Democrates cave on public option

The majority do NOT want a public option.

@mizpiz, its not just that simple. You lack some understanding of the political system. Within each of the two parties there are factions. GOP has Ultra Right Wing Fundamentalist Christians and they have Ultra Conservative Libertarians who may or may not be Christians, and then you have Moderates.

The same is true of the Democrats, you have Ultra Liberal Leftists and Progressives who are often insulted with labels such as Socialist, Communists, Nazi's, Fascists (which incidentally can be used for the extremes on the right as well, only they are being Socialist and Communist for Corporations, and Nazi Fascists to the so called "sinners" or "undesirables" or "low class"), then you have Democrats who are socially liberal but fiscally conservative (sometimes called Republicrats) and then you have the moderates.

IF the left and the right were allowed to become multiple parties based on ideology, you would actually have probably at least 8 different political parties that would have to form coalitions in order to get legislation passed. Pretty much the same way they do now, only we are being forced into a two party system with one "non-party" in the middle, representing the so called "Independents".

Why must we accept crumbs of reform as a "huge win?" This is an appeasement to quell the masses. It won't work. It's a band-aid. I'm for it since we can hardly expect much more. But there's no way I'm quelled, nor are many others I know of.

@Jon, it represents a better path to single payer than a whole bunch of new government run insurance companies. I think that this may have been the plan all along and they let the country run amok on "public option" whey their intention was to extend coverage to all.

I agree, it is ingenious to get the right on board with the changes.

No. It's called corporate welfare socialism. Banks don't depend on the government to exist in capitalism. Health insurance industries don't depend on government mandates, tax breaks and exclusions to exist in capitalism. This is not a capitalist state. It's not even a first world country anymore. Get real.

brake i have a strong feeling you have no idea what communism is. Actually I'm willing to bet everything on it

total government=communism

LOL!!

That video lost me when they tossed up their little lesson on the "political spectrum". I've never seen such bullsh*t.

Whomever wrote it had little understanding of the various political ideologies they were talking about - or just didn't want YOU to figure out that their little "lesson" is pure ideological indoctrination.

Communism, for instance. It is, in its pure form, a system that uses almost no government at all. It has also never existed in that form. The governments we CALLED communist were actually socialist, which styled themselves a step on the road towards communism. The actual progression is a bit more complicated than that, but that's the idea.

Socialism is a system where there IS an overarching big brother type of government. It is the culmination of the leftist movements where the central government runs almost everything, owns everything, and doles out the benefits (supposedly) in accordance with people's needs, not their social or economic class. In reality, Party members are the upper class and hog the lion's share of resources.

To say that dictators of the other type - strong men, warlords, or theocratic dictatorships - could ever be lumped on the left end of the political spectrum is insanity. They are right wingers of the worst sort and very conservative. NOT the kind of folks that believe in government nanny states at all! That is so funny I almost fell out of my chair laughing!!

It is a blatant attempt to distance the right wing from being lumped in with the bad boy dictator bunch and make themselves look as though they are in the middle somewhere benign and harmless.

They are not.

Conservatives like to talk small government because that seems safe. Fewer government hacks to watch you and stick their noses into your business, right?

Wrong. Look at who caused the most damage to our privacy in the last twenty years. Clinton and his left wing buddies? Not on your life - it was BUSH and his Patriot Act that allows warrantless wiretapping of our electronic communications.

Who created the largest government bureaucracy of intelligence/police/security forces this country has ever seen? Clinton and his left wing buddies? Nope, again, it was BUSH and his bosom buddy Cheney.

What are the tools dictatorships - both left and right - use to subvert their citizens' rights and oppress them into submission? Warrantless wiretaps and large, overreaching security forces that have the power to lock people up indefinitely without trial.

Who built the first concentration camp manned by US forces with the express mission of locking up prisoners without trial, without access by the Red Cross - or their lawyers?

Not Clinton - but it was BUSH/CHENEY.

Now tell me who is the greatest threat to American freedom - the left, who is slowly taking these tools and blunting the worst of the excesses - or the right, who put them in place in the name of "security"?!

I've always known that Washington runs on money and power. But until now I haven't realized how corrupt and childish the Congressmen are. This health care struggle has really brought out for all too see how corrupt and out of control the entire system is. Congressmen spend their time and energy finding ways to cover their own ass making their money backers happy, and the well being of Americans comes a far second place. I am disillusioned and sickened by what I an seeing.

That's exactly how I feel. I'm so In the disappointed in the Democrats. I guess that's what I get for putting my faith in them.

Chill out. You aren't paying attention. This is a good plan. Even Dennis Kucinich (who voted AGAINST the House bill with a public option) said he could vote FOR this plan.

An optional Medicare buy-in has always been the best way to go.

Dude the government isnt your nanny.

It is laughable that you think private insurance has anything to do with healthcare quality. Our quality is great because we have great doctors, nurses, hospitals and technology. Insurance is only the mechanism to pay for it.

It is an undeniable fact that our private insurance system operates on a much higher overhead than the public systems employed by all other advanced nations. 27 cents of every dollar spent on healthcare disappears into the administration and profits of those insurance companies. Much of that administrative cost is spent on finding ways to deny care and lobby favors. You can only support that if you don't understand it.

And that doesn't even get into the fact that a free market insurance system leaves all of the most vulnerable people out in the cold. That is unacceptable when it comes to people's health.

You are correct that we need more free market competition, but we need that at the hospital level, not with insurance.

Yep. Now we just have to find a way to settle down liberals who don't understand the issue, came to believe that the public option was the one and only solution to the problem and now appear ready to slit their wrists over this positive development. (see Saladin's post above for example)

Then they'll fine you for it with their mandate that Obama said he didn't support during his campaign. Or they'll fine your employer.

Completely agree. Keep lowering the age until the US finally catches up to the rest of the developed world in terms of healthcare.

Unless the Dems had a majority of 70 in the Senate, we all knew there would have to be compromises. This bill is getting the foot in the door and will eventually lead to further progress.

Single Payer is the only Player.

This plan is actually better for that ultimate goal. Slowly build up Medicare and strengthening it is a great strategy towards a full take over and throwing those Insurance Mafia greed monster out.

Let them (the Insurance Mafia) eat cake.

I don't agree.

Look at the health care systems in Europe and Canada. Yes, they work, yes they provide as good a level of care that we do here. But they are overtaxed, understaffed and have had benefits cut in decades past to keep them from going broke. Plus, they all serve populations that are not as big as the US'. They are not a panacea for our issues.

You will NOT see a gradual takeover of the health care system by a single payer system in this country. We don't need it, and the insurance companies will fight it tooth and nail.

Obama's original idea was to mirror the Federal Employee's Health Benefits plan. A system of private insurers contracted by the federal government to provide health care that people would have a choice between.

I know that the idea of a government run plan was intended to help those too poor to pay premiums themselves. But in order to get this moving forward, we need to compromise - a stop-gap using medicare is a good choice, but remember, that was NEVER intended to be a single payer plan to cover ALL US citizens, but as a way to get health care for those that cannot pay for insurance. The other, private plans in the overall plan would require the insured to pay part of the premium, just like in the FEHB, which is fine for people that want a portable insurance plan that can follow them from employer to employer and provide some coverage for in between employment.

It is an opt-IN plan, allowing those of us in employer based plans that are happy with what we have to stick with it, and only bringing in those that are not covered by employer based plans.

A single payer plan would never work here, certainly not as a suddenly created entity. Perhaps over decades, one could be evolved, but this plan is not intended as such a thing, no matter what the right wing would have its minions believe.

I'm with you on that. Obama said he wanted health care reform with a public option. He said that he didn't support a mandate. Now, we have a mandate with no public option. What is changing now besides the government charging me for not having insurance with a private company and not giving me an option to turn to when that private company charges me an arm and a leg for coverage?

I am disappointed. Did I really stand in line to vote for this?

Do you really need the government do everything for you?

Are you telling me to go kick big business's ass?

Or are you telling me you like our corporate welfare state?

Keep your mall-sized Ikea if you really love it so much, that's not the America I want.

Wayseeker,

Yes there is a Congressman who is not inept. His name is Ron Paul. In the Senate, well I'll have to agree.

This is an oligarchy.

This is more of a republic than a democracy.

DINO---democracy in name only

well put. Agreed.

We don't not have a free market health care system. Insurance companies can't even compete across state lines.

The government has set up a system where the consumers suffer by not allowing a truly free market to emerge. Where do people get their talking points from?

Free market? Are you kidding me? Its a slave market, and insurance companies are the owners. Government is trying to create a market for insurance companies to compete for the lowest premiums with the most coverage white enforcing required coverage for all Americans with no discrimination of any sort.

Daimyo,

That is hilarious. Repeating every talking point Pelosi has ever put out there.

The government has created this unfair system by setting up regulations that protect insurance companies and stop competition in the market place. The their pockets are lined with insurance company money and everyone thinks the government is simply an innocent victim.

Let actual competition in the market place emerge and see how quickly your premiums drop.

In reference to dropping the "uninsurable," I agree.

I agree. And on another bright note, the nonprofit government regulated idea isn't far from a public option. I think the dems have wizened up to the negative connotation (created by the Rep.) of the term "Public Option" for the sake of calming the dumb uninformed Americans scarred of a government run plan, and reworded the concept. It could still be a giant step in the right direction. Cheers!

The Dems are too scared to do this one their own because they know a government run plan will be a disaster and they don't want to take all the blame for it when we are raking up trillions in debt.

libertyforall - in reality its socialism for the rich, capitalism for the mass majority. But if that gives you the sense of liberty, than so be it.
Do you know that all federal employees have government run health care? do you think its a disaster for them? "a government run plan will be a disaster" do you have any idea what your talking about, or do you just enjoy being financially raped by the American Mafia (privatized insurance companies, corporations, ultra rich, etc.) Did you not hear the MIT economist report that it would save the country billions of dollars, how does this equate to trillions in debt.? America ranks 37th on an international scale of healthcare, almost every country (except for 2-3) ahead of us is government run. So by saying it would be a disaster your either implying that America is simply incapable of competing with these other countries (some of which are heavily impoverished 3rd world countries who still offer better healthcare than the US) or that our people are to corrupt to allow an obviously superior system into their greedy lifestyle.

Why is it so easy to predict that if I receive a rebuttal from libertyfortherich (which I probably won't) it will be a short, unoriginal idea repeating some FOX news overly conservative statement that he most likely knows very little to nothing about but will blindly defend until death.

libertyforall - your either really rich, or really stupid.

"Do you know that all federal employees have government run health care? "

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

I am a Federal employee, I've worked for Uncle Sugar for over thirty years.

Our health care "plan" is government run only in the sense that the government, as an employer, has contracts with the various PRIVATE insurers to provide insurance for its employees. Those contracts provide for a common set of requirements so that when we look at the different insurers, they are providing similar benefits.

The government does NOT "run" the plans, nor do they have any hand in how the private insurers administer their plans. There are certain requirements, such as not allowing insurers to deny coverage due to "pre-existing conditions", but it is left to the companies themselves to administer the plans and make coverage and medical decisions about that coverage.

All this hype about "government run health care" is crap, period. The government does not have the expertise, the money or the personnel to "run" the health care plans for its own employees, much less the entire country. Anybody that's trying to tell you otherwise, is an idiot, a cretin, or a liar - or all three.

rwahrens. Seriously? Where did that come from? Doesn't seem like you.

"The government does not have the expertise, the money or the personnel to "run" the health care plans for its own employees, much less the entire country."?

You are right about the healthcare plans for government employees not being directly run by the government. Would you care to explain how Medicare, Medicaid and the VA are not run by the government?

Not only are they capable of running a healthcare plan. But, in Medicare, they are already running the largest healthcare plan in the country with the HIGHEST PATIENT SATISFACTION and the LOWEST OVERHEAD COSTS.

The problem is not the Democrats but the 10 Democrats that are against public health care for all. These 10 Democrats are demanding to be have a minority influence that trumps the other 50 Democrats that are in favor of a Public Run Health Care Option.

I think come election time they are going to be seriously challenged by more progressive Democrats.

No, but a few dems are from states where the constituency isn't all that liberal, remember, congress does not represent the United States, hence the approval ratings perpetually hovering around 25%. They represent the constituents that elected them, so overwhelming national support for one side of an issue does not mean that that side will prevail.

To rwahrens,
I stand corrected, you receive FEHB, which is highly regulated by the government and offers you much different benefits than the average consumer would receive from the same insurance company. You said "The government does NOT "run" the plans, nor do they have any hand in how the private insurers administer their plans", they may not be processing the paperwork, but they most definitely have a hand in how the plans are administered, thats exactly what their regulation is doing. So although it is through a private insurance company, you receive a plan far different from what the average American would get directly because of the government oversight. If this type of health insurance was offered to any and all US citizens, our current system would most likely not be suffering as it is now.

"The government does not have the expertise, the money or the personnel to "run" the health care plans for its own employees, much less the entire country."

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

There are approximately 3 million federal government employees. There are more than 52 million social security beneficiaries. Do the math buddy.

Also, since you seem to know everything, why is it that Costa Rica (a third world country) has the expertise to maintain a government run healthcare system that ranks above the United States? Are US federal employees really that incompetent? Seriously, I'd like an answer.

By the way, nobody told me that government run healthcare is better. I know it's better because I lived in Sweden for two years and have experience it for myself first hand. Why do you believe it to be otherwise or "crap, period" where have you lived and/or experienced it to be such a great failure? Please try and answer this question without using one of the typical responses most of your side gives: "it's crap, period." or "the lines are going to be long" or "it's to expensive". Please something with validity.

I would really like to hear back from you rwahrens. There are many of your type posting in these forums which have a similar outlook, but their reasoning always seems to be short, blind, and ignorant of the savings government run healthcare has offered in so many other countries and is predicted by expert economists in this country.

I'll look forward to your response.

I don't think they could loose, what they never had! George W. was able to do whatever he wanted and they didn't do a thing. Why would they change? No one is ever held accountable. We just 'move along'. Give us a little 'spin', then do what ever the heck they want.

First of all, my comment "All this hype about "government run health care" is crap, period." - was about the right wingers saying the "public option" was going to allow the government to "take over" health care. THAT is pure BS, pure crap.

Obama's initial idea was to make the public option like the FEHB, where people would have an option between different PRIVATE health care plans, which would differ from area to area, like our employee plan does, which, by the way, is the same one members of Congress and the VP use.

That is not "taking over" health care. The FEHB is not administered like an insurance plan, The OPM manages the CONTRACTS for the various companies. There is a world of difference between administering an insurance company and managing a contract. I've managed government contracts - I would NOT want to run an insurance company. The two are completely different animals.

Medicare, Medicaid and VA are understaffed, underfunded, and widely vilified for being inefficient and wasteful. All three have had persistent problems with stopping fraud and waste. They are NOT designed as National Health Care systems.

As for the wonderful health care systems in Europe, my wife is German, and I've heard plenty about those! They are also understaffed, plagued by waste and by citizens that take advantage of the system and take way more than their share of resources, and are also underfunded, in spite of almost every country in Europe having tax rates over 50% to pay for them. The German system has cut benefits a number of times in the last thirty years, as have other systems - and many of them are charging their citizens more in user fees than they have in the past. And given the attitudes about social class in Europe, you can bet that those upper class folk sure do get better care than the underclasses do! I know - I've seen it.

But yes, they work, yes they have a more than acceptable level of care, but don't tell me they are some kind of panacea for what ails THIS country's system.

As for that wonderful little system in Costa Rica, shall we compare the population they are responsible for vs. what this country will need to care for? I think there's a world of difference.

See? I didn't use a single one of the phrases you was afraid I would. As for your statement about "my side", you have no idea what "my side" is.

I voted for Obama, I support the idea of health care reform, and would like to see Obama's idea of a public option truly carried out, because it combines the best that government can do with the best that private industry can do.

I do not want to see the government get into the business of being an insurance company. Medicare and Medicaid are fine (in spite of their problems), they are intended as a safety net for the older generation - VA is intended as a supplemental health care system for vets.

They are NOT intended as a health care system for the entire country, and none of them are a good road map of how to get there.

But the FEHB is a good example of how government CAN work, and work with the private sector to get things done better, using available resources, without a massive increase in the number of government employees and Agencies to do it.

The hype surrounding the "public option" is just that, hype, intended to inflame the right wing base against it. I am glad the current agreement on the table eliminates that wording - we need to move forward, and however we can eliminate a right wing buzz word to do it is good, even if we need to revisit the "public option" concept next year or the year after that to do it.

They never had the balls to begin with. One more example of the party that at least has a few progressives in it giving the shaft to the people. Inexcusable. Corporate whores.