Thanks, Nance. So, now we're being asked to support a plan that just forces us to buy insurance, from the corporations who are actually the problem.

Did Obama kill the public option during secret negotiations with lobbyists back in spring 2009 (the same way he killed drug re-importation)? That is a more interesting question for TPM to answer than whatever happened with Massa.

Get on the phone to your Congressional House and Senate reps and tell them your vote this November depends on the Public Option...

http://www.contactingthecongress.org/cgi-bin/newseek.cgi?site=ctc&state=ca

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

Personally, the only thing I want from this bill anymore is the exchanges. Any other "good" thing is gravy, any "bad" thing can be altered when its badness becomes evident (the way the "Cornhusker Kickback" will be altered before the ink is even dry on the underlying bill).

Set up the exchanges. That way, they'll be there to add a public option to when we DO have the votes. Which will probably be after the next round of premium increases by for-profit insurance companies.

Let me understand this:

Health insurance works like this:

1.) You go to a doctor
2.) Your doctor submits her bill to an insurance company
3.) In most instances, your insurance company remits payment;
4.) Your doctor charges you some type of co-payment (depending on plan -- could be $30 or it could be $3,000).

Why, exactly, is the public option -- the one where the government acts as the insurer -- a better choice than a private insurer?

The meat of this debate is in two areas: the underlying cost of the care and the fact that so many of us don't have access to care. One is directly related to the other. If you take care of the second group, the first will take care of itself.

Subsidies for private insurance should help lower the cost for all of us (or should ensure that the rate increases are slowed) because the doctors won't have to price services with the assumption that 15% of their patients aren't going to pay them.

Finally, a note about profits. Health insurers make money in so many different areas. Sure, they make money on premiums and on denying coverage but have you stopped to think about the fact that so many of their customers don't use their service and yet continue to pay the premiums? I have little ones who see their pediatrician every three to six months. My wife and I, knock-wood, are healthy. We pay out a lot more than we take in. The insurer takes a chunk of that money, invests it and makes money on the investments. It uses the rest for patient care and administrative costs -- claims folks, executives and etc.

Would the government be more efficient? In some areas, it would. There would be no CEO of The Public Option.

But, have you wondered why that one town in Texas -- the subject of last year's New Yorker magazine article -- was able to recommend ridiculously lavish treatments and bill Medicare for it? The public option may be a good choice but let's not make it something it's not. Medicare is fine for the beneficiaries but it's not some super-efficient service.

It's necessary for sure because retirees are on fixed incomes and wouldn't be able to afford private insurance. But, let's not say it's some model of efficiency. And, let's not hurt Democrats in November because they didn't support the public option even as they voted to largely subsidize health insurance premiums for millions who need it.

Would you rather have John Boehner as Speaker?

The 30% claim? Earth to Mateo ..... the insurers are PROUD of the fact that they can dump tens of thousands of sick people to get their payout per dollar taken in down in the 70% range. The mega investors who put their billions into insurance stock bid up the price of those stocks based on how LITTLE of the premium income they actually have to give out to caring for sick people. It is the most cruel and immoral of incentives in modern American capitalism. Your Pollyanna view of what happens to your insurance payments is the entire problem with our system and getting some common sense reform. You just do not see making a "killing" off letting thousands and thousands suffer and die is anything different than selling cars or bread or coffee do you?

Profiting from dumping sick and dying patients into the street is not fraud? Having sold them an insurance policy and then refused payments when you get sick is not fraud?

My great-grandfather lived to an active and happy 96 years old. Are you suggesting that if he had gotten sick with some correctable heart condition that we just let him die? Is 90 your cut off date? Some folks get worn out at 65 or 75 and some just keep going. What is your point about letting old people suffer and die? So we don't have to tax millionaires on their ability to pay? Your presumptions are making me SICK!

B-B-B-But, but...

There are 8 to 10 votes for single payer!!! Doesn't that count for something?!?!?!

This is all Rahm's fault. Or David Plouffe. Or Axelrod. Or That One! I'm going to stamp my feet in the corner and pretend that this is the only chance to get the public option! EVER! I'm going to pretend that killing this bill because it doesn't have a public option will increase the chances of getting a public option when the Party of No has regained Congress and Tim Pawlenty is President! I'm going to demagogue until I get my 15 minutes of fame on pretending that I have the votes to kill the bill because I don't believe a woman should have dominion over her own body! I'm going to suggest that we scrap the bill and start over from scratch! Does anybody remember laughter?!?!?!

kamagra m65