Public Option Is Back
Health care legislation heading for the Senate floor will give millions of Americans the option of purchasing government-run insurance coverage, Majority Leader Harry Reid announced Monday, although he stopped short of claiming the 60 votes needed to pass a plan steeped in controversy. Reid, D-Nev., said individual states would have the choice of opting out of the program.
They’ve decided to go for it and either win or go down swinging. Russ Feingold was all for it on TV yesterday. The new strategy appears to be “assume it will pass” and hope some fence sitters will jump on the fictionally created momentum and vote for it.
So unfortunately we’ve got to all gear up the tea parties, letters and visits to their offices here the next week. Again.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 26, 2009 at 2117 hrs
So unfortunately we’ve got to all gear up the tea parties, letters and visits to their offices here the next week. Again.
You assume that the popularity contest winners who scribble magic words on pieces of paper actually care what “the people” think. They don’t. They will do what they want, how they want no matter how many sign holding activities people attend.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 27, 2009 at 1158 hrs
The people support the public option. Did you not know that?
Posted by scott on October 27, 2009 at 1626 hrs
Lieberman is out—he will support a filibuster. Snowe is also out now that the public option is back in.
The people support the public option. Did you not know that?
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/10/27/polls-rise-in-public-support-for-government-option/
Forty-eight percent support is not overwhelming—even if it is increasing—especially when there is still forty-two percent opposition.
Posted by hsgbdmama on October 27, 2009 at 1732 hrs
What about these polls?
http://folkbum.blogspot.com/2009/10/vast-majority-of-americans-now.html
Posted by scott on October 27, 2009 at 1908 hrs
I don’t care which polls say what. I do not wish to pay for your healthcare. Can I opt out of the government program and do you advocate men with guns intimidating and forcing me to participate in your system? When your system fails, how many years must I listen to moron popularity contestants promise to reform and fix it? How much more money do greedy people intend to steal from me at the point of a gun to fund their greedy government failures?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 27, 2009 at 1916 hrs
I’m just trying to establish that if congress passes the public option, they are doing the will of the people. Contrary to some remarks above.
Posted by scott on October 27, 2009 at 2012 hrs
I’m just trying to establish that if congress passes the public option, they are doing the will of the people. Contrary to some remarks above.
That’s hard to do since 10 different polls could say 10 different things. When the two sides are within the margin of error then who’s to say who’s winning? It depends which poll and who is reading it.
But like I said, I don’t care what the polls say. I as an individual don’t want it but apparently others with greedy intentions are willing to force me into it at the point of a gun.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 27, 2009 at 2021 hrs
I don’t care which polls say what. I do not wish to pay for your healthcare.
There is no version of the public option, up to and including this one from Reid, which is not paid for by the premiums of plan members. In other words, you won’t be paying for scott’s health care if the public option passes and scott’s on it.
Posted by folkbum on October 27, 2009 at 2043 hrs
Bam!
Posted by scott on October 27, 2009 at 2230 hrs
scott and folkbum:
Do your mommies know you are playing on their computers?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 27, 2009 at 2242 hrs
Our mommies know you just got owned.
Posted by scott on October 27, 2009 at 2246 hrs
Um, except for the fact that the same legislation provides subsidies for those who can’t afford the insurance - including the public option - so taxpayer dollars would indeed be used to help fund it.
Y’all might want to look at the bill as a whole.
Posted by Owen on October 27, 2009 at 2250 hrs
So it’s not the public option that worries you, it’s the subsidies for poor people that bug you?
Posted by scott on October 27, 2009 at 2253 hrs
There are several aspects with which I disagree. I was merely pointing out that you were wrong and don’t own anyone.
Posted by Owen on October 27, 2009 at 2257 hrs
I’m not so sure, Owen. Right now you are paying for these people. You’re paying for the care they get after they’ve neglected their health. Emergency care and otherwise. I’m paying for it, too.
Would you rather:
a) pay for it up front as preventative and routine care, as the subsidies would do
b) pay for them in emergency care, as we are now
c) not pay a red cent for them
Posted by scott on October 27, 2009 at 2301 hrs
Back to my point… are you admitting now that folkbum was incorrect in his assertion that taxpayer dollars wouldn’t go to pay for any of the public option and that your mommy’s perception of people being owned is incorrect?
Posted by Owen on October 27, 2009 at 2304 hrs
We’re mixing arguments here, Owen. The issue at hand was the public option. There is a misperception that the public option is paid for by taxpayers and not premiums. Jay sets the record straight.
If you want to make the case that you’re against subsidizing lower income people for insurance—public or private—that’s fine. But that’s different from saying that you “don’t want to pay for the public option,” which was the claim being made above, if I’m not mistaken.
So, on to my question. Are you against subsidizing the insurance premiums of people who can’t afford it?
Posted by scott on October 27, 2009 at 2312 hrs
There is a misperception that the public option is paid for by taxpayers and not premiums. Jay sets the record straight.
No, he doesn’t. That’s not absolute. The public option would be paid for partially by the taxpayers. I’m waiting for you to stop your immature chest-thumping “you’ve been owned” idiocy.
Posted by Owen on October 27, 2009 at 2315 hrs
I’m waiting for you to stop your immature chest-thumping “you’ve been owned” idiocy.
Right, because you just don’t tolerate that kind of childish taunting here at Boots & Kittens.
The public option would be paid for partially by the taxpayers.
The public option would be no more “paid for” by taxpayers than any private plan bought through the exchange.
Posted by scott on October 27, 2009 at 2318 hrs
My question remains: are you against subsidizing the insurance premiums of people who can’t afford it?
Posted by scott on October 27, 2009 at 2319 hrs
I see that you continue to refuse to admit that you were wrong. And then you choose to engage in more childishness. That’s fine. Have a great night, Scott.
Posted by Owen on October 27, 2009 at 2321 hrs
You raise an interesting point, Owen. And I think I answered it pretty thoughtfully. I also see that you choose not to answer my question. Sleep tight!
Posted by scott on October 27, 2009 at 2323 hrs
You’re playing stupid games, Owen. Jay4Liberty’s comment was quite clearly a conflation of the concepts of the public option and the subsidies, and I was trying to correct that.
The existence of the public option doesn’t add one additional tax dollar to the cost of the reform. In fact, previous versions of the public option (Reid’s hasn’t been scored yet) have received CBO scores that suggest the public option saves money and reduces the overall cost of the bill.
So if you are concerned about the level of tax dollars being spent on health care in this reform bill, then you should be demanding the robust public option that drives down the overall cost of health care reform.
Posted by folkbum on October 28, 2009 at 0653 hrs
Folkbum, the CBO has been consistent in saying that the health care plan would not be deficit-neutral, which means that someone has to pick up the cost.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/56121
Obama has insisted that he wants to sign a health care bill that will not add “one dime” to the deficit. However, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) determined that neither the House version that passed three committees nor one of the Senate versions would be deficit-neutral.
Posted by hsgbdmama on October 28, 2009 at 0725 hrs
There is no version of the public option, up to and including this one from Reid, which is not paid for by the premiums of plan members. In other words, you won’t be paying for scott’s health care if the public option passes and scott’s on it.
I’m pretty sure thats what the government said about social security and medicare. How’s that working out? Do you even have the ability to logically reason?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 28, 2009 at 0800 hrs
the CBO has been consistent in saying that the health care plan would not be deficit-neutral,
That’s not my argument. My argument is that regardless of the overall deficit-neutrality of the bill, a robust public option makes the whole thing cheaper.
And, Doug, I’m just going by what the bills say—which is that the public option is just like any other insurance plan in that its costs must be paid for by the premiums of its members. If you want to argue against imaginary or hypothetical bills that haven’t been written or proposed, go right ahead. It doesn’t change a thing about the ones we talk about here in the real world.
Posted by folkbum on October 28, 2009 at 0831 hrs
From folkbum’s article…
“The numbers are based on oral communications between CBO staff and Pelosi’s office, a Pelosi spokesman said. They do not represent an official CBO estimate.”
Owned.
“Along those lines, the Caucus is also discussing additional ways to bring down the cost of the bill, which was originally scored at $1.1 trillion.”
Owned.
“Members are concerned insurance companies will raise premium prices in an effort to raise money before regulations kick in. He cited the credit card industry as an example.”
Owned
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 28, 2009 at 0957 hrs
I do not wish to pay taxes, higher prices, fees, etc. in order to fund what will be a failing government healthcare plan. Can I opt out and not pay for it or will I be forced at the point of a gun to do so?
Isn’t terrorism the use of intimidation and/or violence in order to achieve social and political goals?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 28, 2009 at 1229 hrs
Jay4Liberty, you keep making this statement in a variety of contexts. You clearly do not understand the nature of living in a society of other human beings. Even in a democracy where everyone gets a vote, it often happens that we are called upon to do things or pay for things that we would not have chosen to were it not for the wishes of our neighbors. Lots of people didn’t want to pay for the Iraq war. Should they be excused from doing so? Of course not.
And ultimately, yes, we are all expected to participate. And, yes, there is always the threat of coercion. If I don’t pay my taxes, I’ll be prosecuted for breaking the law. If I refuse to shovel the snow off my sidewalk, I’ll get a ticket. Even if I do not want to do those things.
Basically, you’re expressing outrage at the very concept of government itself.
Posted by scott on October 28, 2009 at 1350 hrs
(First attempt to post this failed.)
I do not wish to pay taxes, higher prices, fees, etc. in order to fund what will be a failing government healthcare plan.
You are currently paying higher prices and fees to fund what is already a failing mish-mash of private and public services that gets worse results at nearly double the cost than the rest of the world.
If you want to cling desperately to that model, be my guest. I would rather not.
Jason, every iteration of the public option has scored cheaper than versions of the plan without the public option, going back to HR 3200 last spring. In fact, since the Congress Daily article you reference, which was dated 9/26, House plans for reform with public option have been officially scored by the CBO as having cost savings and costing less than $1T. Facts is facts, sir.
Also, this:
“Members are concerned insurance companies will raise premium prices in an effort to raise money before regulations kick in. He cited the credit card industry as an example.”
makes the insurance companies the bad guys, not reformers.
Posted by folkbum on October 28, 2009 at 1616 hrs
Scott, the “very concept of government” is not to micromanage every facet of our lives. We have too much government. The “very concept of government” is not to make sure we never ever get hurt. Life happens, and the government has shown again and again how fallible it is.
Posted by hsgbdmama on October 28, 2009 at 1618 hrs
Terrorism is the use of intimidation and violence to achieve social and political goals.
Voting is giving someone else permission to use intimidation and violence to achieve social and political goals.
Am I missing something, or will people continue to hold on to the fairy tale that without government telling us what to do we’d all perish to a magic sea monster.
Keep throwing out stats about your greedy government programs that do nothing but fail and never live up to their promises. It’s fun watching all you “citizens” argue over the contradiction of good government.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 28, 2009 at 1641 hrs
Shouldn’t you have just gone Galt by now? Seriously, unplug and go. We’ll be fine without you.
Posted by folkbum on October 28, 2009 at 1700 hrs
Scott and Folkbum….
I’ll bet dollars to donuts that both of you are baby boomers and or gen x’ers. The two generations with no concern for anyone but themselves.
I am sick and tired of the prior generations feathering their nests with my current and future tax dollars. You people need to see that we have not been living within our means in this country for decades, because of members of yours and prior generations my generation and I are going to have to live with an economy hampered by the out of control deficit spending done prior.
Enough with the social welfare programs, we already can’t fund SS and Medicare, it is time to deal with the obligations we have already made, not fuss with who else we can buy votes from with the tax dollars of generations future…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 28, 2009 at 1805 hrs
Sorry about the poor grammar and sentence structure there… Got a bit worked up.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 28, 2009 at 1808 hrs
Folkbum says this…
“Seriously, unplug and go. We’ll be fine without you. “
After his cheerleader says this…
“You clearly do not understand the nature of living in a society of other human beings.”
Nice, a tool and his box, with all their caring and compassion and hope and change.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 28, 2009 at 2045 hrs
makes the insurance companies the bad guys, not reformers.
Ah, more compassion for people trying to make a living. Business, profits, earning a living in the private sector… all evil. Grow up.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 28, 2009 at 2047 hrs
Sorry- some of the stuff written on this topic makes my ears bleed reading it.
The congress of the United states has been bought and paid for by the Insurance companies and the defense of these institutions by working folks on this board would be laughable if it weren’t so misguided.
The same people who scream about living within our means in a school district defend an industry-health care- where the price only goes up.
Could anyone in 1992 have imagined spending $500 personally per month on health care insurance-with high deductibles in 2009 and saying that was progress?
We’re told that health care would be rationed. of course -it already is-by the fine folks at BCBS or the 1499 others
There is no other industry like this in the world. No place for its customers to go-easily canceled and pleased if you only got a 8%.bump
Told they might have a competitor-Insurers threaten their customers threaten us with 30% increases
No more
In Teddy Roosevelt’s day-they called it trust busting- only there are 1500 non competitive trusts that provide health care
The heath care industry had its chance- and they blew it with a greed that passeth understanding.
So bring on the public option-as a cautionary tale against an industry that whiz down the back of it’s customers and proceeds to tell them that its raining.
PS- having provided health care for my employee’s for 25 years-and having read countless health Insurance proposals - I have a very expensive PHD-in dealing with health insurers.
Since I’m a liberal- I pay 100% of the cost of health insurance (my choice)
I have no intention of going to the public option for my company- but one must exist-or nothing will change.
This industry deserves competition in the worst way-and if the spineless democrats don"t blink - they will soon get exactly what America is all about:Competition
and when many of these companies go down under the burden of pricing against a government that already has the best coverage in the world- for our military- I will not shed one tear.
They’re just going to get cancelled for a pre-existing (“Greed”) condition
Mark Maley
Health care payment PHDPosted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 29, 2009 at 0054 hrs
Total Entries: 19649
Total Comments: 129787
Most Recent Entry: 02/09/2012 07:41 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 02/09/2012 07:17 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 136
Total anonymous users: 1
Most Recent Visitor on: 02/09/2012 07:44 pm
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).