Dems Agree to Drop Government-Run Insurance Option

so, you would entertain upsetting the entire system of checks and balances in order to get rid of agricultural subsidies?

 

What part of "Not at all. Certain states and regions are overrepresented, but the system was designed that way for a reason" was unclear to you? You really need lessons in basic logic and basic reading comprehension.

 

ahh, so you're just kvetching, not actually making an argument or proposing a solution.

it's much clearer now.

 

Please, the next solution you pose or argument you make will be your first.

 

In capitalism, we're all the winner! Congratulations are in order for the insurance companies ... I'll send them a card once I'm done paying off my debt for the toe I broke in 2001.

 

Thus explains Thadeus's career as a gigolo.

 

I'm simply arguing that there's nothing in the constitution (absent overriding a veto) that effectively requires a supermajority to pass legislation, despite your conjecture to the contrary.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...m-set-to-pass-Senate-after-abortion-deal.html

Published: 6:40PM GMT 19 Dec 2009

Obama the Compromised. Just like Copenhagen, this really is watered-down but it does look like it just might pass.

Well, better then nothing.

 

Claiming hollow victories is the Democrat way.

 

I don't have a problem with them claiming victory. its a start.

that being said, if the republicans are going to whine about this watered down legislation passing, then by default it looks like a democratic victory

 

also I don't know what people expect, its not going to get easier to pass any legislation in an election year

 

I'm not optimistic of the start when the current plans will give the healthcare industry more customers, more power and less incentive to cut costs.


I guess one can hope the next generation of landed Congressmen will grow a spine for the national interest.

 

CBO: Health Care Bill Now $871 Billion, Public Option Compromise Does Not Lower Premiums

The soon-to-be amended Senate health care bill will cost $871 billion over 10 years according to a new, long-awaited report by the Congressional Budget Office.

That's about $22 billion more than the bill was originally expected to cost, before the new changes--including nixing the public option--were offered to the bill. Democrats replaced the public option with a new plan to allow national or multi-state, non-profit insurance plans, regulated by the federal government, to sell insurance on state exchanges.

The CBO has concluded that, on average, premiums will be the same as they would have been if the Senate had the public option, but that the public option saved the federal government more money by putting downward pressure on the premiums of low-cost private plans, which will be heavily subsidized.

The bill remains a big deficit slayer--$132 billion in the first 10 years. Over the next 10 years, CBO warns all estimates are very uncertain. But here's a key conclusion: "CBO expects that the legislation, if enacted, would reduce federal budget deficits over the ensuing decade relative to those projected under current law--with a total effect during that decade that is in a broad range around one-half percent of GDP."

Senior Democratic aides are suggesting that the bill could reduce the deficit, compared to deficits projected under current law, by as much as $1.3 trillion.

You can read the report here (PDF) , and a summary on the CBO's blog here .

 

the blog summary is very informative BTW

 

so the first vote on this is 1AM this morning. how does this work, does it have to go back to the House after affirmed in the Senate?

I need some School House Rock help.

<object style="height: 344px; width: 425px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/mEJL2Uuv-oQ"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/mEJL2Uuv-oQ" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></object>

 

This thing is nowhere close to being done, at least on substance. The House progressives have a bunch of people threatening to demand changes or vote against the Senate version. The Senate conservatives are threatening to bolt if there any major changes. So who knows what's going to happen in the conference committee.

 

So now we've got a bill that liberals don't want (no public option) and that conservatives don't want (federal funding for abortion). Why is this a victory for anyone?

As a pro-lifer, I was quite sad to see Senator Nelson give in. Politics can be so sad sometimes.

 

from Sen Russ Feingold, a staunch supporter of the public option:

 

Do you believe abortion should be in it? I can see why liberals who were desiring change would still be ok with this bill. The thing is going to give a lot of power to the agency to run healthcare, and depending on the wording of the final bill, the agency will have broad discretion to be more liberal.

Question for liberals though, when there is the inevitable changing of the guard, and a Republican appointee is heading this agency, will you still feel the same way about the bill being watered down?