Skip to main content

View Diary: Weiner: AHIP Justifies the Public Option (178 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The report accurately reflects (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    slinkerwink, justmy2, dclawyer06

    the industry's intentions, IMO. To kill reform. Is it legitimate in it's methodology or assumptions? No, I don't believe it is. Does whether or not the AHIP report is legitimate make the Baucus bill any better? no.

    Weiner is smartly turning it around to point out the deficiencies in the Baucus bill. The AHIP report basically assumes that insurers will raise their rates because the Baucus bill doesn't make the pool of consumers attractive for them. Which makes the case for providing consumers with a cheap and available alternative.

    •  Smartly legitimizing a BS report (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      askew, jim bow

      You avoided the question.   Of course it reflects the intentions to kill reform.  But two wrongs don't make a right.

      I'm shocked to learn that 1 in 12 Americans do not know that the bird, is in fact, that word.

      by dansac on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 04:36:34 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I should probably stay out of this, but I won't. (0+ / 0-)

      Weiner is just grandstanding -- just as he was when he signed the letter along with another 155 Representatives saying he wouldn't accept the excise tax on high-value plans.  I wish Weiner had more class like Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, who has kept her mouth shut, and not publicly denounced anyone who is heavily involved in the process.  That's what a political grown-up does.

      The truth is that each committee chair with jurisdiction over this bill has gotten their members to cast very, very difficult votes, and each committee chair who has passed legislation should have some say in the final bill.  Democrats and Kossacks at some point At some point, Democrats are going to have to come to terms that each committee will have at least two items from their chairman's bill.  We ought to take the best parts each committee has passed.  With Finance, it's the CBO score -- which means we should keep at least the current excise tax on high-end plans and the MedPAC Commission.  With HELP, it's the minimum level of coverage -- the minimum actuarial value -- a plan must have.  With the House bill, it's their federal Exchange and the rating rules and the rules on the Exchange preventing insurers from cherry-picking the healthy.  I just want to be a grown-up about the bill.  Too many struggling Americans who have only to the government to turn to for help have waited too long.  This bill must pass, and that means compromises.

      jim bow, ASA, MAAA

      by jim bow on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 05:06:30 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (144)
  • Community (68)
  • Elections (42)
  • Bernie Sanders (39)
  • Environment (38)
  • 2016 (38)
  • Hillary Clinton (33)
  • Culture (31)
  • Media (30)
  • Republicans (29)
  • Climate Change (29)
  • Education (24)
  • Spam (23)
  • Congress (23)
  • Barack Obama (22)
  • Civil Rights (22)
  • Labor (22)
  • Science (21)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (21)
  • Texas (20)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site