I hate that "since there's no need to produce profits this will umdermine the efficacy of this or that program" argument. Does the library, fire dept., or police force work to attain a profit? No. It's incidental to what they do. If they actually do make a profit in any quarter it's a bonus, so to speak. Yet no one would say our fire dept.'s, police dept.'s or libraries are subpar overall.

Obama is really going to have step up here. For us. For once. If he doesn't and prefers to put politics above the 50 million Americans who have no insurance, I feel all will be lost. I'm sick of these healthcare lobbyiests. SICK TO DEATH OF THEM letting them run the table here.

There must be a public option-there's no use in any bill without one. I just don't get how there can be healthare reform without public option or even single payer. Does anyone really believe if a bill is passed without a public option that the next day insurance companies are going to slash premiums, let everyone in to their plan, cover the unemployed and underemployed, the mentally ill,old and young-for $50.00 a month and $4 perscriptions for everyone?

NOT GONNA HAPPEN.

Sorry, I just reread this post and my complaint while valid somewhere doesn't really apply to what you posted. My bad. I should get more sleep so that I can cut down on these kind of cringe inducing errors on my part. lol

Obama's power only goes so far, Jan. It's the "blue dog" Dems that are going to hold this up if anyone is. Republicans don't have enough to block it, so it really is a test of the Democrats' spines.

I'm afraid they have none.

You are trying to pin this on the Republicans? Bob?

Your party is every bit as willing to keep health insurers in the loop. Any loop that includes health insurers will necessarily cost more than we can afford.

Th only solution is a single payer system that eliminates the necessary profit that health insurance companies need to stay in business.

Will your party draft that legislation, Bob? Will they?

Or will they spend their time spinning reasons as to why thy were forced to keep health insurers employed after they've betrayed America once again?

Come on, Bob. You and I both know that this is your party's biggest chance to fuck individuals in favor of health insurers. You don't really think people like Nancy and Harry will actually stand up to the health insurance lobby, do you?

If you want to learn why political parties should be eliminated, just watch this one issue. Watch how your elected officials will repeatedly make every effort to pay back the lobbies who will fund their next campaign. Watch how not just the Republicans, but especially the Democrats (since thy ARE the VAST majority) will draft a healthcare bill that will PROTECT health insurers more than it will normal American citizens.

You see, Bob, in order for your party to DO THE RIGHT THING, they have to screw one of their largest contributors. Who here believes your party has the morals to do that? I think a Catholic Nun has a better chance of remaining a virgin on an island of sex offenders than your party does of doing the right thing.

I look forward to the day you become an Independent, leaving your party after realizing how totally corrupt they really are.

Obama is the head of the party. If he can't whip the votes then what good is he? He needs to use some of his political capital and pull back on certain campaign funding, shame the dogs in the press, send folks from his administration out to the blue dog territory, hold town meetings in their cities and counties. I doubt if a vulnerable blue dog is going to go up against him- at their own peril.

The dems have no spines but I am still holding out hope that Obama does. I know he wants to be all nice and bipartisan but hell he's been talking about this for well over two years.

Now it's time. Let's see if he can walk the walk instead of just pontificating about it in every domestic policy speech.

The rethugs are totally irrelevent on healthcare reform except to get on every TV show and try and block it.

As CitizenJ said-it's the spineless democrats who are the big problem.

And that's a damn sad state of affairs.

Their complaints that a public payer system provides competition with which the insurance providers can't compete belies their argument that the government can not possibly be as efficient as private industry which is the single biggest argument they use against a single payer system.

One side of mouth: The insurance companies can't compete with the low prices the public payer option will be able to achieve.

Other side of mouth: A single payer health care system will cost too much because government run programs do not have the efficiency of privately run 'for profit' companies.

So which is it? It can't be both.

PPP predictably wrote:

You are trying to pin this on the Republicans? Bob?

Your party is every bit as willing to keep health insurers in the loop. Any loop that includes health insurers will necessarily cost more than we can afford.

I'm pinning the opposition to a public option on the Republicans. Yes. Because a few blue dogs are breaking ranks doesn't mean all of the Democrats are guilty. In fact, it's Democrats who are leading the charge on this, PPP.

As for bringing health insurers to the table, it's only a matter of incrementalism and politics. A public option has to be passed NOW, and the Obama administration is learning from the mistakes of HRC.

You beat me to it, Bob. PPP blaming the Democrats when this wouldn't even be a discussion if there were a Republican in the White House. Show me the GOP members willing to break ranks and support single payer, PPP, then we'll talk. I doubt that will be anytime soon.

Bob,

In fact, it's Democrats who are leading the charge on this, PPP.

I've yet to see any Democrat with a plan, Bob. What I HAVE seen, however, is health insurer lobbyists visiting their Democratic and Republican friends. I have read of plans that include groups like Anthem, Blue Cross, United healthcare, etc, being willing to include all individuals, and price premiums based on the larger risk pool, SO LONG AS ALL PEOPLE ARE FORCED TO BUY THEIR INSURANCE.

The choice between a state plan and a private insurer plan isn't a choice; the State plan is still underwritten by an INSURANCE COMPANY. So what are we talking about here, Bob? Legalized monopoly?

Lose the insurance companies altogether, and then we can talk. Your party doesn't even want to consider that. The plan linked to in that article (linked to the NY Times) specifically states that an insurance company administers it. So, we're still paying their profit and wacky administrative costs.

i.e, making the system cost far more than it should.

Wait, ...I guess that does make sense if you're a Democrat or Republican.

Carl,

The Democrats hold the vast majority. They do not need a single Republican vote, and can even stand to lose a few blue dems. This isn't something that requires a two-thirds majority.

No, they want to call it a public option because they want to protect their health insurance friends; you know, the ones who so generously support their numerous re-election campaigns.

Even President Obama has been trying to calm the health insurers' fears. Dos that sound like someone who is willing to even consider single-payer?

When are you going to wake up and see the spin for what it is? I guarantee you, Carl, if I had five billion dollars to donate to the Democratic party, they'd accept it, and single payer would be the ONLY option we'd be discussing. Then, you would see how easy it is to bribe your party, or any party.

Why do we pay for health care?

It's too much to paint all healthcare insurance with the same "they continually make more money and seek to deny more benefits" brush. Several regional, non-profit healthcare insurance companies such as Group Health in Seattle are actively trying to drive down cost while simplifying and easing their insured's access to benefits and care.

The responsibility of the employers themselves is often overlooked. They, far more than insurance companies, determine what benefits their employees can utilize and how - and they're all too happy to see the blame for truncated care placed at the feet of the insurance provider. Think of insurance companies as offering a variety of benefits that can be cobbled together into a coverage plan. Employer groups pick and choose, with price governing those choices more often than not. But in the end, it is the employer that makes the call.

For employers, skyrocketing costs of healthcare - not completely controlled by insurance providers - makes these choices harder to make and more costly to provide. These employer groups ask for increasingly complex structured benefits to offset cost and still serve their employees, but this leads to more complex claims processing and plan administration.

I am not a shameless apologist for health insurance, but the idea that the core issue is centered on greedy, oversized insurance providers ignores critical roles played by employer groups and us as consumers. We as customers use more and more of our healthcare benefits when they are not necessarily needed, and simultaneously demand cutting edge technology to be readily available for our care. These demands also drive costs upward.

For substantive change to occur we need to look at all facets and resist the urge to reduce the discussion to attacking a couple of players at the table. We're all involved and all have responsibilities. The answer will not be provided by the government, a public plan and a bunch of defunct insurance companies. Why not? Because the problem is far more complex than the apparent solution we're tempted to jump at.

"We as customers use more and more of our healthcare benefits when they are not necessarily needed, and simultaneously demand cutting edge technology to be readily available for our care."

And this applies to the uninsured how?

I agree with you on your last paragraph. I think everything needs to become local again. Everything. Looking to the federal government to solve any kind of problem that cuts into vested private interests is an exercise in futility, save for the lawmakers' accounts.

Had an argument with the 'rents in my car Saturday night about this. My dad's a surgeon, nearing retirement age, and my mom runs his office. He has had a remarkably successful career for 40 years, and they have lived very well. My older brother, in his early fifties, is an OB/GYN and is on salary with a large multi-disciplinary firm. I argued that the whole point of the Obama plan was to help people who couldn't afford health care to be able to afford it. Their argument was that they'd make less money as a result. They did not see having more people actually accessing health care as a benefit over getting more money from fewer privately-insured people. Mind-boggling. I kept saying that if they would actually listen to what they were saying, they'd convince themselves that they were wrong.

Don't the rules of capitalism tell us that extra competition raises quality and drives down prices?

Why would democrats or republicans oppose this?

While always ongoing, Obama has implemented his national security and economic plans. Getting a public health care option is essential. This would be Obama's legacy and I hope he understands that. Mr. President, if this bill has to be watered down like the stimulus was, don't even bother signing it. You only need half the votes, this will not be filibustered, and it will probably only be attempted once in your presidency. Make sure you get it right.

By the way, what is the best way for us to fight for this? Besides nagging my senators and congressman, what is our most effective way forward?