The people are speaking up....

[GladiatoRowdy]

Originally Posted by Commodore Yes, although I think such hospitals would still exist.

Really? You actually think that someone who is, let's say, shot in the stomach should be turned away to bleed to death on the sidewalk of the ER because they cannot afford to pay?

Should people be required to pull out their credit card or insurance information before EMTs help someone when an ambulance is called?

If rates cannot be set based on the health risk of the customer, then either rates will go up or coverage will be curtailed, for everyone in the pool. That's certainly not the same insurance one had before.

Rates are set on the health risk in the pool. Banning the practice of denying based on preexisting conditions will increase rates unless the pool is expanded to include everyone, including people who are currently healthy but not paying premiums.

It is exactly the same insurance everyone had before, there are just more people in the pool.

No, the mandate means the risk pool is no longer voluntary. Rates will go up for all if people with greater health risks cannot be charged higher premiums.

Not if millions of currently healthy people are required to pay into the system. It is those millions that will keep the costs down when insurance companies are required to cover anyone who asks.

The costs are always borne by some taxpayer, in this case in the form of higher premiums.

The costs are currently borne by the taxpayer because we allow people to go without insurance, but require hospitals to treat them even if they are irresponsible and don't carry insurance.

The mandate assures that people will not try to game the system by waiting until they get sick to buy insurance. Are you OK with people gaming the system and passing on the costs to the rest of us?

[rhadamanthus]

Originally Posted by pgabriel behind closed doors, laughable, you know exactly who Obama met with unlike the previous administration. you'r all speculation.

Ummmm what? We do not know who exactly he met with, and the one's we do know about only were revealed AFTER THE FACT - just like Cheney. There is no speculation here - this was confirmed by Kirkpatrick.

we know senators came out immediately against the public option. that's the facts

Yes. And some were in support of it. The idea was considerably popular with the public. We don't know how it would have played out because it was never attempted - which is no surprise, because it was killed way before any "real" vote was ready to be taken.

There is no speculation from me, just the facts:

1) Obama, et. al. met with industry lobbyists and they left assured that the public option was dead.
2) Pelosi/Reid/Obama played the blame game on why the public option was never included, even though 1) had already taken place.
3) Consequently it was never up for a vote.

Assuming that it would not have passed, while certainly plausible, is inherently speculation, since it never was an option legitimately up for vote.

I don't think you understand what the word "speculation" means.

And let's be clear: Obama campaigned on the public option despite his claims to the contrary. One can waffle over the verbage ad nauseum, but at a minimum this represents a true "flip-flop".

And more:

Despite the recent surge of support in the Senate for a government-run health insurance option, President Obama chose not to include one of the most popular elements of reform in the plan he is presenting to a bipartisan group of lawmakers Thursday. The Obama plan explicitly bridges the differences between Senate and House legislation on issues both large and small, but on the public option -- which is included in the House bill, but not in the Senate's -- Obama is entirely silent. Last week, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius told MSNBC's Rachel Maddow that Obama would "absolutely" fight for a public option if Senate leadership decided to go for it. "[I]f it's part of the decision of leadership to move forward, absolutely," Sebelius said. "The president said from the outset he thought that was a great way to provide cost reduction and competition moving forward, but if that is not the choice of the majority moving forward, I think there are other ways to get there." Since then, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said he would work with his colleagues to find the votes needed for it; Sen. Charles Schumer (N.Y.), the third ranking Democrat, pushed for it to be included; and Sen. Bob Menendez (N.J.), chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, joined in the call as well. But neither that nor the public option's consistently strong appeal in public-opinion polls was enough to persuade Obama to get behind it. Indeed, after months of watching Obama say generally that he supports the public option while doing little to see it implemented into law, backers of the idea were unsurprised it was left out of his final offer. "We didn't expect one," said Darcy Burner, head of the Progressive Caucus Policy Foundation. Story continues below Last week's surge had fired up a demoralized Democratic base, giving the health care reform effort an extra push as Obama tried to drag it across the finish line. But if the final bill is to include a public option, leaders in Congress and outside organizations advocating on its behalf will need to do it without Obama. "Congress and the people of the United States will have to lead in truly taking on the insurance companies," Burner said.

[pgabriel]

Originally Posted by rhadamanthus Ummmm what? We do not know who exactly he met with, and the one's we do know about only were revealed AFTER THE FACT - just like Cheney. There is no speculation here - this was confirmed by Kirkpatrick.

Obama revealed the list of Health Care officials he met with, unfortunately it took some pressure but he did, Cheney never said who he met with.

Yes. And some were in support of it. The idea was considerably popular with the public. We don't know how it would have played out because it was never attempted - which is no surprise, because it was killed way before any "real" vote was ready to be taken.

democratic senators in conservative states, joe lieberman, were never going to vote for a public option. lieberman being a jerk, senators in southern states not wanting to be labeled socialists.

[rhadamanthus]

Originally Posted by pgabriel Obama revealed the list of Health Care officials he met with, unfortunately it took some pressure but he did, Cheney never said who he met with.

The only one I see mentioned is Chip Kahn. Link?

And to the point - your argument here has shifted to. The meeting was certainly not publically advertised or the minutes published. This was a back-room deal. Even if he reveals the participants it does not change the fact that the meeting took place - a meeting that Cheney certainly would have endorsed as policy.

democratic senators in conservative states, joe lieberman, were never going to vote for a public option. lieberman being a jerk, senators in southern states not wanting to be labeled socialists.

Again, you are missing the point and changing the argument (not to mention still not understanding the meaning of the word "speculation").

OBAMA ET. AL. KILLED THE PUBLIC OPTION HIMSELF IN CONJUNCTION WITH LOBBYIST EFFORTS.

The senators, who might have killed it, WERE NEVER GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY.

[rhadamanthus]

Miles Mogulescu:

Progressives need to have a sophisticated and nuanced relationship with elected Democrats. After the 2008 elections, too many progressive organizations demobilized believing their job was simply to take orders from the White House to support Obama's agenda, whatever it was. That was a mistake. It's equally a mistake for progressives to overreact in the opposite direction and think they can abandon electoral politics and do nothing to prevent the Republicans from regaining power. What's needed is a powerful grassroots progressive movement to force elected officials to do the right thing more often and to counter-balance the power of big money in politics. The periods of progressive change in American politics, like the Progressive Era, The New Deal, and the Great Society, have come when strong progressive movements have forced elites and elected officials to enact somewhat progressive legislation.

[SamFisher]

Originally Posted by rhadamanthus The only one I see mentioned is Chip Kahn. Link? Again, you are missing the point and changing the argument (not to mention still not understanding the meaning of the word "speculation"). OBAMA ET. AL. KILLED THE PUBLIC OPTION HIMSELF IN CONJUNCTION WITH LOBBYIST EFFORTS. The senators, who might have killed it, WERE NEVER GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY.

Not reviving it after it was already dead and they were in the much trickier endgame of reconciliation =/ killing it.

[rhadamanthus]

Originally Posted by SamFisher Not reviving it after it was already dead and they were in the much trickier endgame of reconciliation =/ killing it.

There was never any intention to revive it or even bring it to the table originally. The deal was already made.

[pgabriel]

Originally Posted by rhadamanthus The only one I see mentioned is Chip Kahn. Link? And to the point - your argument here has shifted to. The meeting was certainly not publically advertised or the minutes published. This was a back-room deal. Even if he reveals the participants it does not change the fact that the meeting took place - a meeting that Cheney certainly would have endorsed as policy.

I'm not shifting the argument, the standard is ridiculous for Obama to reveal every conversation he's had.

Again, you are missing the point and changing the argument (not to mention still not understanding the meaning of the word "speculation"). OBAMA ET. AL. KILLED THE PUBLIC OPTION HIMSELF IN CONJUNCTION WITH LOBBYIST EFFORTS. The senators, who might have killed it, WERE NEVER GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY.

what do you mean they were never given the opportunity. have you ever seen school house rock's "I'm just a bill", bills are created in the house and senate. they are passed up to be signed. if they wanted to put a public option in there they could have.

[rhadamanthus]

Originally Posted by pgabriel I'm not shifting the argument, the standard is ridiculous for Obama to reveal every conversation he's had.

No more complaints about Cheney from you then, right?

what do you mean they were never given the opportunity. have you ever seen school house rock's "I'm just a bill", bills are created in the house and senate. they are passed up to be signed. if they wanted to put a public option in there they could have.

Uh - yeah. And they didn't, because Obama and the democrat leadership had already made the deal. Otherwise, the circular logic from the senate and house makes no sense. Obama's sudden silence (see above) also becomes clear in light of this. I'm really surprised how hard this is to understand. Preconceived notions?

[pgabriel]

Originally Posted by rhadamanthus No more complaints about Cheney from you then, right?

we don't even know who cheney met with.

I'm not going through the circle again, blame obama if you want. he's not a mob boss.

[rhadamanthus]

Pgabs is not changing the argument folks!

Originally Posted by pgabs behind closed doors, laughable, you know exactly who Obama met with unlike the previous administration. you'r all speculation.

No we don't. And the meeting was behind closed doors.

Originally Posted by pgabs Obama revealed the list of Health Care officials he met with, unfortunately it took some pressure but he did, Cheney never said who he met with.

No link yet, but even if it's true, are we really saying that Obama having behind-the-scenes meetings with key industry lobbyists is ok because he gave us the names? All Cheney had to was give the names and "we're cool"?

Originally Posted by pgabs the standard is ridiculous for Obama to reveal every conversation he's had.

So we've gone from "it was not behind closed doors and we know everyone involved" to "hey, you can't expect the man to tell us everything". Nice.

[SamFisher]

Originally Posted by rhadamanthus There was never any intention to revive it or even bring it to the table originally. The deal was already made.

It was on the table and then lieberman killed it. You are saying that if Senator Droopy had voted to in favor of cloture, and the bill passed Obama would have vetoed the bill due to it having a public option?

[rhadamanthus]

Originally Posted by pgabriel we don't even know who cheney met with.

We found out after the fact. Just like with Obama.

On July 18, 2007, the Washington Post reported the names of those involved in the Task Force, including at least 40 meetings with interest groups, most of them from energy-producing industries. Among those in the meetings were James J. Rouse, then vice president of Exxon Mobil and a major donor to the Bush inauguration; Kenneth L. Lay, then head of Enron Corp.; Jack N. Gerard, then with the National Mining Association; Red Cavaney, president of the American Petroleum Institute; and Eli Bebout, an old friend of Cheney's from Wyoming who serves in the state Senate and owns an oil and drilling company.

[rhadamanthus]

Originally Posted by SamFisher It was on the table and then lieberman killed it. You are saying that if Senator Droopy had voted to in favor of cloture, and the bill passed Obama would have vetoed the bill due to it having a public option?

Sorry - table was the wrong word: No intention to bring it to vote. Lieberman provided a fantastic excuse, which is the essence of pgabs' dodging that Obama had already met the lobbyist group and made the deal.

[pgabriel]

Originally Posted by rhadamanthus Pgabs is not changing the argument folks! No we don't. And the meeting was behind closed doors. No link yet, but even if it's true, are we really saying that Obama having behind-the-scenes meetings with key industry lobbyists is ok because he gave us the names? All Cheney had to was give the names and "we're cool"? So we've gone from "it was not behind closed doors and we know everyone involved" to "hey, you can't expect the man to tell us everything". Nice.

what the **** are you talking about, i never said anything more than you know who obama met with

i never said you know what was said, that's the ****ing point you don't know and I don't know

no need to be a ****ing jerk about it

[pgabriel]

Originally Posted by rhadamanthus Sorry - table was the wrong word: No intention to bring it to vote. Lieberman provided a fantastic excuse, which is the essence of pgabs' dodging that Obama had already met the lobbyist group and made the deal.

how does obama meeting with a lobbying group have anything to do with congress intentions

[Major]

[QUOTE=rhadamanthus
No link yet, but even if it's true, are we really saying that Obama having behind-the-scenes meetings with key industry lobbyists is ok because he gave us the names? All Cheney had to was give the names and "we're cool"?[/quote]

Wait - are you suggesting the minutes of every White House meeting should be made public? I don' think even the most hardcore good government groups expect that.


craigletter -

[SamFisher]

Originally Posted by rhadamanthus Sorry - table was the wrong word: No intention to bring it to vote. Lieberman provided a fantastic excuse, which is the essence of pgabs' dodging that Obama had already met the lobbyist group and made the deal.

Your timeline still doesn't work out. Lieberman had already publicly come out against the public option as early as June 12 -and possibly before (haven't done thorough research). As best I can tell, the articles you posted are talking about dealmaking that happened in July. At most you can push the timeline back to contemporaneously with Lieberman's comments if you're being generous.

EDIT: never mind

[Major]

Originally Posted by rhadamanthus We found out after the fact. Just like with Obama.

That was the information that good government groups were looking for in the Cheney situation. The task force was in 2001. Energy policy was formulated and voted on then. We found out who the meetings were with in 2007. All the griping about the Cheney meetings was the interim from 2001 to 2007 when they were secret. The point of knowing who someone meets with is to know who has access and ensure that various viewpoints are being heard (in this case, environmental groups were not being heard). I don't think any good government groups expect officials NOT to meet with anyone or to share the details of the meetings. The idea is to ensure that all the views are properly represented.

In Obama's case, the list of meetings was published long before any vote or even the formulation of the legislation, a few months after the meetings occurred. The meetings did include a variety of viewpoints and stakeholders - insurers, the AMA, the AHA, community hospitals, health systems, big pharma, etc.

Key differences also include that Cheney's list included meetings only with allies and people who stood to benefit from the legislation - in other words, policy could be being formulated to support those groups. In Obama's case, the meetings were with adversaries - people who stood to lose - which means that Obama was working with opposition. Maybe not a major detail, but relevant when it comes to making deals and formulating policy. One is about rewarding supporters; the other is about getting support for legislation.

The problem with your argument still goes back to the fact that all you needed was 51 Senators to publicly voice their support for the public option and they could have forced it into the legislation (the House would happily have included it). If Pelosi/Reid/etc were on board with no-public-option, they would have dropped it long ago, rather than taking all the town hall / tea party criticism that they took fighting for it all the way until the end. Pelosi wouldn't have made her members take a vote on it, etc. It would have been a huge waste of political capital for something they already had agreed to ditch.

[SunsRocketsfan]

Originally Posted by finalsbound amazing the lengths that people will go to vote against their best interests

well your thinking is the problem. Who is to decide what is in their best interest? You? Some politician? someone a thousand miles away who have no idea what each individuals situation is?

such arrogance to think you know what someone's best interest is