That's a really unflattering shot of Cantor. :\

Either way, Cantor knows the Republican caucus in either house of Congress would never vote for a reform bill, regardless of what's in it. The GOP is defined right now as 'the party of opposing whatever the democrats are for.'

The vote could be about something as inane Obama growing a beard. The Republicans will vote no if the Democrats are for it and vice versa.

In a climate where the filibuster is being abused even for minor issues, bipartisanship is dead because the party in the minority defines itself not for any particular principles but for being 'not them'.

hahahaha! You're kidding, right Cantor?

BWAAHAHAAHAAA!!!

Day late, dollar short Eric

You just lost DiFi

And in the blue corner, Senator Diane Feinstein, coming out swinging on behalf of both the public option and ending the insurance companies' antitrust exemption. Congratulations to pretty much everyone in the state are well in order. We've gone from a summer of uncertainty - "I just find that if you're going to remake a sixth of the American economy, it's very difficult at this time of great economic angst," to the autumn of our discontent - "Private, for-profit insurance companies have no moral compass." For those of you who missed it (like me), allow me to excerpt from Feinstein's update, released on Friday:

What I Support

Provide a strong, national >>public option Remove the private health insurance industry’s anti-trust exemption.
Require employers to provide health coverage.
Strictly regulate premium increases.

READ THE FULL STATEMENT HERE:
http://feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=NewsRoom.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=8360b8ab-5056-8059-76a4-3f36b0cbba6a&Region_id=&Issue_id=

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/10/25/BA281A9KHE.DTL&type=politics

Hold on:

"Cantor suggested basing reform on lowering costs for individuals, creating high-risk pools for those with pre-existing conditions"

Has anyone asked the guy how we "lower costs for individuals"? Isn't that the point of the public option? Can Cantor explain how a Congressional bill is supposed to lower the costs charged by insurance companies and doctors without having provisions that drive Republicans crazy?

Has anyone asked the guy how we have a high risk pool for people with pre-existing conditions? Who's supposed to run that? If you have a pool with just pre-existing folks, what will those premiums be? Should the gov't run it? Can't.

Next . . .?

Yes, those sacrosanct private insurance companies. Jesus, you'd think private insurance companies were part of John Locke's "Two Treatises on Government," the way Republicans venerate them.

Dear Cantor,

Not everyone is as stupid as you are.

Thanks,

Rich

"Private insurance companies simply cannot compete against a government with the leverage to set the prices it pays to health care providers (the downside, of course, is that care the government is willing to pay for will be rationed and of lower quality)," he wrote.

I have no problem with the first part. The second part is a change, how?

"Private insurance companies simply cannot compete against a government with the leverage to set the prices it pays to health care providers (the downside, of course, is that care the government is willing to pay for will be rationed and of lower quality)," he wrote.

Umm...Who cares? The insurance company QQ, I mean, not the BS lies about the quality of care under the government plan.

Dude - we had an election last November... just like we had in 2000 and 2004. This time your side lost. This time the folks who won will work for the American people, not the American Aristocracy.

So, sit down and STFU.

I don't think Cantor understands the meaning of the term "poison pill."