Political Hotsheet
October 23, 2009 11:34 AM

Pelosi Still Weighing Several Public Option Plans

(AP Photo/Harry Hamburg)
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is still supporting a government health insurance plan, or "public option," tied to Medicare rates, but there is more room for flexibility, she told reporters today.

Following a report from Politico that Pelosi had determined that a "robust" public option could not pass in the House, Democratic leadership called a meeting of the entire caucus to count exactly how many supporters the plan had. The results showed that they are inching closer to getting 218 votes for the so-called "robust" plan, Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.) said Friday.

Woolsey said many Democrats were not at the meeting and that a big group of Democrats are still undecided about the "robust" plan, which would pay medical providers the same rates as Medicare plus an additional 5 percent. Some Democrats are concerned that a public option tied to Medicare would not pay doctors in rural areas enough, since Medicare rates in those areas are below average. Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) said they are in no rush to get to 218.

Pelosi continues to support that version of the public option, she said Friday at a press conference, though developments in the Senate have given the House more flexibility. The House health care bill will include a public option, the speaker said, but it may be a weaker version, such as one that would require the government to negotiate medical provider payment rates, to put it on competitive grounds with private industry.

Track the Progress of Health Care Reform
CBSNews.com Special Report: Health Care

Initially, Pelosi was pressing harder for the more liberal public option, when it seemed as if the Senate would not include a public option in its own bill. Pelosi wanted to bring a strong public option to the negotiating table once the Senate and the House met to merge their two bills, in order to give the House more leverage.

Now, however, as it appears the Senate bill could also include a public option, there is more room for consideration of other options, she said.

"When we were dealing with the idea that the Senate had nothing, it was really important to go in with the most muscle for the middle class with a robust public option," Pelosi said. "So, this is about the end game now."

After coming under pressure from both liberal legislators and advocacy groups to include a public option in the Senate bill, reports now indicate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is considering including in his health care bill a public option that states could opt out of.

Reid and other Senate leaders met with President Obama on Thursday to discuss health care. Some reports said the president expressed a preference for a so-called "trigger option," but the White House told CBSNews.com that Mr. Obama did not express a preference in the meeting. A "trigger" plan would only establish a public option if private insurers failed to meet certain standards.

Liberals Open Fire on Harry Reid

The opt-out approach, which Reid is reportedly considering, may not have the support of all 60 Democratic senators. Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) criticized the plan, the Washington Post reports, and is urging Reid to drop the public option all together.

Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), the one Republican who may support any health care legislation, has made it clear she does not support the opt-out plan.

While much has been made of winning unanimous support for the final bill from Senate Democrats and possibly from Snowe, Senate leaders do not actually need 60 votes to pass the bill. Sixty senators simply need to agree they will not allow Republicans to filibuster the plan; alternatively, leadership is free to use a procedural maneuver called reconciliation, though they have said they would like to avoid that.

CBS News Capitol Hill Producers Evelyn Thomas and Jill Jackson contributed to this report.
Tags:
health care ,
public option ,
Nancy Pelosi ,
Harry Reid
Topics:
Health Care
Share:
  • Share
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Mixx
Add a Comment See all 112 Comments
by pensacola8-2009 October 26, 2009 7:05 AM EDT
Some of you really miss the boat about what is possible under a reformed health care bill with a public option.

Here are some benefits:

1. Those who postponed their early retirement can now retire as planned, even though their 401k's were severely devalued in the past 18 months. Many who were postponing retirement were mainly doing it because they had no affordable health care until they reached 65.

2. Small business can thrive again and remove the most expensive form of health care costs from the equation. Many will be able to hire more employees than before.

3. The USA can reverse a trend of exporting entire industries and jobs overseas, since the cost of health care approaches a more level playing field for competition.

4. Credit card interest rates can come down, since charge offs over health care will decline. The high cost of health care has become a black hole that sucks in health care bills and become a predictable charge-off at higher percentages compared to other types of transactions made with credit.

5. Home equity will convert to positive growing numbers again, since consumers will stop making a equity loans to meet health care costs. I do concede the fact that equity loans aren't being made in any great numbers at this time, but it was a source of red numbers in many personal budgets.

6. More College Graduates. Many students did not finish their college, because they lost their health care and needed to work to meet their medical expenses.

7. Reunification of families divided from lack of benefits offered by local employers. Many families became divided as offsprings were relocating to remote ares to find adequate employment with suitable health care benefits. Now, health care is off the reasons list for employment to be based on gaining the medical benefit. Families can stay together, again.
Reply to this comment
by AngeLobueMDMPHBSPharm October 23, 2009 7:28 PM EDT
As a 72 year-old physician who proudly delivers and receives Medicare services, I strongly believe that Medicare for all Americans is a MORAL issue, not an economic, social or political football to be used to further divide this country on ideological grounds. The prevention of suffering and death are foundations of all honorable religions and philosophies and it is time for America to demonstrate that it continues to be an honorable country devoted to the right to a life without suffering, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all of its citizens.

Respectfully and compassionately submitted,

Ange Lobue, MD, MPH, BSPharm
American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology
Academy of Television Arts and Sciences
trinidadca@gmail.com
Reply to this comment
by OldGeezer43 October 24, 2009 2:59 PM EDT
I'm sorry but "The prevention of suffering and death" seems to be a bit naive on your part. Last tie I checked "death" seems to be inevitable and "suffering" appears to be something common to all mankind. Prolonging life artificially would lead to more and longer suffering. My questions: Is it the responsibility of the government to provide health care for the entire population? What is our personal responsibility?
by eyesopenwide October 23, 2009 6:21 PM EDT
Please stop making it look like the Reps are do-nothing, greedy, pocket lining, scumsuckers who'd sacrifice all of your children on the altar of insurance and hospital corporation greed if given half a chance.

That definition does them far more justice than they deserve.

Because the reality is far worse.

But lets not let the Dems off easy either, as they attempt to concoct a giveaway program for the insurance companies that looks on the face to be helping the sick and needy, but actually simply lines the pockets of the greedy health care corporations by forcing everyone to pay these jackals.

Instead, lets ban all for-profit health care. Lets take the greed out of the immoral system of preying on the suffering of the sick and needy, like every other civilized country in the free world.

BAN ALL FOR-PROFIT HEALTH CARE.

UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE NOW.
Reply to this comment
by rightbehind October 23, 2009 6:08 PM EDT
Force the vote on the robust public option and lets see these yellow dogs that call themselves blue dogs. I would rather a good bill fail than have a bad one pass. We either get a strong public option or we get a list politicians to send packing. Bring on the real vote! Strong robust public option or nothing! They force me to pay for insurance without something to bring the pricing in check I'm marching with the teabaggers. Get rid of the worthless republican created HMOs! It's a phony baloney market! They provide no service to the patient and are first in line to collect the cash. Get rid of them.
Reply to this comment
by lovenpeace1 October 23, 2009 5:23 PM EDT
Folks,

I wish to give my sincere gratitude to the Bush/Cheney Administration for making it possible to scare WE THE PEOPLE from the Republicans starting in 2006.

Without the great poor performances of these 2 Infamous leaders, the Health Care Reform bill, if not with the Public Option, would have never been possible.

To me there is no problem if they pass a Health Care Reform without the Public Option. To me there is no problem if they Do Not Pass a Health Care Reform at all. Why?

As long as the Costs of Private Health Care Insurance increases at the Average 11% of the last 35 years, a Universal Health Care system will eventually pass to firmly control the cost.

Its a matter of Survival. According to all Liberal and Conservative experts, Health Care spending consumes 17% of our GDP today. It is expected to jump to 33% of GDP by 2022. Anything over 31% will suffocate the U.S. Economy. In other words, the 4th Great Depression.

In summary, if we wish to survive as an Empire, we must control the cost of Health Care somehow sooner or later. The Public Option is the best guarantee of that firm control.

So, to my Conservative Amigos, shall we have a strong Rebust Public Option now or a Universal later? Just let your congressman know :-)
Reply to this comment
by us_1776 October 23, 2009 6:05 PM EDT
Precisely.
by watchdogtexas October 23, 2009 5:20 PM EDT
I do not mind the public option as long as everyone without exception must do it. If exept govt employees and elected official, and the unions are not exempt.
Reply to this comment
by lovenpeace1 October 23, 2009 5:19 PM EDT
by Skirt-Lifter October 23, 2009 5:03 PM EDT
""They charge you $1,100.00 per year per policy. This amount covers all the Un-Insureds and Under-Insureds whom visit the Emergency Room.""

Actually about $700.00 covers all the Un-Insureds and Under-Insureds whom visit the Emergency Room. The rest is, well, an administrative fee.

****************

Hey Skirt-Lifter,

I do not believe your $700 number but regardless. Amazing, you now acknowledge there is such Special Fund for those who cannot pay for insurance. This discussion started because you suggested such a fund.

Are you doing Drugs?
Reply to this comment
by sonofhaig October 23, 2009 4:25 PM EDT
Why does Pelosi always look so bug-eyed? She always looks "vacant"... and I'm not referring to her look, I'm referring to her brain. How does an idiot like this manage to get to such an office. Surely there MUST be someone with intelligence that can replace her (Hey San Francisco!!!!! Wake up, you keep electing a moron).
Reply to this comment
by lovenpeace1 October 23, 2009 4:29 PM EDT
by sonofhaig October 23, 2009 4:25 PM EDT
Why does Pelosi always look so bug-eyed? She always looks "vacant"... and I'm not referring to her look, I'm referring to her brain. How does an idiot like this manage to get to such an office. Surely there MUST be someone with intelligence that can replace her (Hey San Francisco!!!!! Wake up, you keep electing a moron).

******************

Hey sonofhaig,

Who is better and more intelligence than our Speaker Madam Pelosi?

Bush, Cheney or General Alexander Haig who was our former Secretary of State under Republican Ex-President Ronald Reagan?
by Mortarman_29 October 23, 2009 4:33 PM EDT
She is from San Francisco. Isnt that reason enough?
by lovenpeace1 October 23, 2009 4:17 PM EDT
by lovenpeace1 October 23, 2009 4:15 PM EDT
by Mortarman_29 October 23, 2009 4:07 PM EDT
Slow knows "high."

*******************

Amigo Mortarman_29,

CORRECTION!!!

I love it whenever you are Racist to Undocumented Aliens instead of showing Compassion. Why?

On Nov 2000, 41% of Legal Hispanics voted for the Republican Ticket.

On Nov 2004, 46% of Legal Hispanics voted for the Republican Ticket. Early 2007, there was a lot of Anti-Immigrant feelings out of Republican leaders.

On Nov 2008, 31%Legal Hispanics voted for the Republican Ticket. In political math, this is a Tsunami change.

Bravo, keep it up Amigo! You are only helping the Wonderful Democratic Party.
Reply to this comment
by Mortarman_29 October 23, 2009 4:28 PM EDT
I dont care. And I am not being racist! I dont care where they come from. If they snuck in on a plane from the UK, or a ship from Germany, or hopped the Rio Grande from Mexico. If they are here illegally, they dont belong here. They also dont have ANY right to American taxpayer money, just like the rest of the poulation of Mexico, the UK, and Germany dont have a right to American taxpayer money.

It is simple. Obey our laws, come here legally, and we will welcome you.

Dont do that...and we will put you on a bus back to where you came from.
by slownewsday_5 October 23, 2009 4:30 PM EDT
Well, in a rare point of agreement, I'm with Mort here.

Illegal aliens are just that. Those who employ them should be severely fined, and they themselves should be shipped back to wherever they came from.

Enter legally? Fine. Otherwise they are leeches on our society, in my opinion.
by Mortarman_29 October 23, 2009 4:36 PM EDT
We do agree on that, Slow.
by Skirt-Lifter October 23, 2009 5:08 PM EDT
WOW

lovenpeace played the race card ... (which is almost always a sign of losing a debate)

And you two didn't let the 'race card' red herring distract you. Cool!
by brian1920 October 23, 2009 4:03 PM EDT
I am personally moving to Nevada next summer to work 12 hours a day 7 days a week to defeat that idiot Harry Reid.
Reply to this comment
by Mortarman_29 October 23, 2009 4:07 PM EDT
I dont think you'll need to. He is done already.
by lovenpeace1 October 23, 2009 3:50 PM EDT
Hey Mortarman_29,

I choose not to pay for Private Health Care Insurance because I wish to feed my children and my spouse food and water and provide shelter to them.

The more costly health care insurance gets, the more WE THE PEOPLE choose not to pay for insurance - period.
Reply to this comment
by Mortarman_29 October 23, 2009 3:52 PM EDT
Sorry. As I said, the number of 47 million is incorrect. Most of that number, save for about 12 million, includes illegals (who we shouldnt be payign a dime for!) and for people like college students, young adults, the wealthy, etc who choose not to purchase a health insurance plan, even though they have the means to do so.

The ones that dont have the means and dont have insurance is around 12 million.
by Mortarman_29 October 23, 2009 3:54 PM EDT
And you wanna bring down costs (without rationing care)? Then get the government OUT of healthcare...and open up the industry to competition and market forces.

Prices will come down then. They ALWAYS do.
by slownewsday_5 October 23, 2009 4:05 PM EDT
Mort - you're high if you think it's only 12 million.
by Mortarman_29 October 23, 2009 4:07 PM EDT
Slow knows "high."
by Mortarman_29 October 23, 2009 4:08 PM EDT
Slow, that is the numbers. Look it up. The studies done on that 47 million uninsured break down that way.
by slownewsday_5 October 23, 2009 4:09 PM EDT
Sure, Mortie, sure. I am sure you have a GREAT source for that figure. LMAO!
by slownewsday_5 October 23, 2009 4:16 PM EDT
No, Mortie, those are the numbers some lobbyists want you to believe. They got you hook, line, and sinker.
by Mortarman_29 October 23, 2009 4:17 PM EDT
Slow, you will believe ANYTHING your messiah Obama tells you. Sad, really.
by slownewsday_5 October 23, 2009 4:20 PM EDT
I am anti-politician, Mortar. I don't have a Messiah. Who is yours? I am betting it's your favorite fairy-tale figure.
by Mortarman_29 October 23, 2009 4:21 PM EDT
I went and looked at the Census Bureau numbers...and I was a little off the actual numbers.

According to the Census Bureau, of that 47 million, 38 percent of them (18 million) have personal incomes of more than $50,000 a year. This means that they can afford coverage, and choose not to purchase it. Is it just to tax other working people to subsidize health coverage for these 18 million who could afford it for themselves but choose not to purchase it for themselves? Anybody with half a brain towards liberty would have to answer no to the above question.

Now that leaves us with 29 million uninsured left to explain.

Of that 29 million uninsured, the biggest chunk of them aren't even citizens. Yes, you guessed it, those pesky illegal immigrants that drive up the cost of everything. It seems that our uninsured problem is directly related to the lack of border security! Of course they wouldn't be able to be covered by private health insurers because they do not possess citizenship! Their number is about 12.6 million, or 27 percent of the original '47 million uninsured' number. This could be a higher percentage, because many prominent think tanks place the number of illegal immigrants as high as 20 million, instead of the 12 or 13 million figure. However, for the sake of argument, let us go with the most conservative figure.

Subtract the 12.6 number from the remaining 29 million uninsured number, and we come to the next stage of our breakdown, 16.4 million uninsured.

Of that remaining 16.4 million uninsured, 8 million are under the age of 18. If the parents of these young ones cannot afford to cover them either on their own family plans or independently, there are public insurance options already available for them but their parents have just not signed them up.

So that leaves us with 8.4 million uninsured, a figure less than 3 percent of the American population, and many of these are 18-20 somethings who choose not to purchase health coverage because, well, they think that they won't get sick! Health experts actually refer to this age group as the 'invincibles!' The remainder of this 8.4 million uninsured are low income and could easily be covered by either federal Medicare or state run Medicaid or some charity insurance programs, and they for whatever reason have chosen not to go and get signed up.
by slownewsday_5 October 23, 2009 4:24 PM EDT
"According to the Census Bureau, of that 47 million, 38 percent of them (18 million) have personal incomes of more than $50,000 a year. This means that they can afford coverage, and choose not to purchase it."


WOW - you continue to show off your ignorance. Don't you ever get tired of that???

How many of those people CANNOT GET health insurance? Hmmmm??

You make assumptions waaaaaay too much.


.
by Mortarman_29 October 23, 2009 4:32 PM EDT
Sorry, Slow. Those are the actual numbers fro mthe Census Bureau. If you dont like them, then you can argue with them.
by slownewsday_5 October 23, 2009 4:35 PM EDT
No, Mort - you ASSUME that those people aren't willing to purchase health insurance rather than not being able to get coverage.

You REALLY are dense.
by Mortarman_29 October 23, 2009 4:40 PM EDT
Still not taking your meds I see, Slow. You really need soem adult supervision to make sure you take them!

The numbers are the numbers. If someone makes over $50,000 a year, they have enough money to purchase health insurance. That 18 million Americans make that much and dont have health insurance...well, that is their concern. But, they dont need nor deserve someone else to pay for a plan for them. They can either buy their own...or deal with the bills as they come in.
by Mortarman_29 October 23, 2009 4:46 PM EDT
I assume nothing, Slow. I am just taking the numbers and posting them. The numbers show that 18 million of the 47 million make enough money to purchase their own plans (they make over $50,000 a year). So, there is no need to include their numbers in the debate. That is why the 47 million number is misleading.

The number of people truly needing help is around 8 million.
by slownewsday_5 October 23, 2009 4:55 PM EDT
Mort - you continue to be completely dense.

You conveniently ignore my repeated point that you ASSUME those people do not want to purchase coverage.

How many of them CANNOT GET coverage, Mort???

You're intentionally dense. Take off the blinders.


.
by lovenpeace1 October 23, 2009 3:07 PM EDT
Folks,

I wish to give my sincere gratitude to Bush/Cheney Administration for making it possible to scare WE THE PEOPLE from the Republicans starting in 2006.

Without the great poor performance of these 2 Infamous leaders, the Health Care Reform bill if not with the Public Option would have never been possible.

To me there is no problem if they pass a Health Care Reform without the Public Option. To me there is no problem if they Do Not Pass a Health Care Reform at all. Why?

As long as the Costs of Private Health Care Insurance goes up at the Average 11% of the last 35 years, a Universal Health Care system will eventually pass to control the cost.

Its a matter of Survival. According to all Liberal and Conservative experts, Health Care spending consumes 17% of our GDP today. It is expected to jump to 33% of GDP by 2022. Anything over 31% will suffocate the U.S. Economy. In other words, the 4th Great Depression.

In summary, if we wish to survive as an Empire, we must control the cost of Health Care somehow sooner or later. The Public Option is the best guarantee of that firm control.

So, to my Conservative Amigos, shall we have a strong Public Option now or later? :-)
Reply to this comment
by Mortarman_29 October 23, 2009 3:27 PM EDT
How about never?

Oh, wait a minute...how about tomorrow? The faster we get it, the faster we head straight to the bottom. It is there that we will be able to save America.
by speakinup04 October 23, 2009 3:29 PM EDT
I think we all agree the cost of HEalth care needs to come down.

Wouldn't it make sense to try to do this a little more piecemeal than trying to swallow the whole pig in one bite ?

There are probably many things both conservatives and liberals agree on.

Let's work those issues to see some positive results, then work the ones our differences fall into.
by Mortarman_29 October 23, 2009 3:36 PM EDT
Conservatives dont want the government involved, except in interstate commerce areas of health care and coverage.

Liberals want the government to run the whole thing, and to steal from tax payers to pay for it.

Now, how you gonna find common ground again?
by slownewsday_5 October 23, 2009 4:06 PM EDT
"by Mortarman_29
The faster we get it, the faster we head straight to the bottom. "


There's Mortar for you, rooting for us to head to the bottom. How unAmerican. What a moron.
by Mortarman_29 October 23, 2009 4:14 PM EDT
Slow, calling people names is the sign of a small mind.

We have been heading to the bottom anyway. And the current administration is he!! bent on getting us there quickly. And I am actually all for it...because this incremental destruction allows the statists to keep on rolling and assuming power!

But if the inevitable decline can be hurried up, then the American people will be woke from their drunken stupor and realize the bill of goods they have been sold the last 100+ years.

And we can move back on line with what the Founders started. And begin regaining our liberty again.
by slownewsday_5 October 23, 2009 4:21 PM EDT
Calling you a moron is accurate, Mortimer.

You rooting for America's fall is unAmerican.
by Mortarman_29 October 23, 2009 4:24 PM EDT
No, I am UnAmerikan. I am not unAmerican!
by slownewsday_5 October 23, 2009 4:28 PM EDT
Any idiot who roots for American to "head straight to the bottom" is indeed unAmerican, Mortimer.

You should be ashamed. I'm ashamed you are part of our society.
by Mortarman_29 October 23, 2009 4:29 PM EDT
Slow, any American that roots for these politicians to keep taking us to the bottom is unAmerican. That is the point.
by Mortarman_29 October 23, 2009 4:31 PM EDT
Slow, any American that roots for these politicians to keep taking us to the bottom is unAmerican. That is the point. I am just recognizing what is already happening and will happen. And hoping that it will be us that bottom will be hit on, not my kids or grandkids.

We WILL hit bottom because the American people have forgotten their birthright. I want the bottom to be reached on my generation's watch, so we can do the hard work of rebuilding the Republic. And leave things the way they should have been for our posterity.
by slownewsday_5 October 23, 2009 4:31 PM EDT
Sorry, Mort - nice attempt at backpedalling, though.
by lovenpeace1 October 23, 2009 2:48 PM EDT
Folks,

Just Control the Cost of Health Care in this country with the Public Option and Medicare and all Public Health Care programs will become cheap.

Viva la Public Option!!!
Reply to this comment
by Mortarman_29 October 23, 2009 3:30 PM EDT
It wont do that..at least without raitioning. And that is why I want them to go thru with it. Because costs wont be controlled, then they will have to control them and will begin to ration care.

And Americans dont like lines...they dont like rationing. We are Americans, afterall!! So, the backlash will be severe!

I love it. Go, go, go!
by slownewsday_5 October 23, 2009 4:07 PM EDT
Americans already endure rationing by the health insurance companies, Mortimer.
by Mortarman_29 October 23, 2009 4:17 PM EDT
Where is this rationing you speak of Slow? My family had cancer surgery and treatment this last year, plus my oldest son had issues with his pitching arm and got the top care in a very short period of time.

I never saw any rationing. All I saw were doctors doing their thing, in a short period of time...and my insurance company picked up most of the bill.
by slownewsday_5 October 23, 2009 4:22 PM EDT
Right, Mort - you claim you only pay $14k a year, and that's up from $4k in the last few years.

You CANNOT have a family on a plan which takes care of what you are talking about for so little unless you have a gov't subsidized plan.

And I wouldn't doubt you being that much of a hypocrite for a second.
by Mortarman_29 October 23, 2009 4:35 PM EDT
Slow, as usual, you show your complee ignorance on almost everything you speak of. Again, I know what my company pays for my health coverage. I know what I pay.

Since you dont know...then that makes you silly to presume you do.
by bluharley October 23, 2009 2:27 PM EDT
Am I the only one that thinks she's a dingbat?
Reply to this comment
by rightbehind October 23, 2009 2:34 PM EDT
No there are a very few in the minority your in. The majority of this nation more than 60% think she is right on track! You go Nancy! Call them coward yellow dogs that call themselves blue dogs out. We're going to send them looking for a new home coming the 2010 elections. Bring on the vote!
by dontknowitall October 23, 2009 2:45 PM EDT
No again. Actually the only thing she supports is her clothing store.
by speakinup04 October 23, 2009 3:25 PM EDT
I would agree with rightbehind, that is, I would agree the 2010 elections will be a good indicator of how Pelosi has done.

I don't believe he/she and I agree on the outcome. I suspect her party may not be in control if the governor races are any indicator.

But, unfortunately, NEITHER party has been addressing the issues important to me. Our Debt is getting WAY out of control. China's trade inbalance is WAY out of control. Medicare is running out of money, so we're creating another entitlement ?

And, our congress is more worried about hate crime bills, when current laws would be MORE than effective (kidnapping & murder - no matter what the reason is still a life sentence).

I'm NOT belittling gay rights, but it would seem our congress is worried about ants at our picnic, when we're in the middle of a forest fire.
by CompletelyFrustrated October 23, 2009 3:52 PM EDT
Nope, there's lots of us, sadly nobody in Washington thinks that yet!
by moisnhcrnr October 23, 2009 2:20 PM EDT
It comes down to one simple thing: how can the government afford it? They can't even pay for Medicare.
Reply to this comment
by rightbehind October 23, 2009 2:30 PM EDT
Your right! Because of the for profit medical system a single ICU cost more than 10 thousand a day for a single patient. A single prosthetic limb can cost more than 75 thousand dollars and they only take about 3 days to make. We'll get things back on the right path as soon as we get rid of the republican created parasitic health insurance companies that eat up 1 of every 3 dollars spent on health care. They provide no service to the patient but are first in line to collect the cash. Bring on the vote for an extremely strong public health care option!
by speakinup04 October 23, 2009 3:16 PM EDT
Precisely, moisnhcrnr.
by Mortarman_29 October 23, 2009 3:31 PM EDT
Rightbehind...so you want to control costs by dictating prices?

Good luck with that!! It'll destroy the economy. And healthcare.
by CompletelyFrustrated October 23, 2009 4:02 PM EDT
you're right - but Pelosi makes sure the illegals get everything they need - forget about the people that pay HER salary.

Play this clip on you tube and see why our heakth care system is crumbling - this clip only covers Florida, but other states have this problem too! Testimony of illegal alien care from 1 Florida hospital
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLJxmJZXgNI
by rightbehind October 23, 2009 2:19 PM EDT
Freedom is not having to line a health care ceo pocket!
Reply to this comment
by rightbehind October 23, 2009 2:13 PM EDT
You go Nancy! Lets see the color of these dogs. Are they true blue democrats or are the the yellow dog democrats that call themselves blue riding the real democrats coattails. Lets see the color of these dogs. Force the vote! It's time. Get rid of that phony baloney republican created health care insurance market. It eats 1 of every 3 dollars spent on health care and provides no service to the patient. It's time a patient got what's best for them instead of what's best for the stockholders. Bring on the vote!
Reply to this comment
by jhavis October 23, 2009 2:12 PM EDT
I am sick and tired of people talking about "FREE" insurance. In order for the Government to give anything for free to someone, they have to steal the money from someone else. One of these days the people who do not work in this country will find that there are not enough people working to pay for everything for them to sit on their butts and keep getting "FREE" stuff. That day will come a lot sooner when the Democrats start giving even more "FREE" stuff to illegal aliens who pay nothing into this society. Then you will find out like so many people in countries that have socialialized medicine what it is like to wait 6 months to get a test that you used to get right away. We will no longer have the highest survival rate for breast cancer because by the time it is detected it will be too late. That's what happens when you get "FREE" stuff and also when the Government get's involved in anything. Quality goes down as costs go up and there are less and less people to pay for everyone.
Reply to this comment
by rightbehind October 23, 2009 2:18 PM EDT
I'm sick and tired of the health care insurance riding the backs of everyone. It's a phony baloney republican created market that provides no service whatsoever to the patient. They eat up 1 of every 3 dollars spent just for playing the middle man. Get rid of them. Bring on the vote for the robust public health care option!
by Skirt-Lifter October 23, 2009 3:05 PM EDT
by rightbehind October 23, 2009 2:18 PM EDT
""They eat up 1 of every 3 dollars spent just for playing the middle man. Get rid of them.""
________________
You are correct.
Insurance provides no medical service whatsoever.

Attorneys provide no medical service too. When you add the Legal Dept in with Insurance Dept, and throw in a little Admin Dept because of all the paperwork, you wind up with most of the dollars flowing into a hospital flowing out to the dept's that provide ZERO medical care.

I'm not sure the public option will alleviate this phenomenon. Plus, Nancy Pelosi is so hard to stomach, it's hard to clime on board.

I admit, this is a conundrum that's to convoluted for my tiny brain.
by Mortarman_29 October 23, 2009 3:33 PM EDT
The government provides no medical service also!!

Reform would get the lawyers, the government and the insurance companies out of it. And let it be just between my doctor and me.
by rightbehind October 23, 2009 2:08 PM EDT
That's easy, We want the robust plan. We prefer single payer. Bring it to a vote. Either way we win. We will either have a good strong public option or a list of politicians to send packing. Of course we expect the DNC to turn their backs on any politician who stands in the way of the strong public option. More than 60% of this nation wants the public option. The democrats better make it good. Bring it to a vote and then let the voters make their choices. Going to be some blue actually yellow dogs without work shortly. 2010 elections are coming fast. Bring on the vote!
Reply to this comment
by charles123456789075 October 23, 2009 1:49 PM EDT
How can any public option cut costs? To enforce it, the Fed will hire thousands upon thousands of very expensive czars and mini-czars, each assigned to various aspects of hospitals and clinics to question every diagnosis performed and monitor every dime spent. Trillions will be spent on a new government agency for Federal oversight, yet the quality and access to everyday healthcare will be reduced drastically We will suffer tax payer funded abortions and rashioned care. Governments can never run creative and productive programs efficiently, they merely want to tax more to gain more control. If governments ran society well, we would all be moving to Cuba and Venezuela. Castro and Chavez promise the 'ultimate' government run healthcare option that the democrats in Congress are seeking yet the healthcare in those two nations is dismal. The democrats are transforming the worlds best healthcare system into one second-rate and will send our economy into the economic abyss of the third world.

Charles Jackson PhD. Computer Science
Reply to this comment
by speakinup04 October 23, 2009 2:16 PM EDT
Precisely, Chuck. Not sure I agree we have the best, but otherwise I agree.

The current government seems intent on maintaining their office by providing even MORE unsustainable entitlements.

There will come a day when all of these government sponsored entitlements will come to a screeching halt, by reason of necessity - no funds can be raised. Just as the Military pensions did in the Soviet Union. I'm NOT arguing their goodness or justness, I'm just saying our government won't be able to provide them - even if you paid for them.

And yet, Pelosi, Reid and Obama do their best to create yet another.
See all 112 Comments

About Political Hotsheet

Stay up to the minute on the latest news and developments from Washington, from the White House to Congress and everything in-between with the best political reporters from CBS News and CBSNews.com.

E-Mail Political Hotsheet
Follow On Twitter

Add to your favorite news reader
google
yahoo
msn
  • MOST POPULAR
HOTSHEET ON TWITTER