Only because about half of the people in this country pay no income taxes. For those people, question #1 is probably the more accurate alternative.
I think it's pretty clear that Mojoman is just regurgitating what he hears and isn't remotely knowledgable on the facts of the issue.
Currently there is no proposed funding of the health care that relies on taxes from anyone but the top brackerts
So anyone who deviates from leftist notions of politically correct speech is automatically ignorant and uninformed. What does this tell us?
It goes well beyond that. The cost of the health care bill has nothing to do with the public option. The public option is required to be self-sustaining through premiums, just like any other insurance. It's not subsidized by taxpayers at all.
What does this tell us?[/QUOTE] Well, for starters, it tells us that your reading comprehension is no better than your knowledge of the facts. You should really learn about the basics of what you're debating if you don't want to look stupid.
Most of the reporting shows that Reid has been stronger on healthcare than even the White House. Supposedly the administration has been trying to water it down to Snowe's preferred trigger option, in hopes of her one vote making it a "bipartisan" bill. The hope was that the administration was just war-gaming out until reconciliation between the two houses, when they would strengthen the final bill, but there has been no evidence for that hope. Reid can't afford to champion the House versions, because he doesn't have the votes for them. But he's apparently walked the tightrope, massaging the proper egos along the way, and appears to have come out with a good bill. Opt-out seems to be better than any of the other public option compromise alternatives. Agreed: if he can hold his caucus, Reid appears to have delivered. I'm surprised. Years of cynicism have not prepared me for the potential of good bills, only bad. The trigger plan seemed like a bad idea all around, specifically designed to thwart reform. I can only now expect Reid's proposal to be thwarted by a single vote when it comes time (I'm looking at you, Joe-mentum). I think I understand politically why the idea of an opt-out is more easily sold (because it's the public option, it scores cheaper; because it offers the potential for an escape hatch, it seems less risky to those on the fence). But why functionally better? Invariably there will be a few wingnut-controlled states that demand the public plan be killed before it even gets off the ground. Then citizens in those states will all have to move to Massachusetts.
I've been curious about this too. It's hard for me to believe the WH is so stupid as to think having 1 GOP Senate vote and 0 GOP House votes is going to convince the country the bill is bi-partisan. From what I've read today, one WH advisor called Reid's gambit "dangerous" but that ultimately he knew his caucus better than anyone. I think the WH's concern may have been more because they thought Snowe was needed to get past the cloture vote as opposed to talking about how bi-partisan it is. But who knows - this was a really weird story. I start from a few underlying viewpoints: 1. That insurance companies are inefficient because they can be, but that they theoretically can do a better job. 2. That the public option is a means to an end, but that it's not necessarily the only means. 3. That, if implemented badly, the public option could be a clusterf*** (though I don't think this is likely) Given that, my viewpoint is that either the public option is going to be effective or not. If it IS effective, states are going to be under a lot of pressure to participate or find another solution to rising health care costs. If it isn't effective, it gives states an easy way to get out. If it doesn't work as intended, it will be hard to change it on the national level because so many people are going to be so invested in it (for example, changing Medicare) - but at the state level, I think it's good to have an easy option to cancel the whole thing, especially if the end result is that states are bearing a lot of unexpected costs or something like that. I've also heard some issues with rural states having higher costs where the public option reimbursement rates might not be workable, so if things like that are true, it leaves some flexibility in the system for states to try their own regulatory or market solutions that might work better for them. I just see some potential upsides and don't see any major downside to having the opt-out. Ultimately, if the public option is popular/effective, then those wingnut states that just reject it on principle are either going to have to find another way to reduce costs or their leaders are going to be eventually kicked out and they'll turn away from a clueless GOP. But it lets states who reject it on more practical grounds have an option to find a better solution for their specific needs.
I have to agree with much of the rest of the post. See, I can be moderate myself or is Major coming over to the bright side?
Would be interesting to track how many uninsured people die during the filibuster. Or how much money he raises from the insurance industry during his filibuster. But you know, he won't be the first politician to use this completely sanctioned congressional technique. Can only pile on him so much.
I guess Obama wasn't just being an appeaser or making a show of bipartisanship when he brought Snowe on board? Appears he just knew the Senate votes better than the Dem Majority Leader.
As to Lieberman -- this is just further evidence that any politician will back a big business when it owns their state and their bankroll. See Biden wrt credit card companies for Exhibit B.
glynch, LIEberman has years to go before he has to worry about an election. When I first heard this, try as I might, I just couldn't be surprised. Everyone should have seen this coming. LIEberman, no doubt, swore up and down that he'd support national health insurance, among other things, if he could retain his seniority and his more important committee assignments. Of course, he lied. Why is anyone surprised? Lying is second nature to LIEberman, like drawing a breath. The guy should have been booted from the party long ago.
Snowe has already backed off to any bill with the PO. I'm a little relieved that the leadership is getting on board with the PO. It gives the semblance of laying down some sort of hammer. Though their fortitude on using reconciliation to shove it down still appears to be lacking.
