Skip to main content

I have come to the conclusion that the only way to get any kind of healthcare reform passed at any time in our lifetimes is to simply support a triggered public option.  We cannot have a robust public option that starts without giving insurance companies a chance to cover more people.  I dont like this, but it is the reality.  Insurance companies are simply too powerful not to be given a chance.

We have at least three Democratic or Independent Senators who are vowing to kill any healthcare reform bill that has a public option.  Why are we at the mercy of these three?  I will tell you why.  Like it or not, this is a generally conservative country.  It it always going to be very, very difficult for liberals to get what they want given the political realities.  Getting a triggered public option would be an amazing accomplihment for liberals in this country.

The consequences of not getting a healthcare bill done before the 2010 elections would be disastrous and could well end the Democratic party.  With an absolutely horrendous economy that will not get better anytime soon, Democrats need some type of accomplishment that shows voters that they are able to get things done to avoid getting plucked out of offices at every level of government next year.

Those Democrats who say they will kill any bill with a trigger are just as bad as Republicans.  They would handing Republicans a huge victory that they badly want.  

If it takes a trigger to get healthcare reform through the Senate, I support and so should other Democrats and liberals.  It may be the best thing that we can possibly get.  

Originally posted to LarryKrebbs on Sat Nov 28, 2009 at 08:01 PM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

    •  Why can't we accept the trigger now. (0+ / 0-)

      Then in the next bill insert an amendment to remove the trigger.

      Let's remember that we should care about people even after they're born. - A. Grayson

      by IL JimP on Sat Nov 28, 2009 at 08:07:26 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Because by then the trigger won't have been (0+ / 0-)

        pulled, and as a consequence, the plan will be considered politically unviable and will fold. What next bill?

        "Dawn-sniffing revenant / Plodder through midnight rain / Question me again." - Seamus Heaney

        by mahakali overdrive on Sun Nov 29, 2009 at 12:56:24 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Guess what? Single Payer WORKS! (0+ / 0-)

          Imagine that!

          The one thing that works is the one they DON'T want to discuss.

          Hell, they will gladly discuss ANYTHING but that!

          How we can easily pay for health care for all!
          Important: We would pay FAR LESS than we are paying now

          This is from:
          The Single Payer FAQ at PNHP.org

          "Won’t this raise my taxes?

          Currently, about 60% of our health care system is already financed by public money: federal and state taxes, property taxes and tax subsidies. These funds pay for Medicare, Medicaid, the VA, coverage for public employees (including police and teachers), elected officials, military personnel, etc. There are also hefty tax subsidies to employers to help pay for their employees’ health insurance. About 20% of health care is financed by all of us individually through out-of-pocket payments, such as co-pays, deductibles, the uninsured paying directly for care, people paying privately for premiums, etc. Private employers only pay 21% of health care costs. In all, it is a very "regressive" way to finance health care, in that the poor pay a much higher percentage of their income for health care than higher income individuals do.

          A universal public system would be financed in the following way: The public funds already funneled to Medicare and Medicaid would be retained. The difference, or the gap between current public funding and what we would need for a universal health care system, would be financed by a payroll tax on employers (about 7%) and an income tax on individuals (about 2%).

          The payroll tax would replace all other employer expenses for employees’ health care, which would be eliminated. The income tax would take the place of all current insurance premiums, co-pays, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket payments.

          For the vast majority of people, a 2% income tax is less than what they now pay for insurance premiums and out-of-pocket payments such as co-pays and deductibles, particularly if a family member has a serious illness.

          It is also a fair and sustainable contribution.

          Currently, 47 million people have no insurance and hundreds of thousands of people with insurance are bankrupted when they have an accident or illness.

          Employers who currently offer no health insurance would pay more, but those who currently offer coverage would, on average, pay less.

          For most large employers, a payroll tax in the 7% range would mean they would pay slightly less than they currently do (about 8.5%). No employer, moreover, would gain a competitive advantage because he had scrimped on employee health benefits. And health insurance would disappear from the bargaining table between employers and employees.

          Of course, the biggest change would be that everyone would have the same comprehensive health coverage, including all medical, hospital, eye care, dental care, long-term care, and mental health services. Currently, many people and businesses are paying huge premiums for insurance so full of gaps like co-payments, deductibles and uncovered services that it would be almost worthless if they were to have a serious illness."

          Did you know that STRESS CAUSES OBESITY? That right there should be enough of an argument for single payer..

          by Andiamo on Sun Nov 29, 2009 at 07:37:25 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  We don't need the trigger to be pulled. (0+ / 0-)

          We could just amend it out in a bill that Senators would find very difficult to filibuster.

          Let's remember that we should care about people even after they're born. - A. Grayson

          by IL JimP on Sun Nov 29, 2009 at 10:54:02 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Urban Institute said the same - Volsky (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sebastianguy99, sturunner

      Igor Volsky posted a blog on Think Progress with a link to the Urban Institute article.  The main point?  Don't pass a weak public option when you could get a trigger with a strong, robust, cost-cutting public option.

      Hold the insurance companies accountable and don't allow them to turn the public option into a weakened plan that costs more, covers only a tiny fraction of Americans, and allows insurance companies to dump people off their rolls.

      "It is a serious thing to live in a society of possible gods and goddesses." - CS Lewis, Weight of Glory

      by Benintn on Sat Nov 28, 2009 at 08:35:50 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  You have come to the same WRONG conclusion (8+ / 0-)

    as about 40 other sheep on this website.

    Butch up and grow a pair will ya?

    "Settle down there, Kossacks. If you're not careful you could break AHIP"

    by Detroit Mark on Sat Nov 28, 2009 at 08:04:21 PM PST

    •  Larry is pretty opinionated. He is no sheep. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jaywillie, v2aggie2, sturunner

      Cold hearted orb/That rules the night/Removes the colours From our sight/Red is gray and/Yellow white/But we decide/Which is right/And/Which is an Illusion

      by KingofSpades on Sat Nov 28, 2009 at 08:05:29 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  If electing Democrats (16+ / 0-)

        means watching critical issue after critical issue lined up, and compromised away when we have complete control of all 3 houses and tools like reconciliation left in the closet with the safety on...

        ...then electing Democrats is as big a mistake as electing republicans.

        Paradigm Shift.

        "Settle down there, Kossacks. If you're not careful you could break AHIP"

        by Detroit Mark on Sat Nov 28, 2009 at 08:07:37 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  You would rather get nothing? (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jaywillie, v2aggie2, sturunner

          Just sit and kill reform just because of "priciples".  

        •  But we don't have complete control (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Benintn, LarryKrebbs

          If electing Democrats means watching critical issue after critical issue lined up, and compromised away when we have complete control of all 3 houses and tools like reconciliation left in the closet with the safety on...

          We've got 59 in the senate plus Joe Lieberman.  And when I say "we" I just mean those are the Democrats.  Several of those Dems are from very conservative states and are themselves fairly conservative Democrats.  Liberal Democrats do not have complete control of the senate. I don't share the diarist's concern that failure on this bill could "end the Democratic Party", but I am certainly worried about what failure will mean for the 2010 elections.  I don't support a trigger but I am willing to accept it over nothing at all.  I consider any bill that comes out of this process to be just a beginning in the journey to reform our health care system anyway.  Once it's in place it can be improved and built upon to improve it.

          As much as it sucks, the legislative process is a bitch.  If we had the sorts of majorities that FDR was working with then huge, sweeping reforms accomplished in short order would be possible. But we don't have that.  We've got 59 plus Joe Leiberman.

          "You must be the change you wish to see in the world." -Gandhi

          by Triscula on Sat Nov 28, 2009 at 08:23:47 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  You are making a false assumption (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            tikkun, SuperMom, Dopeman

            that the country will necessarily answer these Democrats' failure by re-electing republicans.

            It's a fool's assumption.  This country HATES republicans.  It wants what it was promised.  When the polls drop .. it's because we're giving away everything we've had in front of us.  Not because the country is just going to vote for whoever has the least blood on their nose!

            "Settle down there, Kossacks. If you're not careful you could break AHIP"

            by Detroit Mark on Sat Nov 28, 2009 at 08:26:11 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  This country will vote for Republicans on a dime (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Triscula

              Just look at what happened in Virginia and New Jersey, which is a heavily Democratic state.  This country might hate Republicans, but at least they see them winning fights and respect them.  

            •  Sorry. I disagree. (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              sidnora, v2aggie2, Benintn, nickrud

              I remember 1994 too well.  We need to begin the process of reforming our system with a successful bill that lays the foundation for federal intervention in our system of health care delivery.  

              When the polls drop .. it's because we're giving away everything we've had in front of us.  Not because the country is just going to vote for whoever has the least blood on their nose!

              The legislative process is ugly.  The fact is that we simply do not have the sort of majority in the senate that is necessary to ram through whatever progressive Dems want.  We just don't have it.  I'm not happy about it either but it's simply the reality that we have to work with right now.  As a result of that reality we will not get a bill that would make progressives cheer.  Now, given that situation, what's the next move after the passage of this bill?  In my opinion the next move is pushing for further reform in future legislation.  This will not be a sprint.  It's a marathon.

              "You must be the change you wish to see in the world." -Gandhi

              by Triscula on Sat Nov 28, 2009 at 08:37:53 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Mark, dude, we've got 58 + Sanders. (0+ / 0-)

              That's it.

              A filibuster only takes 41.

              Saxby Chambliss got re-elected.  Now, despite the defection of Specter, we're still stuck at 59 votes, which is not enough for cloture.

              "It is a serious thing to live in a society of possible gods and goddesses." - CS Lewis, Weight of Glory

              by Benintn on Sat Nov 28, 2009 at 08:40:13 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  Wrong. Democrats are being held captive (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          tikkun

          by a tyranny of the minority.

          40 + 1 is all the Republicans need to block reform.

          They're targeting Joe Lieberman (who, need I remind you, is not a Democrat) and Blanche Lincoln (who faces a tough re-election battle in a state where the Democratic Party Chair was murdered in his office last summer).

          It's one thing to hold the line.  It's another thing entirely to allow Joe Lieberman to be the reason for Democrats to lose ground, seats, and leadership.

          There is a difference between GOP and Democrats.  And if you're too thick in the skull to recognize that, then at least have the good sense to shut up.

          "It is a serious thing to live in a society of possible gods and goddesses." - CS Lewis, Weight of Glory

          by Benintn on Sat Nov 28, 2009 at 08:38:33 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Wait a minute. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            evangeline135

            41 Senators can block a bill for a while. Filibusters are still only temporary though. If you deny consent to a "virtual filibuster" they have to do that reading-from-the-dictionary thing all night, and eventually they'll run out of steam.

            •  yeah, i hadn't thought of (0+ / 0-)

              that.  everyone is acting like a filibuster is THE END point, but it has only ever been a delaying tactic, right?  What if the repubs stand on the floor reading the phone book for a month or two...what would that do to public opinion on them? :)

      •  It's rather remarkable (0+ / 0-)

        how 'Larry' here registered right around the time UpstateDem got banned.  There's also another possible sockpuppet alias, 'bourbonblue'.

    •  Dude - what's your solution? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      v2aggie2

      How exactly do you plan to swing Lieberman?  Snowe?  Anyone??

      "It is a serious thing to live in a society of possible gods and goddesses." - CS Lewis, Weight of Glory

      by Benintn on Sat Nov 28, 2009 at 08:36:19 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Carper's proposed "hammer" compromise (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Benintn

    of triggered robust public option (but allowing states to opt-in manually regardless) is fairly reasonable.  If we can get Snowe on board with this, Lieberman's threats will be meaningless.

    Cold hearted orb/That rules the night/Removes the colours From our sight/Red is gray and/Yellow white/But we decide/Which is right/And/Which is an Illusion

    by KingofSpades on Sat Nov 28, 2009 at 08:04:40 PM PST

  •  In. A pig's. Eye. (0+ / 0-)

    "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." --Mohandas Gandhi

    by homogenius on Sat Nov 28, 2009 at 08:07:08 PM PST

  •  Since the trigger will never be pulled (11+ / 0-)

    why not go for the gusto and get single payer in on the trigger.  Either way it will be meaningless.

  •  cuz of this diary (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Detroit Mark

    The person who says it cannot be done should not interrupt the person who is doing it.

    by ohmyheck on Sat Nov 28, 2009 at 08:16:02 PM PST

  •  nobody wants a trigger (7+ / 0-)

    otherwise we would have triggered defense spending.  Trigger Afghanstan troop deployment.  Triggered bank bailouts.  When they put triggers in those type of bills wake me.  Until then, no triggers.

  •  Good luck convincing us to support a trigger (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tikkun

    These guys are still talking about single payer.  Maybe in another 20 years....

    I think they are tired of being walked on by the right also and tired of bowing to them... now as the minority.

  •  Please explain to me - - (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tikkun, GiveNoQuarter, fidel

    Okay I can be a bit daft sometimes so can someone please explain how a trigger will help someone in my situation:
    Uninsured, preexisting condition (cancer) self-employed must shop on my own and am turned down by everyone. Not poor enough and got denied for Medi-Cal recently and don't qualify for ANY state or federal programs.  

    If a trigger is offered, will there be anything to help people right now?  Anything?  Or are we still left with just ER's and a free clinic every now and then? Or in my case, impending bankruptcy.  

    Someone please explain how a trigger will help people?

    I had cancer, I can't get insurance, if my cancer comes back? The Plan: Walk It Off!

    by ArtemisBSG on Sat Nov 28, 2009 at 08:27:33 PM PST

    •  You're still eligible for the Exchange (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sulthernao

      and in every bill with a PO the PO is only one policy on that exchange. You'll also have a subsidy to pay for the policy, which cannot be denied to you. Denials for pre-existing conditions will be illegal; this provision is independent of the PO itself.

      •  But the prices in the "exchange" are going to be (0+ / 0-)

        So high that people cannot afford them, at all. Look at it this way, the prices in COBRA are the unsubsidized prices of often crappy insurance. Most people can't afford that. (Thats why they are subsidizing it until after they get a bill passed)

        If they can't afford COBRA, they CERTAINLY wont afford a "public option" that is unsubsidized. It will have to be at least semi decent "insurance" or it will be dangerously inadequate, like the insurance many people have now. It will be far more expensive than even that.

        Look, we can't get around the need to eliminate those two middle layer the insurance companies and the brokers if we want quality care.

        Did you know that STRESS CAUSES OBESITY? That right there should be enough of an argument for single payer..

        by Andiamo on Sun Nov 29, 2009 at 08:04:12 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Here's what the trigger (0+ / 0-)

      does for you: "die quickly."

      Fascism is capitalism in decay. -- Vladimir Lenin

      by GiveNoQuarter on Sat Nov 28, 2009 at 10:18:28 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  How does having a triggered PO (0+ / 0-)

        cut him off from insurance and put him in the "Die Quickly" category?

        •  I'm a she actually :) (0+ / 0-)

          Artemis, twin sister of Apollo -

          Anywho, that was my beef with the trigger, the trigger is supposed to be a "let's wait and see how bad it gets THEN help people."  At least that's what it looks like to me.  

          Waiting for it to get worse than it is to trigger a public option.  That's what I don't get, it's bad right now, for 47+ million of us.   Yes we are dying, some more quickly than others.  I had indolent NHL which means I'm not going to die tomorrow, but I need follow-up care to check for tumors and routine blood work and scans.  I can't afford those so I wait, and wait, and wait.  

          A trigger just sounds like "kicking the can" as someone stated far above.  It still means I have to wait till I'm really sick and go to an ER, but by then a tumor that could have been treated in stage I could be a stage IV by the time I go to the ER.  

          Sigh, I'm just frustrated, scared and massively embarrassed when I go to a docs office and the first question they always ask is "What type of insurance do you have?"  Saying you have none and can't pay them up front, it's humiliating, I like to pay my bills, I like to pay for services rendered, it's not like I want to rack up medical bills but having a deadly illness is scary.

          I had cancer, I can't get insurance, if my cancer comes back? The Plan: Walk It Off!

          by ArtemisBSG on Sat Nov 28, 2009 at 10:50:35 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  the trigger is a canard and (0+ / 0-)

            I posted FLD action on this thread with 13 constructive points for reform that your/our congresscritters should be supporting

            It feels like all the people that want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans. - Jon Stewart

            by anyname on Sun Nov 29, 2009 at 02:55:53 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  I should read the user names more carefully :) (0+ / 0-)

            I prefer that a public option is in the bill that's passed; but the provisions that provide for subsidies and guaranteed acceptance are what you need. Which are not provided by the PO.

    •  Considering that the public option is going to be (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ArtemisBSG

      delayed coming out till what - 2013? Maybe we should just call it a "trigger" and make sure it triggers by 2013 anyway.

      If the opposition can be "clever" and kill reform through a "trigger that never pulls" why can't we be equally "clever" and force reform through a "trigger that is guaranteed to be pulled"?

      If concession after concession after concession isn't enough at that point for our three stubborn "Democrats," then it is time to go nuclear and tell them to put up or shut up and kick them to the curb.

  •  In our LIFETIMES? That's exaggerated... (0+ / 0-)

    ...the trigger mechanism, if all of these billions of trial balloons coming out do indeed mean that's what we're getting, should be virtually MANDATORY to some degree. A graduated trigger.

    For instance, it should just be assumed that some public option for the poorest WILL be triggered unless the health insurance industry decides to give away health care. It should be a 99.9% certainty that the trigger will be triggered for them. And then maybe less certainty as you go up the ladder.

    And "all or nothing" trigger will likely never actually be triggered, for the same reason that current HCR is stalled. Industry is too strong in Congress to allow such a large change.

    it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses

    by Addison on Sat Nov 28, 2009 at 08:28:27 PM PST

  •  Dude are you bi-polar? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tikkun

    No offense, but most diarists stay pretty consistent with their views barring some shocking event.  Up until now, you've been staunchly opposed to Obama and his healthcare accomplishments, stating if he weren't like Truman and FDR and LBJ he would have had it through by now, never minding the facts that all three of those presidents had more democrats in the senate and a more liberal republican party.  We have neither, so I guess I'm sort of confused by the turnaround.

    •  He hasnt had any healthcare accomplishments (0+ / 0-)

      When was a healthcare bill signed into law?  I have been opposed to Obama because he is unable to lead.  Because of his inability to lead, we are going to have to support the best healthcare bill that we can get.  If he wanted to, he could have pushed hard for a trigger-less public option, but chose not to.  

      •  Really, you still think that? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        v2aggie2

        Sigh.  I was afraid I lost you for a moment.  SCHIP was signed, and let me put it to you honestly, if this thing passes, it will be the greatest domestic accomplishment by any President since LBJ.  Perhaps greater, because it affects more people.

        Now, you say if he pushed for a trigger less public option, he would have had it, please explain how.  

  •  STOP SAYING WE HAVE 60 Democratic (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Benintn

    votes.  

  •  Cool down, I think there will a public option (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tikkun, Benintn

    but not in the Senate bill. The senate will pass something, maybe without PO and then PO will be added in the reconciliation process. That's what I think will happen and why Pelosi passed PO in the first place.
    Pelosi and Reid are not idiots. They know that without a mandate, you cannot get rid of PE, but if you pass a mandate and no PO, you are surrendering everything to the insurance industry and that will hit the dems hard for years to come.

    Hope I'm right,

    •  That was kind of the point... (0+ / 0-)

      I remember months ago, Jim Clyburn saying that a trigger might work in conference, and that we could pull something together that would allow certain pilot states to start the process with PO (sooner, i.e., on day one) and have the trigger for other states to kick in by 2014 if certain criteria were met.

      "It is a serious thing to live in a society of possible gods and goddesses." - CS Lewis, Weight of Glory

      by Benintn on Sat Nov 28, 2009 at 08:51:03 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I really don't know where this silly argument (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      GiveNoQuarter

      is coming from.  The merged version of the bill from both houses needs to again be voted on and could be blocked with a filibuster.

  •  It's a "generally conservative" senate. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    catfood

    Because the rural states are overrepresented in that legislative body.

    Otherwise, I tend to agree with you.

  •  i agree (0+ / 0-)

    the dems who would make it a desert and call it peace are the same ones whom would kill the trigger public option for nothing.

  •  The diarist is making sense. This conversation (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    v2aggie2, nickrud, LarryKrebbs

    has been going on here for six months.  Some argue that reform is a continuous process, and the most important thing is to put down a marker for the future.  The opposing point of view continues to demand the public option, despite the fact that we are about 3-4 votes short in the Senate.  Any suggestion that we have to pay attention to the political calendar is met with threats to hold their breath until they turn blue.  It's time for Democrats to grow up and be the governing party.  Let's pass the best bill we can, and then take our results to the country in 2010 and give the voters a choice.  If the voters prefer the public option, then they know where to lay the blame, and the politicians will get on the right side of the issue.

    "Nothing is more powerful than an idea whose time has come." Victor Hugo

    by lordcopper on Sat Nov 28, 2009 at 09:05:46 PM PST

  •  Okay guys, I think the whole legislative......... (0+ / 0-)

    is getting a little confusing.  So after the second Senate 60-votes, it goes to the Reconciliation/Conference?  Then after the Conference, it goes for final passage which requires 50+ votes?

    I'm I right?

    If I'm wrong, can anyone explain the navigation of the bill?

  •  How would a trigger (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    slinkerwink

    assure passage?  Are we just taking Lieberman and company at their word suddenly?  Why should I think they'll vote for HCR with a public option + trigger?

    I think it is pretty clear all the trigger talk is just so much smoke, what they really oppose is reform itself.  If you offer up a trigger, then they'll just shift their position again and demand some other impossible thing.  They haven't paid any price so far for such moves, why would they stop now?

  •  No to a triggered state-based co-op. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    GiveNoQuarter

    Fuck that shit.

    I work full-time with the FDL team on health reform thanks to your donations.

    by slinkerwink on Sat Nov 28, 2009 at 10:06:50 PM PST

    •  No to everything in the bill? -nt (0+ / 0-)
      •  Some parts of the bill are great (0+ / 0-)

        but there are so many loopholes written into the bill, and if there's no public option in it, or a triggered public option that's in it, I'll stop supporting the bill.

        I work full-time with the FDL team on health reform thanks to your donations.

        by slinkerwink on Sat Nov 28, 2009 at 10:15:32 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  The public option that's in the Senate bill (0+ / 0-)

          is little more than a showpiece already. It's effects are so trivial that if having a real PO is your breaking point you might as well pack it in now.

          •  Good point. (0+ / 0-)

            The Senate bill is already watered down crap.

            One thing I'm forward to though is destroying Blanche Lincoln.  Even if it means supporting the biggest teabagger in the world in the general, it will be worth it to send a message.  Scare the piss out of the rest of them and they'll fall in line.

            Fascism is capitalism in decay. -- Vladimir Lenin

            by GiveNoQuarter on Sat Nov 28, 2009 at 10:39:07 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  The kind of bill that you want is not possible (0+ / 0-)

          The best thing that we could likely get in reality without substantial help from the White House is probably more tax deductability for purchasing private health insurance.  That is basically the "middle ground" in this country when it comes to healthcare.  Getting a triggered public option would be huge and one of the biggest liberal accomplishments since Medicare.  

          •  There are triggers and triggers (0+ / 0-)

            many have solid evidence that triggers can be un-triggerable.

            I'm not convinced that the Senate's bill with the PO cut out would not be the biggest improvement in medical care since 1965.

  •  Somehow we lost focused on the real reason (0+ / 0-)

    why healthcare was needed.  To insure the uninsured, something the health insurance industry had no plan in doing. Therefore it's none of their F*#%ing business what we do with our tax dollars for public safety.  Unfortunately the argument gets shifted from the uninsured to the insured losing their healthcare due to......... an honest explanation the industry refuses to admit.  Public Option does not refuse anyone willing to buy into it and is why these bastards along with Faux media distorting the gullible viewer.

    Our president could not have been more clear in his health care speech.

    It's up to us to remover every one in the house who voted against this bill.

  •  Idea (0+ / 0-)

    Add a poll to your post and rework the headline to indicate it.  

    I'll bet it takes off.

  •  Does anyone know why Lieberman voted (0+ / 0-)

    for cloture to start debate?  If you think about it, it doesn't make sense.  He could have handed a huge victory to the Republicans and stopped debate of the bill entirely.  But he didn't.  Snowe doesn't like the bill and she voted against starting debate too.  So why not LIeberman?

    I think the answer is : he is not willing to go it alone in stopping the bill.  When it was clear that Lincoln and Nelson et al were going to vote to start debate, he was unwilling to be the ONE person standing in the way.  What follows from this is that I think he WON'T be willing to filibuster if he doesn't have Lincoln with him on it.  She is the key.  Snowe is apparently not enough cover for him (at least going by this first cloture showdown).  SO, if Lincoln can be persuaded to vote cloture on final passage, won't Joe?  After all, there will be even more pressure and media attention on that vote than on this last one.

    Just can't figure him out.

  •  could support these constructive measures (0+ / 0-)

          1. A minimum medical loss ratio for insurance companies mandating that they spend at least 90 cents of every dollar they take in as premiums on health care. This is based on the crazy idea that health insurance should insure people’s health instead of corporate profits.
          2. Turn all health insurances companies into non-profits. Most countries that are not single payer (Switzerland, Germany, Belgium) require all basic health insurance plans to be non-profits.
          3. On the new exchanges, create a much stronger risk adjustment mechanism, like in the Netherlands, to encourage competition on quality and cost effectiveness, instead of the cherry picking of healthy customers.
          4. Allow undocumented immigrants to buy health insurance on the new exchange with their own money. It will increase the size of the risk pool and reduce the cost of uncompensated care in this country.
          5. On the new exchanges, use more tightly defined benefit packages, and define plan levels based on deductible and copay size, instead of actuarial value. This will simplify comparison shopping and encourage the selection of more cost-effective HMO’s, instead of PPO’s
          6. Allow for drug re-importation. People in every other first world country pay much less for the same prescription drugs. Let Americans buy these cheaper drugs from Canada or Europe.
          7. Allow Medicare to directly negotiate lower drug prices. Medicare Part D was one of the biggest corporate giveaways in American history. Allow Medicare to use its size (as the VA system does) to directly negotiate for lower drug prices for seniors.
          8. Eliminate direct-to-consumer drug advertising. It only increases the unnecessary use of medicine.
          9. Follow the FTC recommendation by providing shorter exclusivity periods for biosimilars. The current bills create an extremely long 12-year exclusivity period. Going with the FTC recommendations will  increase the availability of much cheaper generic versions of life saving biologics.
         10. Create a robust public option that can use Medicare rates and Medicare’s provider network.
         11. Create a single provider reimbursement negotiator like basically every other industrialized nation. The lack of this is the single biggest reason why, as a nation, we pay several times what other countries do for the same procedure.
         12. Create a fully integrated, government-run health care HMO, based on the VA health care system, which would be an insurance option for all Americans.
         13. Finally, adopt a Medicare-for-all single-payer system for everyone in the country.

       These ideas are not radical or untested. All of them (except the exclusionary period for biosimilars) are being used in this country and/or other countries to reduce cost. These are all proven cost control solutions. Implementing all or most of these ideas would save our country trillions on health care over the next decade.

       http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/

    It feels like all the people that want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans. - Jon Stewart

    by anyname on Sun Nov 29, 2009 at 02:53:00 AM PST

    •  Insurance companies refuse to even spend 50% (0+ / 0-)

      plus, you left out broker commissions, thats another 20-30% of the end user cost

      All told, often only a VERY small amount gets spent on the actual health care.

      Did you know that STRESS CAUSES OBESITY? That right there should be enough of an argument for single payer..

      by Andiamo on Sun Nov 29, 2009 at 07:47:19 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site