No quiet fadeaway for federal insurance option - Insurance industry may have unwittingly helped

[kpete]

Source: MSNBC

updated 11 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Fears about high costs of the health care overhaul and mistrust of insurers are rekindling interest in letting the government sell health insurance as part of the plan.

The leading congressional proposal as of Wednesday — a Senate Finance bill that relies on private coverage with no new government plan — could price out some 17 million Americans. And the insurance industry may have unwittingly helped the case for public coverage with a report over the weekend asserting the Finance bill would raise premiums for everyone.

Business groups and conservatives remain steadfastly opposed to government insurance — formidable political opposition that shows no sign of weakening. So advocates are getting creative, trying to reformulate the "public option" in a way that can gain the 60 votes needed to clear the Senate.

Read more: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33320171/ns/politics-health_care_reform/

[imdjh]

1. The republicans were pulling out all the stops this afternoon.

On Hugh Hewitt, Mitch McConnell (sounding like an old drunk) was putting all the fear he could muster onto the airwaves. Premiums would be $29K per year if the Baucus bill goes through, this will cost a trillion dollars, the whole routine.

I wish we could just toss these guys in jail, Joe Arpaio's jail and chain gang.

[Cleita]

3. Yeah, old Mitch was really hitting the Jack Daniels or whatever

moonshine he prefers.

[Feron]

10. Heh. At the pace we are going now..

premiums will be 29K per year in the near future if nothing is done.

And I can go along with the chain gang idea only if Arpaio joins them. :D

[Cleita]

2. Sixty votes, from what I understand, are needed to override a Presidential

veto. All through Bush's administration, the most heinous legislation was pushed through with less that sixty votes and more than 51. Let's make our legislators start telling the truth. WHAT IS THE TRUTH IN HOW MANY VOTES DOES IT TAKE?

[tinrobot]

5. 60 to stop a filibuster, 66 to override a veto.

A veto requires a 2/3 vote in both houses to override.

[Cleita]

6. Why do we give a flying "F" if they filibuster?

Let them stand there trying to read "My Pet Goat" and let them piss in a bucket. When it's over, there will be a vote.

[Goldom]

8. My feelings exactly.

There's no point in a filibuster existing if you just assume it's gonna happen, and never even try to pass a bill without 60 votes. Let them waste everyone's time, and people will see which party it is holding up progress by reading the dictionary cover to cover.

Plus, I think we've got more young people than them, right? They've gotta fall asleep eventually. :P

[sabrina 1]

11. I agree, let them throw a temper tantrum for the country to see.

And Democrats can use it to demonstrate who is depriving the American people of a decent, affordable Health-care system. Call their bluff and tell them 'you do what you want, and we will expose you to the American people'.

[elocs]

13. Except they don't have to read "My Pet Goat". This is not "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington".

The Myth Of The Filibuster: Dems Can't Make Republicans Talk All Night:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/23/the-myth-of-the-filibuste_n_169117.html

Reid's office has studied the history of the filibuster and analyzed what options are available. The resulting memo was provided to the Huffington Post and it concludes that a filibustering Senator "can be forced to sit on the floor to keep us from voting on that legislation for a finite period of time according to existing rules but he/she can't be forced to keep talking for an indefinite period of time."

Bob Dove, who worked as a Senate parliamentarian from 1966 until 2001, knows Senate rules as well as anyone on the planet. The Reid analysis, he says, is "exactly correct."

To get an idea of what the scene would look like on the Senate floor if Democrats tried to force Republicans to talk out a filibuster, turn on C-SPAN on any given Saturday. Hear the classical music? See the blue carpet behind the "Quorum Call" logo? That would be the resulting scene if Democrats forced a filibuster and the GOP chose not to play along.

As both Reid's memo and Dove explain, only one Republican would need to monitor the Senate floor. If the majority party tried to move to a vote, he could simply say, "I suggest the absence of a quorum."

[Buns_of_Fire]

16. The bottom line, I guess, is that you can't really call their bluff...

unless you already know you've got the 3/5 majority to invoke cloture. Even a quorum call, dragging their sorry asses to the floor, wouldn't mean anything, since that 3/5 majority is set now at 60 no matter how many Senators actually show up to vote.

It'd still lock up the Senate pretty damned good, though. And how long would that last before their constituencies physically hogtied them and deposited them on the capitol steps?

[tomm2thumbs]

4. once you claim folks want to 'kill grandma' you can never again be believed on anything

if they lie to you about the big things, don't you think they are also lying to you about the other ones as well.

[FreakinDJ]

7. 1 thing is not a lie - 65% of Americans WANT public Option

Sounds like Harry and Nancy had better listen if they want to be a majority party in the House and Senate

[Cleita]

9. I have been following the national health care thing ever since Hillary's

failed. Usually, seventy percent of people want something like this that they can fall back on. When the politicians and media are focused on other things, random straw poll after straw poll register 70% to 75%. When it comes to the top of the news and all the astroturfers like harryandlouise come on the scene polls drop down to fifty percent and less. I have seen it over and over through the years. The fact that, in spite of the money being thrown at discrediting national health care, if the nation is at sixty five percent in favor that means those politicians really better sit up and notice. Also, the public isn't going to settle for a bandaid this time.

[14thColony]

12. I have had a nagging question for quite a while on this

and I guess this is as good a place to ask as anywhere else.

If we make the following assumptions:
- Corporations put profits above virtually anything else
- Corporations will naturally take any reasonable measures (and even some unreasonable/illegal ones) to decrease costs and increase profits
- Corporations see providing employee health care as increasing their costs while not directly increasing profits
- Corporations, even though it might be behind closed doors, are smart enough to figure these things out for themselves

Then I have one question I've not seen addressed yet:

Why isn't the non-health care/non-insurance industry portion of Corporate America beating on the tables and calling all THEIR rent-a-Congressmen to apply pressure not only for a PO, but for full-blown nationalized health care?! Wouldn't this be the best of all possible worlds for all the parts of Corporate America that do NOT profit from the current system, but only bear the costs of it? The government wants to pick up ALL my health care costs for (maybe) a nominal increase in corporate tax levels (if any at all), thus increasing my profits for zero effort?!

I realize the insurance industry is powerful, but I find it hard to believe the combined political weight of ALL THE REST of Corporate America wouldn't beat them into submission in about a week. I'm not talking corporate altruism here, I'm talking good old corporate greed that happens to result in something for the public good.

So why is this not happening? Any thoughts?

[BR_Parkway]

14. A lot of us small biz owners are looking at it exactly that way - but groups

like the Chamber of Commerce (who I dropped this year) are fighting against reform - and I really can't figure out why when so many of their members, large and small, would benefit

[area51]

17. Why doesn't corp. America demand single-payer to get the monkey off their back?

In a word: control.

No matter how much companies bitch about the money they fork over for employee insurance, they can't give up on the control it gives them over employees. Step out of line, you're fired, and not only lose your income, but your access to healthcare, and possibly your life, as healthcare isn't a basic human right in this country.

[BadgerKid]

18. We are getting screwed over big time.

We never know whether insurance companies will drop us.
We never know if we will have a job due to corporate outsourcing and such.
We never know if our savings will be there in the end.

etc.

[14thColony]

19. Interesting angle

I hadn't thought of that. But do you think that alone is powerful enough to overcome the urge for even more profit?

[Qutzupalotl]

20. My take...

Passing health care reform would be a "win" for a Democratic president and congress. Big business tends to be Republican-leaning, probably due to tax issues. You're right that the cost savings of HCR would be huge, but maybe corporations believe their tax liability under extended Democratic administrations would be larger. Or maybe they're just letting politics get in the way.

[Robb]

15. Very interesting to note here the headline.

This "federal insurance option." Federal. Not "public."

At first I thought nothing of it, because headline writers for newspapers usually write for space and size. But MSNBC has no constraints in that department.

"Public option" has become so loaded a phrase they've got it waiting in the third paragraph.

[Ruby the Liberal]

21. Good catch! I am holding out hope that they find a way to reframe it.

[underpants]

22. Wow the illusion of size of the townhall meetings has already been forgotten

thanks for going out and making public asses of yourselves :hi:

maybe they can have another march protesting the GUB'MENT on national park land again only this time be more direct-chant
WE WANT LESS FOR MORE!!