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? 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. 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 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?
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. 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:
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. 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.
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. 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.
There was never any intention to revive it or even bring it to the table originally. The deal was already made.
I'm not shifting the argument, the standard is ridiculous for Obama to reveal every conversation he's had. 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.
No more complaints about Cheney from you then, right? 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?
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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
