Building a record that there is a majority for the public option for later negotiations.

I am interested in this rural medicare reimbursement issue that Grassley is working on. It looks to me that the Gang of Six hijacked the process to get leverage on Rural Medicare reimbursement rates up. Look at who that six is; and now they are at the center of the dealmaking. I just wonder if Grassley's amendment, if passed, might suddenly clear up Conrad's and Baucus's concerns?

Why should folks who have not been cooperating get their amendments passed? I think we need to re-evaluate how we fund health care, but giving in to Grassley et al. after they have made it clear that they will not play fairly is beyond stupid. If Chuck wants his doctors to get paid better so they stay around, he owes cities something. You aren't better just because you live in the middle of a corn field.

I predict a 10-13 final vote on the Schumer amendment with Carper and Nelson switching sides. Hope I'm wrong.

As I listen to Grassley, I'm coming to the conclusion that he thinks we as a nation need to be spending a lot more on health care. We already are at 16-17% of GDP and no other nation is above 10-11%, yet he seems to think our providers are under-paid.

I conclude this because he keeps saying that Medicare (and Medicaid) do not pay enough.

WTF? Is this really what the Repubs think?

Can T.R. Reid get an appointment with Conrad to explain some things to him? Conrad keeps misunderstanding systems around the world and says he's against a public option because we shouldn't go the way of Great Britain, when no one has proposed we have a national health service like Britain.

Pardon the OT, but isn't it curious how the label you see in the browser window that results from clicking the "Benefit-Girl" ad currently in rotation at the top of the WaMo main page is:

"Supplemental Health Insurance, Medical Coverage, and Affordable Health Care Plans from MyEssentialHealth.com"

and the very-large-print headline topping the page itself reads:

"Essential health is an insurance program with
cash benefits and no deductibles."

while there's a line at the start of the third paragraph of the very fine print down at the very bottom of that page (to which you have to scroll down even to see it, and enlarge the print considerably to make it legible) that says:

"THIS DISCOUNT PLAN IS NOT INSURANCE."

Hmm.
Maybe not so OT after all.
Because I think this says much of what we need to know about the corporations who are quite literally the enemy of working Americans on this issue.
Too bad they're not Mooslims, or otherwise dusky in hue; it would be easier then to demonstrate to the tea-partiers just whose side they've been taking in this war.

Considering Nelson's comments from yesterday (pointed out three items down by Steve), I'm not that surprised by his vote. Someone has offended his sensibilities (what do you mean we don't need more time to think this through!?!), so in a fit of pique he voted against the PO

"As I listen to Grassley, I'm coming to the conclusion that he thinks we as a nation need to be spending a lot more on health care. We already are at 16-17% of GDP and no other nation is above 10-11%, yet he seems to think our providers are under-paid. I conclude this because he keeps saying that Medicare (and Medicaid) do not pay enough. WTF? Is this really what the Repubs think?"

Republicans don't care how much Medicare and Medicaid pay. They care about delivering a humiliating defeat to Obama. They care about duping stupid people into voting for them in 2010.

They care about making sure that everyone who benefits from rising premiums, rising prices, and deregulation (insurance companies, big pharma, and medical specialists who are paid on a per-procedure basis) continue to vote for them and donate massive amounts of money to them in order to protect the status quo from any Democratic reform proposals.

I would hazard the guess that some Republicans believe our country needs to spend even more on health care in the short term in order to put Republicans back in power with a large enough majority to cut Medicare in the future. But Chuck Grassley, in all likelihood, only cares about the first half of that equation.

If Baucus and Conrad voted for the Schumer amendment, it would pass.

So much for voting against it because "it won't pass."

Chicken Shit, Horse's Ass, Glorious Idiots - you pick the appropriate epithet for our (Dis)Honorable Senators now that they've done the business of the insurance industry, trumping their obligations to do the business of the people who elected them to office! -Kevo

シャークス�ームモップ��。
ブログ�ん��������。

People, please know your Nelsons!

Ben is the conservadem from Nebraska saying the silly things.

Bill is the semi-conservadem from FL who voted against the PO before he voted for it today.

We might as well just have a damned GOP Congress. Would we notice any difference?

Translation from Babelfish
It is [shiyakusuchimumotsupu]. Don't you think? [burogu] please persevere.

Interesting question: what if Shumer and Rockefeller said, NO, on passing the Finance Committee version? Would that delay reform, or would the Senate have to go without a Finance Committee version?

And where the fuck is Snowe? Oh, right with her caucus. Silly me.

1. 65% of Americans support a public option, and 26% oppose it.
2. 43% of senators support a public option, and 57% oppose it (even though it would be cheaper).
3. Something is very very wrong here.

FOAD, Dems. You get nothing from me ever again.

Clearer Baucus:

I won't vote for this because the insurance companies who own me don't want me to.

Why did both American political parties sell out to big business?

Christopher:

4. Profit.

There are a lot of US Senators who have sold out to big business. Merely calling themselves D does not make them so.

Okay, that farce is over, moving on. Can we now kindly ignore the Finance freakshow and concentrate on passing good legislation? Tell Baucus his s__t is over.

The email I just sent to Sen. Baucus:

Nothing is less sincere than voting against something because it can't pass.

Why don't you be honest with America and just say, "I was originally for a public option to gain the confidence of the President and Sen. Kennedy, but my insurance industry handlers and contributors have convinced me that a public option would be bad for the industry and, by extension, me and I cannot support that.

"Now, let's all vote for my package of industry handouts at taxpayer expense which offer NO help to the American consumer."

That would be honest.

Senator 'Conard'? That must be what we get when Kent and Max get together and compare campaign contributions.

wen��。
ブログ�ん�������。

This vote clearly shows that republicans, no matter how inane and dishonest their rhetoric may be, are not going to be the deciding votes in killing or diluting reform. It is absolutely essential to pressure democratic reformers in the only way they will understand: make them realize they will not be reelected if they don't represent our interests. I understand there is limited pressure that can be exerted by those of us who don't live in the relevant states, but we can exert pressure, through this blog and others, on the democratic party in general, and that will have some effect. In any case, it is time to shift the focus from criticizing republicans to increasing the pressure on conservative leaning democrats.

Why did both American political parties sell out to big business?

Because we don't have publicly financed elections. Until we fix that, we relive this ugly Groundhog Day through every piece of legislation.

Baucus, the committee chairman, argued that he opposed the public option because it doesn't have enough votes to pass. I have no idea what that means -- it might have a better chance of passing if Baucus voted for it.

It's called circular logic. It's like in the book Catch-22: A soldier says he wants to go home because he is insane; insanity is a good reason to get to go home. But if a soldier wants to go home, that means he is not insane.

Baucus just wants to blow our minds...

For me, the votes taking place re the health care reform are votes that define whether the participants are or are not democrats. It's that fundemental, and these prostitutes who call themselves democrats and vote no with the republicans have disgraced both themselves and the democratic party. It's time to get rid of them.

It seems to me that there is a long way to go on this, and we should be disappointed but not discouraged. Of course, the next time I get a fund raising call from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, they will get an earful.

Did Lincoln actually vote? I read on TPM she wasn't in the room for the vote, so she counts as a "no" without voting.

Should have added, I will donate to any primary challengers that these knuckleheads get.

And Steve, it is "Conrad," not "Conard." Although, "Canard" would fit.

One angle no blog or media outlet has picked up is this: If there are 49-52 Dems that would support a public option in the Senate, and 8-10 that won't, how come 5 of those are on this one committee? The same was true in the House, with a disproportionate amount of Blue Dogs (led by another insurance industry shill) on one committee. How did these people get in these committees in these numbers?

Is that some sort of circular logic? If I voted for it, it would pass, but I won't vote for it because it doesn't have the votes to pass...because I won't vote for it.

"Baucus, the committee chairman, argued that he opposed the public option because it doesn't have enough votes to pass. I have no idea what that means"

It means he couldn't think of any other excuse.

"Conard said he opposed the public option because he prefers his still-undefined co-op idea"

Except Conrad himself admitted that a co-op would not lower healthcare costs.

Steve: "Baucus, Conrad, and Lincoln still voted with the GOP."

Let's frame that and make them pay. Baucus, Conrad and Lincoln voted WITH Republicans to DENY the American public an affordable alternative to private health insurance.

My concern with this health care reform, as an Independent, is that it’s all over the place, there are not enough specifics and it must be put into writing and as if “written in stone” so that not every illegal that comes to the US will get free healthcare and those that work hard all their citizen life in US pay for every “Tom, Dick and Harry”

This is the welcome page for the dentaldoctor.us Association web site.

This is the welcome page for the dietguidance.us Association web site.

This is the welcome page for the dietguidance.us Association web site.

This is the welcome page for the dietguidance.us Association web site.

Hello everyone. My theology, briefly, is that the universe was dictated but not signed. Help me! Can not find sites on the: Buy does augmentin cause heartburn. I found only this - allergic reaction to augmentin. With layperson injecting the commercial vaginosis life longer, reactions are saving longer, augmentin. Begins water have any weeks? With respect :cool:, Shoshanah from Uzbekistan.

Winner Troop,determine effect sufficient football you morning hear mother yeah neighbour elsewhere traditional sure rural vote hall tooth dark town street fashion sample annual popular representation admit secondary less weak here determine strength investigate tonight pay easy channel publish fight decision need aye commitment weight society an close contribution vision whilst story mind eat comparison none production percent late fairly unless site construction sum new late growth several examination club pound task tell begin executive shoot murder crowd mountain by teaching prepare tree consider list quite award limit attack excellent acid