Surprised this hasn't been posted yet

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Public option voted down twice in Senate Finance Committee. Once as a Rockfeller amendment, the second time after Chuck Schumer proposed a similar amendment. The first was voted down 15-8, the second voted down 13-10.

Needless to say, the public option is essentially dead in the Senate in terms of including it in any sort of standard bill.

Comments

[blueduck37.livejournal.com]

Well it's hardly a surprise that so many Senators-- Dems and Republicans alike-- are bought and paid for by the insurance lobby (and well, many other corporate lobbies). It's still anger-inducing, but hardly a shocking outcome.

[vnsplshr.livejournal.com]

It's better to have insurance company cash go to Washington than have have tax money go to Washington to fund a nightmare :)

[dudeuhman.livejournal.com]

we spend more money per person than most other industrialized nations on health care. why is it better to give that money to private insurance companies than to the government? that being said, i think public or private insurance is overused. there should public insurance for all that only provides insurance, not routine health care. that should be paid out-of-pocket with less protection for hospitals, increasing incentives for competition.

[vnsplshr.livejournal.com]

"why is it better to give that money to private insurance companies than to the government?"

Our government isn't good with its money.

[duckspeaker.livejournal.com]

Not everything government is bad. What a silly blanket statement.

Areas that are could/should be fixed.

At least the incentive wouldn't be to drain the patient of blood---I mean money!

[vnsplshr.livejournal.com]

"Not everything government is bad. What a silly blanket statement."

That's why I never said that.

Read it again.

[duckspeaker.livejournal.com]

Oy...my pain

"Our government isn't good with its money"

our government isn't always bad with our money...it's (still) a silly blanket statement.

[vnsplshr.livejournal.com]

"our government isn't always bad with our money"

Again, not what I said.

Read it again.

[dudeuhman.livejournal.com]

no, no our government is not good with money! but that's not really a comparative statement. obviously, based on the fact that with private insurance, like we currently have, we pay considerably more money than other people in states that have public health care and we don't have statistically better health, private insurance companies are worse (see, a comparative statement) with money than other governments are with money. Is our government necessarily so much worse than other governments that it wouldn't see similarities to other governments' programs if we tried them here?

[vnsplshr.livejournal.com]

"no, no our government is not good with money!"

exactly what I said.

[dudeuhman.livejournal.com]

right. i agree with you on that statement. the government isn't good with money. continue reading the rest of it, and respond to that, please.

[vnsplshr.livejournal.com]

"right. i agree with you on that statement. the government isn't good with money."

as you should

[dudeuhman.livejournal.com]

ha. amusing and annoying.

[vnsplshr.livejournal.com]

If you're annoyed, we're all good then.

[dudeuhman.livejournal.com]

i was, but i sublimated it into judgment of you. now that's sublime!

[vnsplshr.livejournal.com]

Whatever helps you cope.

[allisnow.livejournal.com]

RIP.

[root-fu.livejournal.com]

Yes, I may be playing devil's advocate in saying this, but, can the government even afford a public option at this point(in a monetary sense)?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Yes and no. We can "afford" it in the sense that we can pay for the extra debt, but we really shouldn't be putting more debt on period, and that goes for a lot of what we're spending on, both pre- and post-Obama election.

[devil-ad-vocate.livejournal.com]

"Deficits don't matter."
- Darth Cheney

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

It was true when he said it, and it's still true today.

[dudeuhman.livejournal.com]

deficits don't matter, but maybe debt does

[mrsilence.livejournal.com]

I am still waiting on any American to tell why it is that every other developed nation can do it, and most for considerably cheaper, but public health care is going to bankrupt the wealthiest nation in the world?

[dudeuhman.livejournal.com]

i can do it. 1) it's slowly bankrupting the rest of the developed nations - costs have been soaring for both public and private health care/health insurance 2)the u.s. already is bankrupt

p.s.: i advocate universal public health insurance that is truly insurance, not covering routine care, and more laws enforcing transparency of costs and prices and less laws protecting hospitals and restricting competition.

[kinvore.livejournal.com]

2)the u.s. already is bankrupt

Oh noes the Chinese are gonna repo our national parks.

[mrsilence.livejournal.com]

Well I don't believe that it's bankrupting Australia, although I do understand it's a problem for the UK and a few others, but of all the options available, the UK's system I understand is the worst possible option.

I absolutely agree with the whole principle of insuring people against the cost of expensive treatments, rather than paying for all routine care. My understanding is that is pretty much what Obama is proposing?

[duckspeaker.livejournal.com]

It's going to be difficult to have any sort of reasonable discussion that might actually lead to any real improvements in the system when we have Senators that approach it like a joke.

Take my own Senator Hatch for example.
He proposed 51 Amendments to the latest proposal including one that would “ease a tax on high-end insurance plans for any state with a name that begins with the letter “U”.

What a joke-ER