getting scarcer, with President Karzai and his opponent, former foreign minister of Afghanistan Dr. Abdullah Abdullah calling for additional U.S. troops in Afghanistan themselves."
Making the run-off either more or less interesting: "The challenger to President Hamid Karzai is considering boycotting the upcoming runoff if his demands are not met to remove the leaders of Afghanistan's election commission who he believes are biased against him, campaign officials said Sunday," per The Washington Post's Joshua Partlow and Pamela Constable.
Choose Afghanistan, not Fox, writes Mike Lupica, in the New York Daily News: "The only war about which Barack Obama should worry, one in which he could lose himself the way Lyndon Johnson lost himself in Vietnam, is the one in Afghanistan. You want to show everybody real courage and toughness, you don't do it with Bill O'Reilly. You do it by standing in there against all who tell you that the only way to be a brave, strong President is by sending more kids from Washington Heights and Newark over to Afghanistan to die."
Huge, enormous, incredible coincidence… The Chicago Sun-Times' Lynn Sweet: "On the question of whether Melody Barnes, President Obama's chief domestic policy advisor is indeed the first woman to golf with Obama since he became president, the answer now is yes." (Sweet, on White House pool duty Sunday, had been initially told that wasn't the case.)
ABC's Jake Tapper: "Today's round of golf comes after some questions raised by the media about what some critics say is a too-fratty atmosphere in the White House, a place where the president's closest advisers — chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, senior adviser David Axelrod, and press secretary Robert Gibbs — are known by women at the White House as ‘the Boys.' That's a perception fed with lower-level aides like personal assistant Reggie Love and trip director Marvin Nicholson who have close personal relationships with the president and play basketball and golf with him."
Debate night in the Massachusetts Senate race: "Nearly halfway through the contest to succeed Edward M. Kennedy, [Martha] Coakley is running a classic front-runner's campaign: guarding her image closely, limiting opportunities for missteps, and broadcasting strength in any way she can," The Boston Globe's Matt Viser writes. "Tonight, Coakley faces a major test as she squares off against her three Democratic opponents in the first televised debate of the campaign, a potentially game-changing event that will give all the candidates broad statewide media exposure for the first time. Each of Coakley's competitors has his first major chance to make a dent."
In Virginia, leaving all hope in a White House that has no confidence in the campaign being run: "The [Creigh Deeds] campaign now sees its hope in rallying the core, liberal Democratic activists who have so far been uninspired by his candidacy and the broad coalition of minorities, young people and less-engaged voters who led Virginia to support Barack Obama after four decades of backing Republican presidential candidates," Sandhya Somashekhar reports for The Washington Post.
In New Jersey, a storyline that's set: "GOP worried about Daggett's impact on N.J. race," reads the headline on the story by the Philadelphia Inquirer's Cynthia Burton.
In New York, a Fred Dicker special: "Andrew Cuomo has secretly notified Rudy Giuliani that he will run for governor next year, The Post has learned," Dicker reports in the New York Post. "The confidential message, conveyed through intermediaries, was delivered to Giuliani recently and is expected to play a central role in the former mayor's impending decision on whether to run as the Republican candidate for governor in 2010, sources with knowledge of the situation said."
New numbers, in New York City: "New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg leads Comptroller William Thompson 53 – 35 percent, with 10 percent undecided, among likely voters, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today."
Gingrich 2012? (Sounds a lot like the requirements for Gingrich '08.) "We'll decide, if there's a requirement as citizens that we run, I suspect we probably will. And if there's not a requirement, if other people have filled the vacuum, I suspect we won't," Gingrich said on C-SPAN's "Washington Journal" Sunday, per Political Wire's Taegan Goddard.
Another kind of early, early buzz: "President Barack Obama could bring another Nobel Prize to the Univ ersity of Chicago," Bloomberg's John McCormick reports. "The school a few blocks from Obama's family home boasts more than 80 Nobel winners with ties to the campus, where he, his wife and some top advisers worked. Now a recruitment effort is percolating to have the university host the presidential library of the 2009 Peace Prize recipient."
A national debate, in feisty South Carolina: "The national debate among Republicans over their party's future is nowhere sharper than in South Carolina, where Sens. Lindsey Graham and Jim DeMint pursue distinctly different visions for restoring GOP primacy at the polls," James Rosen writes for The State. "Graham and DeMint, who profess to be friends and live within an hour's drive of each other in the conservative Upstate, prescribe conflicting cures for the Republican ailments that led to sweeping defeats in the last two national elections."
The Kicker:
"Good comedy, to be comedy, must contain an element of truth, and we know how he feels about distribution of wealth." — Rush Limbaugh, not quite apologizing for touting a report about President Obama's thesis that turned out to be a hoax.
For up-to-the-minute political updates check out The Note's blog . . . all day every day:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/
Sen. DeMint: GOP Race Could Go Until Convention 
Obama Avoids Questions on Contraception Rule
Clearly the healthcare bill needs to insure that fraud is taken care of with the public option. It’s already far too easy now for scammers to bill medicare. We don’t need another run of scams like we have seen in the financial industry. I don’t care what some Republicans say…businesses need regulating and active oversight.
Posted by: Wayne | October 26, 2009, 8:39 am 8:39 am
Did you see 60 minutes last night and how medicare was being defrauded? Now we are going to make a huge govt onsurance program and what will stop the fraud? If Obama wants to save money by stopping medicare and medicaid fraud, what has he been waiting for? Why should we believe he can do it for a govt. option????
Posted by: sammy | October 26, 2009, 8:55 am 8:55 am
Reform the health care fine but the public option will damage the Democrats in future elections. This system will turn into a dumping ground for people that the insurance companies don’t want to cover and it will overwhelmed. Medicare and dealing with social security has a track record of being a pain to deal with for seniors and disabled.
The public option in what ever form will morph into another insurance company that has the GOVT brand. Persons on that system will be frustrated and blame Dems. People get upset dealing with the bureaucracy of the current social systems.
The dems will OWN it and can’t blame anyone but themselves.
Just because other counties can produce effective systems doesn’t mean, at all, we in the United States can emulate or provide the same success as other countries (we might have the will but not the capability to make it work)
We are dealing with the govt who is having this much trouble getting a bill complete
after all.
Posted by: David from WI | October 26, 2009, 8:55 am 8:55 am
Obama estimates only 5% of the public with current insurance will join his program through the public option. Well, according to his numbers, that is near 15 million people. I believe his estimate is well under actual amounts. I am guessing it will be more like 40-50 million people. That will raise the total amount considerably. I doubt seriously they can keep this under $1 trillion or deficit neutral.
Posted by: lfrichar | October 26, 2009, 9:05 am 9:05 am
It is all Smoke and Mirrors,no substance to the Democrats plan.Put whatever bill they eventually come up with on the internet for all to see and read ,what could be wrong with that.
Posted by: Johnny L | October 26, 2009, 9:24 am 9:24 am
A new day. 122 people WILL DIE today due to lack of health insurance (45,000 per year)
Posted by: New Wave | October 26, 2009, 9:55 am 9:55 am
“If Obama wants to save money by stopping medicare and medicaid fraud, what has he been waiting for? Why should we believe he can do it for a govt. option????”
sammy | Oct 26, 2009 8:55:02 AM
I would ask what the Republicans were waiting for the last eight years? The answer is that there is fraud in Medicare, but THERE IS FRAUD IN PRIVATE INSURANCE TOO. And citizens pay for that fraud too. Refusing a better system because it is not perfect is foolish.
Posted by: jhw539 | October 26, 2009, 9:59 am 9:59 am
New Wave… and a 100% of seniors will die today with heath care. How many of those that are dying are drug addicts, smokers and alcoholics. Self inflicted deaths. Dont just throw out some numbers without any documentation..
Posted by: george | October 26, 2009, 10:03 am 10:03 am
This will be the beggining of the end of the democratic rule of power. They are not listening to the majority who happen to be their boss. Yes thats right people!! We are their boss and this next election they will be fired.
Posted by: Jim Rod | October 26, 2009, 10:04 am 10:04 am
Here comes Hillarycare. Ever consider she may have negotiated with Obama to sit out the 2012 election and serve as his Secretary of State if her healthcare plan was accepted?
Posted by: mmonroeliveson | October 26, 2009, 10:22 am 10:22 am
So far none of them are proposing that public option be limited to citizens of the United States. Obama said that illegal aliens will not be eligible. He also promises immigration reform (amnesty). That means that the 20 million people who are now illegal aliens will soon be legal aliens and eligible for public option. In fact a large percentage of the uninsured in America are illegal aliens.
We will have a hard time coming up with the money to cover our own Citizens. We shouldn’t have pay more taxes to cover citizens of other nations, especially those who come here illegally.
Posted by: oonogil | October 26, 2009, 10:23 am 10:23 am
How much of a contol monger is Obama? He is telling his people not to allow an opt out plan? Would somebody tell him he is not our daddy and that we should be able to make our own decisions? Whats next is he going to tell us when we are allowed to eat and use the bathroom?
Posted by: jake | October 26, 2009, 10:27 am 10:27 am
The public option is 100% un-constitutional. There is absolutly nothing in the Constitution which gives the government the power to provide health insurance for the citizens. If they want to provide health insurance then the constitutional method is provided via Article 5 which allows an amendment to be made to the Constitution.
Posted by: Sandcrab1612 | October 26, 2009, 10:47 am 10:47 am
Anyone who votes for Obamacare will be voted out next election!
Posted by: Bandera Scout | October 26, 2009, 10:56 am 10:56 am
“”"”"122 people WILL DIE today due to lack of health insurance (45,000 per year)”"”"”"
Posted by: New Wave
Estimates are great because you don’t need any proof. If you have no insurance, you can’t be turned away. Also, how is a government subsidized insurance company going to fix the problem again?
Posted by: lfrichar | October 26, 2009, 11:00 am 11:00 am
jake…the people who voted for him need government to tell them what to do. They don’t value their freedom. They don’t care that billions wasted will become trillions wasted under this regime. They clearly are not students of history or just don’t care about the road they’re being led down. We will seal our fate as a nation come election time 2012.
Posted by: s | October 26, 2009, 11:03 am 11:03 am
Public Option
Support/Oppose
50%/46% USA Today/Gallup
61%/38% CNN/Opinion Research
57%/40% ABC News/WaPo
57%/39% Kaiser Family Foundation
62%/31% CBS News
53%/42% Ipsos/McClatchy
61%/34% Quinnipiac
55%/38% Pew
46%/48% NBC News/WSJ
46%/37% Rasmussen
Posted by: Numeros | October 26, 2009, 11:04 am 11:04 am
I don’t believe the Constitution has anything in it about welfare either.
Posted by: s | October 26, 2009, 11:04 am 11:04 am
Numeros —— Now let’s see your poll numbers on this bill. I am sure it won’t quite be the same as the public option. Americans want reform, just not what this bill is pushing.
Posted by: lfrichar | October 26, 2009, 11:13 am 11:13 am
One week after President Obama’s speech to Congress, opposition to his health care reform plan has reached a new high of 55%. The latest Rasmussen Reports daily tracking poll shows that just 42% now support the plan, matching the low first reached in August.
Posted by: lfrichar | October 26, 2009, 11:18 am 11:18 am
“Also, how is a government subsidized insurance company going to fix the problem again?”
lfrichar | Oct 26, 2009 11:00:08 AM
No bills – not one – is proposing a government subsidized insurance company. Are you ignorant of the public option or lying? Subsidies would go to individuals to spend on purchasing the government option at cost OR on purchasing the competing private options – the exact model that the Right champions when it comes to education (charter schools).
The fact the Right has to lie when arguing against the public option is why time is not really on their side. Slowly the truth is getting out.
Posted by: jhw539 | October 26, 2009, 11:23 am 11:23 am
Rasmussen today – Sixty-three percent (63%) of voters nationwide say guaranteeing that no one is forced to change their health insurance coverage is a higher priority than giving consumers the choice of a “public option” health insurance company.
The fear of being forced to change insurance coverage can be seen in results from a pair of survey questions.
The first question finds that 46% favor the creation of a government-sponsored non-profit health insurance option that people could choose instead of a private health insurance plan. Thirty-seven percent (37%) are opposed.
The second question asked about the creation of a public option if it encouraged companies to drop private health insurance coverage for their workers. Given that possibility, support for the public option falls to 29%, and opposition rises to 58%.
Even if it encourages employers to drop private health insurance for their workers, 51% of Democrats still support the public option. Eighty-two percent (82%) of Republicans and 61% of voters not affiliated with either party are opposed.
Posted by: wheresmymoney | October 26, 2009, 11:25 am 11:25 am
“Here comes Hillarycare. Ever consider she may have negotiated with Obama to sit out the 2012 election and serve as his Secretary of State if her healthcare plan was accepted?”
mmonroeliveson | Oct 26, 2009 10:22:30 AM
Do you think we’re stupid? We KNOW where this plan came from – we’ve seen every turn of the sausage grinder in Congress in gory detail over the past 8 months. It is not Hillarycare at all (to the vocal dismay of the far left).
Posted by: jhw539 | October 26, 2009, 11:25 am 11:25 am
DEFINITION OF OPTION=
CHOICE CHOOSE
You choose do i want Vannila Ice cream or Chocolate it is a CHOICE! No one is forcing you just like do I go to public school or private school? why do some not know the definition of OPTION?
Posted by: Angie in Pa | October 26, 2009, 11:28 am 11:28 am
Dont WE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE Shouldnt we get to Choose our own healthcare? Isnt that the American way? We the people choose?
Posted by: Angie in Pa | October 26, 2009, 11:29 am 11:29 am
Every American who is opposed to socialized medicine and the destruction of the world’s finest healthcare system, especially Medicare recipients who will lose many of their benefits if this mess passes, should be on the phone TODAY to their Senators and to their Congressional Reps. demanding that they oppose this legislation.
Posted by: Ron | October 26, 2009, 11:33 am 11:33 am
Ron
What socialized Medicine? Public Option is not socialized Medicine do you know what option means? Sorry but we dont have the worlds finest healthcare we are 38 percent i would hardily say thats the finest.
Posted by: Angie in Pa | October 26, 2009, 11:40 am 11:40 am
No bills – not one – is proposing a government subsidized insurance company. Subsidies would go to individuals to spend on purchasing the government option at cost OR on purchasing the competing private options -
Posted by: jhw539
You say it’s not a government subsidized program and the very next sentence you say it is. I am against the public option because I believe the governments’ estimate is very low. It will cost us way too much in the long run. What is the problem of passing this bill without the public option and then, if it works well, opening it up to a public option later? Make no mistake, this is a “Government Subsidized Insurance Program”.
Posted by: lfrichar | October 26, 2009, 11:48 am 11:48 am
Go to a Veterans Administration hospital if you want to see what government run healthcare is really like. They look not much different than the photos we’ve all seen of those old Soviet hospitals.
Posted by: Ron | October 26, 2009, 11:50 am 11:50 am
The news medis wants you to think that America supports the public option, that could not be futher from the truth. Now is the time to let our leaders know that we have not changed our minds, write your congressman today.
Posted by: sammy | October 26, 2009, 11:52 am 11:52 am
jhw539 —- Of the 30 million people without insurance and the 20 million illegals, how many do you actually believe can afford an insurance premium without help from government subsidation? Obama believes with a public option only 5% more would sign up, do you believe that number? Oh, how’s this insurance company actually going to help lower “actual health care” (medical, pharmaceutical, etc) costs? A system riddled with fraud, when reformed, will be a new system riddled with fraud.
Posted by: lfrichar | October 26, 2009, 11:53 am 11:53 am
And if you are on welfare then you should be required to submit to random drug testing to get your check, Many of employeed at a real job are subject to this policy and if we fail we are shown the door rather quickly, same should apply to welfare recipients.
Posted by: Sandcrab1612 | October 26, 2009, 11:56 am 11:56 am
jhw539 —– The very moment someone doesn’t agree with you they are labelled right wingers? The MAJORITY OF AMERICANS DO NOT WANT THIS BILL. What part of that do you not understand?
Posted by: lfrichar | October 26, 2009, 11:57 am 11:57 am
You say it’s not a government subsidized program and the very next sentence you say it is. I am against the public option because I believe the governments’ estimate is very low. It will cost us way too much in the long run. What is the problem of passing this bill without the public option and then, if it works well, opening it up to a public option later? Make no mistake, this is a “Government Subsidized Insurance Program”.
Posted by: lfrichar | Oct 26, 2009 11:48:08 AM
*********
They have already admitted that they underestimated the depth of the recession.
Even though they have warned us about H1N1 since the Spring, they don’t have enough shots for everyone.
They can’t write ONE bill without putting earmarks in it.
I DON’T WANT THESE PEOPLE RUNNING MY HEALTHCARE!
Posted by: wheresmymoney | October 26, 2009, 12:00 pm 12:00 pm
Medicare UNFUNDED liabilities = ~$73T
Pres Drug UNFUNDED liabilities = ~$17T. We are not paying for the programs we already have. I guess the govt can just file for bankrupcy?
Posted by: deanbob | October 26, 2009, 12:02 pm 12:02 pm
Sandcrab1612— I agree. Welfare, unemployment and any government handouts should be randomly tested. We can’t have government sponsored drugees can we?
Posted by: lfrichar | October 26, 2009, 12:04 pm 12:04 pm
seriously its always a problem in health care nothing is new.
Auto Warranty Leads
Posted by: tepoyglobal matrix | October 26, 2009, 12:05 pm 12:05 pm
No bills – not one – is proposing a government subsidized insurance company. Subsidies would go to individuals to spend on purchasing the government option at cost OR on purchasing the competing private options -
Posted by: jhw539
You say it’s not a government subsidized program and the very next sentence you say it is. I am against the public option because I believe the governments’ estimate is very low. It will cost us way too much in the long run. What is the problem of passing this bill without the public option and then, if it works well, opening it up to a public option later? Make no mistake, this is a “Government Subsidized Insurance Program”.
lfrichar | Oct 26, 2009 11:48:08 AM
The above is an excellent demonstration of how I, with liberal leanings, have been brought around to believing English should be made America’s official language. It is impossible to have any debate if the opponent doesn’t have a basic grasp of English comprehension.
Posted by: jhw539 | October 26, 2009, 12:07 pm 12:07 pm
To anyone who is for this specific legislation, can you tell us exactly how a government subsidized insurance company is going to lower actual health care costs? As those costs continue to rise, the government will have to raise their rates or subsidize every person on the program. Then the government pays to keep your rates down and higher health care costs. I say we should start reform by investigating costs in pharmaceuticals, medical procedures and equipment, insurance, tort reform. Also, eliminate fraud, waste and abuse in medicare, unemployment, welfare, HUD housing, disability and any other government run program. Then we can actually affect costs and lower premiums with the existing insurance systems. Maybe I am simplistic, but high costs of health care affect your insurance premiums, not the other way around.
Posted by: lfrichar | October 26, 2009, 12:10 pm 12:10 pm
jhw539 —- What do you call it when the government runs an insurance program and an individual can’t afford it so the government pays the premium for them? Would government “sponsored” be a better choice of words? Tell me what I have pointed out can’t happen.
Posted by: lfrichar | October 26, 2009, 12:12 pm 12:12 pm
jhw539— You don’t believe subsidies will go to those who cannot afford insurance? Call it what you want but I would render a guess that 50% of the people who do not have insurance will not be able to afford the government premium either.
Posted by: lfrichar | October 26, 2009, 12:16 pm 12:16 pm
lfrichar | Oct 26, 2009 12:10:50 PM……What about tort reforms?
Posted by: deanbob | October 26, 2009, 12:18 pm 12:18 pm
How will a government run insurance program lower the costs. It has been reported today that the profit margin in the insurance industry is less than 5%. And before you answer take into consideration that any government run plan will have hundreds of government employees each of which are being paid at a rate of over $60.00 per hour (when overhead costs are added in) from your tax dollors.
Posted by: Sandcrab1612 | October 26, 2009, 12:19 pm 12:19 pm
The Constitution ODES NOT give you the right to have health insurance provided to you, it gives you the right to obtain health insurance on an open market.
Posted by: Sandcrab1612 | October 26, 2009, 12:20 pm 12:20 pm
“”"”What about tort reforms? “”"”
Posted by: deanbob
Another government estimate shows tort reform would only affect about 2% of our overall health care sytem costs. If our health care costs attribute to 16% of what we spend as a nation, I would say reform couls save us alot of money. We need limits on frivolous law suits. Obviously if there is an example of gross negligence, the award should fit the incident.
Posted by: lfrichar | October 26, 2009, 12:24 pm 12:24 pm
Numerous here are the way your bogus pollsters ask their questions:
Now I am going to tell you more about the health care plan that President Obama supports and please tell me whether you would favor or oppose it. The plan requires that health insurance companies cover people with pre-existing medical conditions. It also requires all but the smallest employers to provide health coverage for their employees, or pay a percentage of their payroll to help fund coverage for the uninsured. Families and individuals with lower- and middle-incomes would receive tax credits to help them afford insurance coverage. Some of the funding for this plan would come from raising taxes on wealthier Americans. Do you favor or oppose this plan?
Please tell me which ONE statement you agree with more on the issue of creating a new public health plan administered by the federal government. (choices rotated) Some people say it would help lower health care costs because it would compete with private health plans. This new public plan would provide coverage for the uninsured and all Americans would have an option for quality affordable health care. Other people say that patients might not always have access to their choice of doctors and the government would lower costs by limiting medical treatment options and decisions that should be made instead by patients and doctors.
Posted by: Joe Average | October 26, 2009, 12:35 pm 12:35 pm
Joe Average wrote: “”"”"Some people say it would help lower health care costs because it would compete with private health plans. “”"”"”
I do believe it would lower “insurance premiums” in the short term, but not actual “health care costs”. I am for all Americans receiving health care, but this plan does not do near enough to confront health care costs. As those costs continue to rise, even the government would be required to pas that expense on to the customer or eat the cost. Either way, we pay. As for your taxes on the rich, I am for it. But, do you believe this bill, when put into action, will not require those under $250K to pay more taxes?
Posted by: lfrichar | October 26, 2009, 12:45 pm 12:45 pm
“Numeros —— Now let’s see your poll numbers on this bill. I am sure it won’t quite be the same as the public option.”
If you’re referring to the Baucus bill, I’m not sure there is a poll addressing that one specifically. If there were, you would probably be right about the numbers being quite different, at least judging by poll results on other bills or “Obamacare” (whatever that means to poll respondents).
Posted by: Numeros | October 26, 2009, 1:04 pm 1:04 pm
As a small business owner, I’m quite nervous about the anticipated 15% rise in health care premiums. It seems a bit unfair to require us to insure our employees without doing anything to stablize the cost of that insurance.
As a primary care doctor, I can tell you that whatever the insurers are bringing in by hiking up premiums, they’re not paying it out to us. I won’t see anything like a 15% increase in payments. All the insurance companies seem to do is invent new ways to deny benefits and make it harder for us to practice good medicine.
I hate to criticize my own party and a president I like – but it looks to me like the insurance companies are going to make out on this bill, and the rest of us are going to pay for it.
Posted by: Andrew Schamess | October 26, 2009, 1:05 pm 1:05 pm
“Rasmussen today…”
Posted by: wheresmymoney | Oct 26, 2009 11:25:29 AM
Take another look at the page you quoted from. It isn’t “Rasmussen today,” it’s Rasmussen October 4th.
Posted by: Numeros | October 26, 2009, 1:05 pm 1:05 pm
“The news medis wants you to think that America supports the public option, that could not be futher from the truth.”
See the polling numbers I posted on page one of the comments.
Posted by: Numeros | October 26, 2009, 1:06 pm 1:06 pm
If they pass the public option, lets vote these clowns out of office. We don’t need or want government health care.
Posted by: Lon | October 26, 2009, 1:09 pm 1:09 pm
Joe Average – #1 If you require an employer to provide health coverage or pay a percentage of payroll then answer me this. How will he make up this cost? Raise the price of his product or lay off employees? Both of these are unaccceptable and will hurt the economy.
#2 putting folks with pre-existing conditions witht he healthly will only cause the premiums of all in the pool to increase to pay for this increassed cost to the insurance companies. When the insurance company has a profit of less than 5% they cannot afford to pay for these high dollor folks without raising the premiums on everyone else. It would be better to make a high risk pool for these folks and let them pay the higher premiums.
Posted by: Sandcrab1612 | October 26, 2009, 1:09 pm 1:09 pm
Clearly most people are against the public option particularly in the states with the vulnerable democrats up for reelection. Some of the numbers shown in a previous post are clearly incorrect. Just go to the Rasmussen website. I don’t know ewhy people put up numbers that are just incorrect.
The big question is whether the dems have the guts to ram this down americans throats. They may be stupid enough to try.
Posted by: jonny | October 26, 2009, 1:13 pm 1:13 pm
“Numerous here are the way your bogus pollsters ask their questions…”
LOL, so the major pollsters out there are bogus now, including Rasmussen, choice pollster of conservatives? Joe Average, you’re quoting from an old NBC poll from August. The more current polls that I posted tend to word the question something like this: Would you favor or oppose creating a government-administered public health insurance option to compete with private health insurance plans.”
Posted by: Numeros | October 26, 2009, 1:16 pm 1:16 pm
The dems better start being careful and listening to us independents rather than it’s loony left base.
I have never seen such as rapid decline in a partys fortunes. Even if Obama begins to ignore the loonies, the damage may have already been done.
Take a look at this:
At the Rasmussen website, other interesting information,
“Friday, October 23, 2009
For the first time in recent years, voters trust Republicans more than Democrats on all 10 key electoral issues regularly tracked by Rasmussen Reports. The GOP holds double-digit advantages on five of them.”
Yikes!!!
Posted by: jonny | October 26, 2009, 1:22 pm 1:22 pm
“Clearly most people are against the public option particularly in the states with the vulnerable democrats up for reelection. Some of the numbers shown in a previous post are clearly incorrect. Just go to the Rasmussen website.”
Clearly you’re wrong, according to almost all the polls. The poll results I posted can be found at PollingReport online. The Rasmussen result can be found at the RasmussenReports website, in an article from Oct 4th.
Posted by: Numeros | October 26, 2009, 1:25 pm 1:25 pm
We just want Free Cradle, food, health care, home, transportation, coffin, Grave that’s it.
Posted by: Freedom | October 26, 2009, 1:32 pm 1:32 pm
See the polling numbers I posted on page one of the comments.
Posted by: Numeros | Oct 26, 2009 1:06:25 PM
Give us the exact dates (and links to)the polls of your so-called numbers.
I looked as Ras. & Pew…none of thier latest polls show the numbers your claiming.
Posted by: Mike_C | October 26, 2009, 1:41 pm 1:41 pm
Numerous – you are correct, it was from Oct. 4th. I was trying to find out how far you had to DIG to find any Rasmussen that suggested people favored it. The page you used only gives people certain options for an answer. If you will refer to the FRONT PAGE of Rasmussen, you will find the true numbers.
********
If the health care plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats passes, 57% of voters nationwide believe it will raise the cost of health care, and 53% believe the quality of care will get worse. That’s part of the reason that just 45% support the plan. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 51% are opposed to it.
Those numbers include 23% who Strongly Favor the plan and 40% who are Strongly Opposed.
********
Don’t bring up the PUBLIC OPTION having different numbers. The White House, and their trained media are once again twisting the facts to make it look as if people support it.
*********
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows that 29% of the nation’s voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty-one percent (41%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -12.
******
President’s tracking is the true reason they are trying to hurry this up. His numbers are falling.
Posted by: wheresmymoney | October 26, 2009, 1:56 pm 1:56 pm
Forty-nine percent (49%) of voters nationwide say that passing no health care reform bill this year would be better than passing the plan currently working its way through Congress.
thats the latest from Rasmussen…
Posted by: Mike_C | October 26, 2009, 2:03 pm 2:03 pm
Even if the Big O numbers crash to 0. We need the health care bill Rahmd…
Posted by: Freedom | October 26, 2009, 2:08 pm 2:08 pm
Give us the exact dates (and links to)the polls of your so-called numbers.
I looked as Ras. & Pew…none of thier latest polls show the numbers your claiming.
Posted by: Mike_C | Oct 26, 2009 1:41:40 PM
Support/Oppose PUBLIC OPTION
50%/46% USA Today/Gallup Oct. 16-19
61%/38% CNN/Opinion Research Oct. 16-18
57%/40% ABC News/WaPo Oct. 15-18
57%/39% Kaiser Family Foundation Oct. 8-15
62%/31% CBS News Oct. 5-8
53%/42% Ipsos/McClatchy Oct. 1-5
61%/34% Quinnipiac Sept. 29-Oct. 5
55%/38% Pew Sept. 30-Oct. 4
46%/48% NBC News/WSJ Sept. 17-20
46%/37% Rasmussen Oct. 4
Direct links are often deleted from these blogs but you can find the above results at PollingReport online. Check their “Health Care Reform” section. Many of these polls are also easily linked to from RCP (RealClearPolitics).
Rasmussen’s PUBLIC OPTION findings can be found by searching for the Oct. 4th analysis article titled “Fear of Losing Private Health Insurance Trumps ‘Public Option.’” Keep in mind, the PUBLIC OPTION not the same thing as the health care reform bills. Oct. 4th appears to be the most recent Rasmussen findings regarding the PUBLIC OPTION.
Posted by: Numeros | October 26, 2009, 2:12 pm 2:12 pm
“Numerous – you are correct, it was from Oct. 4th. I was trying to find out how far you had to DIG to find any Rasmussen that suggested people favored it.”
If you don’t like digging, perhaps you should write to Rasmussen and suggest they conduct another, more current poll asking respondents about a PUBLIC OPTION.
Posted by: Numeros | October 26, 2009, 2:17 pm 2:17 pm
For those who believe that the gov’t run medicare is perfect, here is an excerpt of last night 60 minutes about Medicare fraud, a 60 billion dollar crime :
“Medicare, the government insurance program that provides health care to 46 million elderly and disabled Americans. But it also provides a rich and steady income stream for criminals who are constantly finding new ways to steal a sizable chunk of the half trillion dollars that are paid out each year in Medicare benefits.
In fact, Medicare fraud – estimated now to total about $60 billion a year – has become one of, if not the most profitable, crimes in America. This story may raise your blood pressure, along with some troubling questions about our government’s ability to manage a medical bureaucracy. “
Posted by: austin | October 26, 2009, 2:28 pm 2:28 pm
austin —- Good post. Please revert back to my previous posts. If we are to reform and create thousands of government jobs, let’s do it by starting with a commission to go out and fight fraud and abuse in all areas of the government. Send oout a tiger team to find out where there is price fixing/gouging in pharmaceuticals and medical procedures/tuitions/equipment. Attack cost and fraud first before spending $1 trillion on reforming a system riddled with fraud.
Posted by: lfrichar | October 26, 2009, 2:34 pm 2:34 pm
From USA Today/Gallup -By 58% to 38%, Americans would generally prefer to see Congress deal with healthcare reform ‘on a gradual basis over several years’ rather than ‘try to pass a comprehensive reform plan this year.’”
******
IF Congress passes a healthcare bill, do you think it should include a public option to compete….50%-46%
Once again, the rating this question is based off of does not give people an option to say, “I am against it.” It is not a TRUE rating. Smoke and Mirrors.
Posted by: wheresmymoney | October 26, 2009, 2:39 pm 2:39 pm
wheresmymoney —– The public option is only a part of this health care legislation. The majority of Americans do not support this legislation with or without the public option. When Congress puts together a decent reform bill, it would sell itself. This bill has too many areas where the governments’ estimates are questionable.
Posted by: lfrichar | October 26, 2009, 2:49 pm 2:49 pm
Has anyone found one single poll that supported THIS legislation? I understand we want the public option (marginally), but I haven’t seen one poll that shows more support for anyone of these 5 bills. Americns want health care reform, just not the way it is in this legislation.
Posted by: lfrichar | October 26, 2009, 2:57 pm 2:57 pm
lfrichar – I realize that. “Numerous” is putting up numbers trying to convince people that MOST people are in favor of the public option. The polls are deceiving because they don’t give people the option to say they are against it!
Posted by: wheresmymoney | October 26, 2009, 3:00 pm 3:00 pm
Has anyone found one single poll that supported THIS legislation?
Posted by: lfrichar | Oct 26, 2009 2:57:33 PM
*******
I haven’t seen one poll that supports this. It is so frustrating that “We the People” don’t want it, but Senate and Congress don’t give a hoot.
I would love to know how we can vote for term limits, and NO retirement.
Posted by: wheresmymoney | October 26, 2009, 3:06 pm 3:06 pm
“”"”"The polls are deceiving because they don’t give people the option to say they are against it! “”"”"
Posted by: wheresmymoney
I know. I guess that’s good “politics” these days. I believe a good piece of legislation sells itself. I really can’t see health reform in line with 2 things. 1) deficit neutral and 2) not raising taxes on those under $250K.
Posted by: lfrichar | October 26, 2009, 3:06 pm 3:06 pm
“We the People” don’t want it, but Senate and Congress don’t give a hoot.
I would love to know how we can vote for term limits, and NO retirement.
Posted by: wheresmymoney
Term limits for sure. I don’t mind retirement, but it should equal a determined amount between your pay and the amount of terms you served.
Posted by: lfrichar | October 26, 2009, 3:08 pm 3:08 pm
ifrichar,
the polls are a joke on this “public option”.
When details of what it really means are then asked, the results are contradictory.
A great number of people “like” the very generic concept a public option. Hell it “sounds” just wonderful, doesn’t it?
The problem is the concept is a dream compared to the reality of making it work in real world. That takes money, more than we are being told. When was the last time any gov’t program on this kind of scale came in on cost and on time.
Factor that with the FACT that this administration has been seriously off an every major evaluation of what is going to happen as we move forward (Unemployment %, # of jobs to be created…etc)
Both parties are guilty of allowing Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security fraud to reach the levels they are now at.
The point is extremely simple. None of these programs has been run the way they need to be in order to prevent this level of outright fraud. To think that one could somehow now create a program that will not have the same levels of fraud is insane.
Anyone who really truly believe that a “public option” will deliver on its promises needs a lot of mental help.
Posted by: Mike_C | October 26, 2009, 3:15 pm 3:15 pm
Medicare’s not-for-profit administration means that about 20% of the bills it pays are fraudulent.
This does not happen in the “for-profit” medical insurance industry. They take about 2% of the costs for profit to insure that they dont lose 20% of payments due to fraud.
The LWM (Left Wing Media) does not report on this.
If states are allowed to “opt out” of e socialist medicine I presume that each taxpayer living in that state will get a special deduction on his federal income taxes for the “free benefits” he is not collecting from the feds
Posted by: SirGareth | October 26, 2009, 3:36 pm 3:36 pm
David from WI, I can’t agree with you that Obama’s administration won’t be able to put together a good public option health insurance plan.
You can’t compare the difficulties of passing legislation on the public option with actually running the system. Passing the legislation requires fighting the health insurance industry and the senators and congressmen who are in the pockets of said industry.
Once it is law, the current administration has shown good organizational skills so far, for a new administration in its first year.
Posted by: Lydia | October 26, 2009, 3:38 pm 3:38 pm
“”"”"The polls are deceiving because they don’t give people the option to say they are against it! “”"”"
Posted by: wheresmymoney
I know.
Posted by lfrichar
________________________
Bull! Only ONE poll (USA Today) had an IF factor. Respondents in all the other polls most certainly had an unfettered opportunity to voice any opposition.
“Now thinking specifically about the health insurance plans available to most Americans, would you favor or oppose creating a public health insurance option administered by the federal government that would compete with plans offered by private health insurance companies?”
61%/38% CNN/Opinion Research Oct. 16-18
“Would you support or oppose having the government create a new health insurance plan to compete with private health insurance plans?”
57%/40% ABC News/WaPo Oct. 15-18
“Now I’m going to read you some different ways to increase the number of Americans covered by health insurance. As I read each one, please tell me whether you would favor it or oppose it… Creating a government-administered public health insurance option to compete with private health insurance plans”
57%/39% Kaiser Family Foundation Oct. 8-15
“Would you favor or oppose the government offering everyone a government-administered health insurance plan — something like the Medicare coverage that people 65 and older get — that would compete with private health insurance plans?”
62%/31% CBS News Oct. 5-8
“One of the points being debated is whether or not the government should create a public health insurance plan as an alternative to private insurance plans. Which of the following is closest to your opinion? It is necessary to create a public health insurance plan to make sure that all Americans have access to quality health care. Access to quality health care for all Americans can be achieved without having to create a public health insurance plan.”
53%/42% Ipsos/McClatchy Oct. 1-5
“Do you support or oppose giving people the option of being covered by a government health insurance plan that would compete with private plans?”
61%/34% Quinnipiac Sept. 29-Oct. 5
“Now I’d like to ask you about some of the specific proposals being considered to address health care. Would you favor or oppose… A government health insurance plan to compete with private health insurance plans”
55%/38% Pew Sept. 30-Oct. 4
“And thinking about one aspect of the debate on health care legislation — Would you favor or oppose creating a public health care plan administered by the federal government that would compete directly with private health insurance companies?”
46%/48% NBC News/WSJ Sept. 17-20
Rasmussen, choice pollster of conservatives, said in their analysis: “46% favor the creation of a government-sponsored non-profit health insurance option that people could choose instead of a private health insurance plan. Thirty-seven percent (37%) are opposed.”
Posted by: Numeros | October 26, 2009, 3:49 pm 3:49 pm
“”"You can’t compare the difficulties of passing legislation on the public option with actually running the system. Once it is law, the current administration has shown good organizational skills so far, for a new administration in its first year.”"”
Posted by: Lydia
Are you listening, Americans are against this legislation with, or without public option? We don’t want it to be law. I don’t care about “administrative skills”, I care we pay our politicians to speak for us. Right now they are not. The Dems can ram anything they want through and they are trying to do this with the majority of Americans against it. Do you not get that or would you blindly follow Obama off a cliff?
Posted by: lfrichar | October 26, 2009, 3:52 pm 3:52 pm
lfrichar, two points of yours that I’ve read I disagree with.
Your statement doubting the number of deaths annually due to a lack of health insurance lacks a factual basis. The figure of 45,000 deaths came from a study published in The American Journal of Public Health. It is altogether believable that the figure is that high, as those without insurance do not get preventative care. Sure an emergency room will look at you, but many times it is too late for a good outcome in many cases. Think about how fast pneumonia can kill, or any serious infection, how important it is to have regular check-ups if you are diabetic, or have any chronic condition, heart disease, etc. And then consider the chances of surviving cancer and how the odds change if it is caught earlier rather than later. You seem to be just thinking of injury type of medical care, such as accidental injuries. That is forgetting what are the leading causes of death in this country.
As to your point estimating how costly the public option will be to the taxpayers, you seem to be forgetting, it won’t be free health insurance except for the extremely poor. People will be buying into it, paying their premiums in every month. I know a lot of self-employed people who are priced out of private insurance, and will jump at the chance to actually buy affordable health coverage. They are healthy but want to protect their assets with health insurance.
As for me, the public option will help keep my private insurance from raising its premiums so much each year. Nothing like a little true competition to keep prices down.
Posted by: Lydia | October 26, 2009, 3:53 pm 3:53 pm
Even if ABC, NBC, CBS poll numbers are 0, we need to get this bill done – Rahm.
Posted by: Freedom | October 26, 2009, 3:54 pm 3:54 pm
You can’t compare the difficulties of passing legislation on the public option with actually running the system. Passing the legislation requires fighting the health insurance industry and the senators and congressmen who are in the pockets of said industry.
Once it is law, the current administration has shown good organizational skills so far, for a new administration in its first year.
Lydia
LOL, passing IS easier than running it the way it needs to be run. The gov’t has shown time after time that is CANNOT run this kind of enterprise efficiently and without huge amounts of fraud. You honestly think playing the political game on Capital Hill is harder than running something like this in the manner that the politicians presented it?
Why do you think it is that all these large gov’t programs are in such deep financial trouble? The gov’t NEVER has to answer to a board of directors or stoc holders. If they mess it up, it just goes on the books as running at a loss and the game keeps on going…
Posted by: Mike_C | October 26, 2009, 3:59 pm 3:59 pm
Numeros—– Nice information, but here is my answer. We pay 50% more per person for health care globally. How is a government insurance company going to lower health care costs? This administration criticized the previous for not enough regulations. Here is what I am for:
Regulating Costs for:
Medical tuition for college
Pharmaceutical equipment and products
medical procedures and equipment
litigation
Insurance premiums (by a % of profits)
Eliminating Fraud, Waste and Abuse:
Medicare
Welfare
Unemployment
Disability
Social Security
HUD
I believe we would find hundreds of billions $$$$ to put toward a system that could be similar to the military Tri-Care System or simply upgrade the Medicare System to bring in those who cannot afford insurance. Simply creating an insurance company will not cut health care costs. Health care costs drive insurance premiums and costs need to be reigned in first. Only then will new reforms work.
Posted by: lfrichar | October 26, 2009, 4:01 pm 4:01 pm
numeros,
It is not the ” generic concept” that that public is rejecting. It is when you get into the real details of making it work that the support drops off.
Why else do you think the the question is worded in such a generic manner.
The more loosely defined the idea of a “public option” is, the greater the support.
Some of those polls go on show that a mojority of people do not even understand what a public option means!!!
Posted by: Mike_C | October 26, 2009, 4:04 pm 4:04 pm
“”"”"”"People will be buying into it, paying their premiums in every month. I know a lot of self-employed people who are priced out of private insurance, and will jump at the chance to actually buy affordable health coverage. As for me, the public option will help keep my private insurance from raising its premiums so much each year. Nothing like a little true competition to keep prices down. “”"”"
Posted by: Lydia
As I said, you might initially save in insurance premium rates. Our insurance companies are running at 5% profit margin. This health care bill DOES NOT ADDRESS actual health care costs. As they continue to rise, the government has 2 choices, raise your rate or subsidize it. The private insurers have no choice but to raise it to keep in business or die out. Then we have more and more getting into the government run program. Health care costs continue to rise and our government insurance company has that choice again. Sooner or later the premium will have to increase to cover costs or they continue to subsidize more. This raises the actual cost to run the program and slowly puts private companies out because they can’t compete. An insurance company reacts to what health care costs, not the other way around. Example: Obama says we can save $$ billions from fraud right now. The estimate for this program is $1 trillion. OK, let’s go fight the fraud first and then see what amount we actually get from it. Let’s find where the faults are in our system before we reform it with the same faults in a new system. Also, Deaths from no insurance is diificult to prove. It’s like proving how many jobs were saved by the stimulus, but I will take your word by it.
Posted by: lfrichar | October 26, 2009, 4:11 pm 4:11 pm
“”"”Nothing like a little true competition to keep prices down. “”"”"
Posted by: Lydia
Also, remember the administration estimates only 5% of the public will buy into the public option. Wouldn’t you expect that number to be much higher like 15 or 20%? 30 million people can’t afford health insurance so the government wil subsidize it to pay for them. This means “true competition” is not happening. I think the administration is drastically underestimating the public interest which will drive costs even higher. But, if they only show 5% buying in, it keeps their estimate to a minimum to try and sell the initiative doesn’t it?
Posted by: lfrichar | October 26, 2009, 4:17 pm 4:17 pm
It is looking better for health care reform with a public option. If a strong public option passes a great win
for the American society. America is the only civilized, wealthy nation where 45 million citizens go uninsured and 122 people die each day for lack of conistent health care.
Conspiracy theorist’s, followers of certain TV personalitys, racists, and a number of any other adjectives describe the opposition to any government intervention into a broken health care system. Opinions and feelings are not disputeble. Feelings and opinions are not like math where 1+1=2. I’ve found there are several different types of thought prcesses. There are those who will never listen to others who disagree with their them. Disagreement tends to make them angrier and they resort to shouting or name calling. There are those willing to agree to disagree. The rarest is the open minded person willing to listen and apply differsnces into a logical thought pattern. Reviewing in their mind, or verbally, the possibility there is a different, maybe more accurate position than theirs.
minority-rulers
Posted by: minority-rulers | October 26, 2009, 4:28 pm 4:28 pm
lfrichar – You said “Term limits for sure. I don’t mind retirement, but it should equal a determined amount between your pay and the amount of terms you served.”
I provide the following to ease your concerns.
The 1983 amendments to the Social Security Act (P.L. 98-21) required federal employees first hired after 1983 to participate in Social Security. These amendments also required all Members of Congress (no matter when they were first elected ) and all federal government employees hired after 1984 to participate in Social Security as of January 1, 1984, regardless of when they first entered Congress. These same people also participate in the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) which is where they receive their retirement benefits when they retire. The employee has the Social Security (and Medicare) withheld from his check just like you do every pay period. Additionally they have an additional sum withheld which goes into the FERS retirement fund and if he chooses he can have an additional sum withheld and placed in the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP), The TSP operates similar to a 401k and has several funds which the employee can choose to have his money held in (many federal employees lost money when the economy collapsed as the TSP is mainly in stocks). When they do retire the amount that they receive is based upon their average salary for a three year period which provides the highest average (high three which is usually the last three years prior to retirement) their age as it relates to the minimum retirement age and the number of years served and the retirement amount can be no greater than 80% of the Congressman’s final pay. Although the initial retirement can be no greater than 80% of his final salary the retirement amount is subject to the same Cost of Living increases as all federal employees he would have to live a considerable amount of time in retirement to reach a point where his retirement amount exceeds his final salary. According to the Congressional Research Service, 413 retired Members of Congress were receiving federal pensions based fully or in part on their congressional service as of Oct. 1, 2006. Of this number, 290 had retired under CSRS and were receiving an average annual pension of $60,972. A total of 123 Members had retired with service under both CSRS and FERS or with service under FERS only. Their average annual pension was $35,952 in 2006, remember that those under FERS receive a portion of their pension from Social Security benefits while those under CSRS do not receive Social Security (if they do qualify for Social Security their CSRS benefit is reduced by a similar amount, no double dipping allowed).
When a Congressman leaves office he may or may not be eligible to continue his federal health insurance, if he does not meet the requirement for immediate retirement then he does not have the option of continuing his federal health insurance. If a congress man does meet the requirements to continue his federal health insurance upon leaving office he still has to pay roughly 33% of the premium just like when he was in office and there are still limits on the coverage he receives along with co pays and deductibles he has to pay when service is received.
If term limits were set at 2 terms (12 years) for the Senate and 4 terms (8 years) for the House then most of the Congressmen elected under these limits would not meet the qualifications to retire and if they did the check would be minimal. Additionally most of them would not meet the requirements to continue healthcare under the FEHB plans. The problem with term limits would be that the Congress would have to basically vote themselves out of office which we know these idiots will never do.
Posted by: Sandcrab1612 | October 26, 2009, 4:39 pm 4:39 pm
Sandcrab1612 — Just think, our military can retire with 20 years of service and only get 40% of pay. It goes up 2.5% every year after that, but no where near what politicians get. And the military actually does something to protect us!
Posted by: lfrichar | October 26, 2009, 4:45 pm 4:45 pm
Well put Posted by: lfrichar | Oct 26, 2009 4:45:17 PM: Here is a idea why don’t instead of guaranteed salaries for the President and Congress why done we just say they get incentives on reaching certain goals, like reducing the deficit and actually having a balanced budget. These people get paid how much to run us further into debt. I don’t care who the President is or has been we did not get in debt by congress standing on principles and saying enough is enough to irresponsible spending. Throw some pork at them and they will do as told no matter how bad it is for the Country.
Posted by: batesba74 | October 26, 2009, 4:51 pm 4:51 pm
batesba74—- You’ve sold me on the idea, but they even to vote on their own pay raises. Imagine if we all did that. We’ll never change “their” system. There’s no more “we the paople” in our government, but they keep moving ahead with stuff we don’t want.
Posted by: lfrichar | October 26, 2009, 4:58 pm 4:58 pm
lfrichar – I think that your figures for the military are a little off. I believe that if a member retires at 20 years the formula is 2.5% for each year of service which would then be 50% of his basic pay, or average of his highst 36 months of basic pay depending upon his orginal enlistment date. The maximum that a member could be paid for retirement would be 75% of his basic pay (30 years x 2.5% = 75%).
Won’t argue the rest of your statement.
Posted by: Sandcrab1612 | October 26, 2009, 5:00 pm 5:00 pm
lfrichar – lfrichar – They techniclly get around voting on their own pay raises by legislation they wrote a few years ago where they tied their salary to that of federal judges. So they don’t vote on their pay but do vote on the pay of the federal judges. Obviously a system which needs to be changed.
Posted by: Sandcrab1612 | October 26, 2009, 5:03 pm 5:03 pm
Sandcrab1612—– I retired in 2003 and they were considering a 20 year 40% new system. I hope it didn’t pass, but I thought it might to save money. I got out under the numbers you posted and would be happy to know the 40% didn’t make it through. It’s not like you make enough to retire. I started my 2nd career 6 years ago and have another 15 to go!
Posted by: lfrichar | October 26, 2009, 5:03 pm 5:03 pm
lfrichar – I got my info from usmilirtary which had a fairly good looking writeup on the military retirement system. I mayself did 9.5 years active duty and an additional 29 years providing direct support to the fleet.
Posted by: Sandcrab1612 | October 26, 2009, 5:14 pm 5:14 pm
Sandcrab1612 — Gotta go. Thanks for your service. I am an engineer for the F-35 JSF and continue to try and give our military the best I can. Have a great day!
Posted by: lfrichar | October 26, 2009, 5:18 pm 5:18 pm
Sen.Harry Reid D-NV, Nancy Pelosi D-CA, are the drum majors who failed in their objective to stifle the E-Verify law, as continued public outcry positively terminated any chance of that? E-Verification is a sophisticated tool to indirectly deport the 20 to 30 million plus from America? What’s the good of hanging around, if you are going to be verified through a government data base? Simply put! It has a self-deportation mechanism. It’s time to hold your own governments feet to the proverbial fire? US workers should push to make it mandatory for every business operation, so that if caught employing illegal foreigners they should go to prison. Right now the battle lines have been drawn between–THE AMERICAN WORKERS Vs. A MULTITUDE OF PARASITE BUSINESS ORGANIZATIONS AND THE OPEN BORDER LOBBYISTS. The public need to know that Opponents have a vested interest in nullifying E-Verify, so they can resume hiring discount illegal labor
Even our law enforcement is under constant attack, such as Sheriff Joe Ariapo’s illegal immigrant removal program. Any kind of federal or state legislation is mostly designed to be weakened, so it looks as though our government agencies are working for the US job seeker or even the whole population. Sheriff Joe of Maricopa County, Arizona acknowledged he would finally be ripped away from using 287 G fed law, because its working too good throughout this nation. As citizens and legal residents we must insist of our money-vulnerable politicians that 287 (g) is mandatory for every state and county police agency, that the No-Match-Letter to disclose illegal aliens working in procured US worker jobs and no cut back on ICE workplace sweeps remain in operation indefinitely? The feeble excuse is that Joe is racial profiling, but then we must take into consideration that the whole Southern border has been–ILLEGALLY COLONIZED by foreign nationals, costing states billions of dollars. Such as Obama’s Democratic leadership secretly trying to enclose language in the public option health care available to illegal immigrants. In the end we all know that illegal immigrants will wheedle their way into health care, because Hillary Clinton, Diane Feinstein, Rep.Charles Schumer and the majority Dem’s cater to them. It’s a sorry story when these people get preference over our own people, so it will be a battle all the way? Emergency care! Yes! But not filtering into the American people’s one chance at Universal health care?
The feral business organizations have been unable to state that E-Verify is racist or profiling by religion or any other adverse criteria, as this piece of software is unable to discriminate In previous court appearances the ACLU, Council of Foreign Relations, the Associated Builders and Contractors, Immigration attorney Associations, the Society for Human Resource Management, the American Council on International Personnel, and the HR Policy Association, and a mishmash of open border groups has stumped themselves for some way to delay implementation of the E-Verify program? The 15 million unemployed citizens and legal residents now know who are the enemy that we are up against? The American public must stop the demand for the unceasing influx of impoverished labor for these companies?
Everybody who needs to hire illegal labor should be identified, just as large businesses are exposed by ICE agents.
Mandatory implementation of E-Verify should not just for federal contractors/subcontractors are should be propagated for everybody who wields a wrench, a pen, a computer or anything else in the diversified working space? In other words–IT SHOULD BE FOR EVERY WORKER, MANAGER, and SUPERVISOR OR EXECUTIVE IN THIS COUNTRY? The magnet is businesses that draw the illegal cheap job-hunters across the borders into the clutches of exploiting employers. I have heard from countless US workers, who have been dropped to make way for cheaper labor in every category of jobs, including higher career positions. Even day labor sites such as Home Depots, Lowes or anywhere these people congregate should be also verified through an E-Verify portable application. Small contractors or a
American employers should–ONLY–be able to solicit for highly skilled tradesman and proven scientists and engineers, under the eye of government labor departments. Europe has adopted a method of selecting specialty workers through a points system that is also being used by other industrialized nations.
United Kingdom first introduced a point’s based system in 2002 called the Highly Skilled Migrant Programme (HSMP). Immigrants can come to the British Islands under this scheme without a sponsor or previous job offer if they can score enough points based on age, education, and past earnings. Australia uses its General Skilled Migration program to attract migrants from across the globe to help alleviate labor shortages, both in trade occupations and highly skilled professional occupations. Canada Potential immigrants can score points based on previous education (both University and Trade school qualifications). New Zealand immigration authorities assess immigrants chances of success based on their occupation and whether it conforms to what the country deems to be future growth areas and sectors experiencing labor shortages. Other countries, such as Germany and France, require a job offer and other stringent requirements for migrants from outside the European Union.
American workers have been paying a price for at least two decades, because thousands of companies had resisted paying for health care? Instead maimed workers especially in manual forms of labor are carted to the nearest emergency hospital for treatment, so the outcome being the employer is resolved from any responsibility and the taxpayer absorbs the medical debt. WHEN THE AMERICAN PEOPLE FORCE OUR INCOMPETENT POLITICIANS TO INTRODUCE E-VERIFY AS A PERMANENT ADDITION TO THE IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT ARSENAL, ILLEGAL ALIENS WITHOUT JOBS WILL LEAVE IN DROVES. But their must be substantial penalties for–NOT–using E-Verify, such as heavy fines and prison for many violations.
Internal ICE enforcement on a grand scale must become a daily event, as they investigate violations within the working communities. ONE CERTAIN WAY TO HALT THE ILLEGAL ALIEN INVASION, IS BY CHANGING THE CIVIL LAW TO CRIMINAL AS A CLASS ONE FELONY FOR ENTERING AMERICA WITHOUT PERMISSION AS IN SENSIBLE FOREIGN COUNTRIES?
A new poll by Zogby International has found people across our border believe an amnesty that would grant legal status to illegal immigrants would prompt more people to enter the U.S. illegally, the Center for Immigration Studies (CRS) stated. Another new survey conducted by Rasmussen Reports reveals that 56% of Americans say that federal immigration policies encourage illegal immigration, and 64% believe that local law enforcement should conduct raids in places where illegal aliens gather to find work. Only 19% opposed the raids compared to 24% who opposed such raids back in April.
THIS IS THE MAJOR REASON WE NEED A PERMANENT E-VERIFY, FOR EVERY PERSON WHO IS EMPLOYED? NOT JUST FOR A THREE YEAR PERIOD?
Then we have Representative Luis V. Gutierrez, a Democrat from Chicago, has been on the road most weekends since last December trying to beckon people towards forging a favorable immigration reform package. However, it seems –IF–the bill ever becoming a reality while millions of Americans are without work or given up hoping to find a job, the financial impact will be overpowering–as well as insane. VIEW THE LIST OF LAWMAKERS WHO HAVE SIGNED ON TO COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM AT http://tinyurl.com/CIR-letter-to-POTUS. THESE CONGRESSMAN/ WOMEN WANT TO STEAL YOUR JOB AND GIVE IT TO ILLEGAL ALIENS? KEEP THEM EMBOSSED IN YOUR MEMORY AND UNSEAT THEM WHEN THEY COME FORWARD FOR RE-ELECTION.
Call and blast your Senators and Representative at 202-224-3121 in Washington. Jamming the switchboard with your calls, as it is having an outstanding effect of–MILLIONS of angry voters on legislators. THEY ARE BEGINNING TO LISTEN AND REACT? INFORM THEM TO DO THEIR DUTY OR SUFFER THE CONSEQUENCES ON RE-ELECTION DAY? Tell them you want PERMANENT E-Verify for–EVERY WORKER, a secure double layer fence and–REAL–enforcement against sanctuary state policies. Only citizens and legal residents–MUST–be counted in the 2010 Census–ILLEGAL ALIENS MUST BE EXEMPT. Read undisclosed facts, statistics and lawmakers immigration enforcement grades of politicians at NUMBERSUSA. UNEARTH the corruption in government at JUDICIAL WATCH. Your voice is needed to halt OVERPOPULATION and American Worker survival. Demand NO-MORE-AMNESTIES. They should–GO–home and come through the front door, like millions of honest legal immigrants? Report any irregularities in your workplace to ICE. Be a patriotic American, Whistle-Blower and inform of illegal activity to ICE. Your job–COULD BE NEXT?
Posted by: Brittancus | October 26, 2009, 6:02 pm 6:02 pm
I am not sure the Democrats realize what looks good on paper doesn’t translate to the real world.
This has shown to be true again and again.
They are basically trying to fund a massive reform to our health care system (that might be fine depending how they do it)
But the corner stone of it is a IDEA BASED ONLY ON A THESIS WRITTEN DOWN.
They act as if their THEORY has been tested and show other systems as PROOF their system WILL work because it HAS to work.
Throw in the over work and hectic pace they put on themselves and the pressure they are facing.
Does anyone have concerns with this on a purely intellectual level.
Posted by: David from WI | October 26, 2009, 9:46 pm 9:46 pm