The Carper Compromise On Health Care
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Democrats, Health Care, Republicans
Stepping out of the shadows and into the spotlight today is Dem Senator Tom Carper from Delaware. He’s offering a third way on health care that could garner enough bipartisan support to pass.
Essentially, it gives states the option to choose between private co-ops or a public option. Pretty easy.
Carper wants to allow states to individually decide whether to create a private-insurance competitor such as a government plan and a nonprofit insurance cooperative, or to open up state-based insurance pools for government workers to every resident.It could appeal to Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), who has endorsed a similar trigger approach, while bringing in progressives who may not see a way – at this point – to pass a bill through the Senate with a public option.
All while publicly proclaiming to be agnostic on the government option, Carper has buttonholed President Barack Obama several times, shopped a one-page explainer to his Finance Committee colleagues, and huddled with Snowe. He began formulating his plan several weeks ago, and has been quietly talking it up since then.
“One thing I have focused on is to get Democrats and Republicans to work together on thorny divisive issues,” Carper said Wednesday. “And this is an area where we need to get a consensus.”
Folks, this is the ONLY way the public option can live on and the idea that it offers states more choices should be compelling for the red states
Still, my guess is that anything containing a public option, even if it’s not mandated, will be rejected by Republicans because that’s now been positioned as some stealth single payer and therefore is untenable on the right.
We shall see…
This entry was posted on Thursday, October 1st, 2009 and is filed under Democrats, Health Care, Republicans. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
October 1st, 2009 at 1:45 pm
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/08/03/still-not-convinced-the-public-option-is-a-trojan-horse-for-single-payer/
Sorry fellas but the Public option is nothing but a trojan horse to take over health care by the US government.
Watch these videos by democrats admitting such. Even the president himself is caught on tape admitting that the public option is nothing more then a trojan horse designed to fool the American people.
And you guys wonder why the conservative tea baggers are marching in the streets? Just watch these videos and perhaps you’ll learn why. The government just continues to lie to us and deceive us. The only thing thats changed is now we have a (D) in front of the name instead of an (R).
But thats okay…Like Michael Moore said…if you dont vote for it….we will come get you…..we will come get you….we will come get youuuuuuuuuuuuu.
October 1st, 2009 at 1:49 pm
Justin
Its not been positioned. Its been stated by many leading Democrats that it is EXACTLY stealthed into place as a single payer.
They are on RECORD admitting such.
Even the president. View the links I provided above and then continue discussing with us all how the GOP are somehow on drugs or something for seeing boogey men in the shadows when it comes to single payer.
October 1st, 2009 at 2:44 pm
Really? Well, if the extremist propogandists at Heritage have their bright blue Liberty Bell panties all in a twist… then the Carper Compromise must have some reasonable, common-sense ideas in it somewhere.
Agnostick
agnostick@excite.com
October 1st, 2009 at 2:52 pm
Doomed-I watched part of the video with Schakowsky and first off, since it is edited, hard to say what was said in context but she said that the goal of health care reform was not to protect the health insurance companies but to focus on the health of Americans. Realizing that is not the GOP way of looking at things I had NO problem with that. She also stated that competing in the marketplace she thought the public option would lead to single payer. Competition is something the GOP gives lip service to all of the time. Has that changed?
It would be a bit like saying I want to see a country run on rationality and reason and you extrapolating from that that I want to outlaw all religions. While an admirable goal, I’d never impose it. I’d just hope eventually we’d end up there. I think the world would be better off without Republicans (or at least the current crop) but again, I’d hope we evolved to that not force it to happen.
October 1st, 2009 at 4:01 pm
Yes, lets continue to let Insurance companies ration our health care, driving people into bankruptcy and death just so we can maintain the illusion of a free market.
October 1st, 2009 at 4:07 pm
You can see whatever you want to see. I just put it out there.
I find it amazing that she says the point is to put health care insurers out of business and you see that as rational.
You wonder why we protest.
How about some intellectual honesty by the left. Their idea of health care reform is to not reform the system
They simply want the government to run it because they think it will be free.
Well my friends. Their ain’t nothing free in this country. Already they are floating cap and trade, national vat and taxes amounting to 300 billion on your health care premiums.
So lets be honest and call public option what it is.
The democrats desire to nationalize health care. Just say it.
Why hide behind deceptions, white lies and misdirection??
October 1st, 2009 at 4:21 pm
Doomed-
The point is I could make the same leaps you are making and say why don’t we just say
Republicans don’t care about Americans.
They want them to die because the companies (who they work for) make more money that they can then funnel to GOP politicians and shareholders.
Republicans think by and large that companies should have no brakes on them, that government should stay out of their way. How did that work out while our economy and the rest of the world went off the cliff?
So by your reasoning, you can say it will only be all one way or the other. No room for anything in the middle. I want the world to be more to my liking, you want it to be to yours.
I do think that some of your statements are far more dishonest than what you accuse Democrats of.
Like this whopper — Their idea of health care reform is to not reform the system…. and that isn’t dishonest? They are the only ones interested in reform
I’d Love to see Single Payer. It isn’t likely to be there anytime soon. And when you have to argue against phantoms, it’s hard to see it on the horizon.
October 1st, 2009 at 4:22 pm
Yes, lets continue to let Insurance companies ration our health care, driving people into bankruptcy and death just so we can maintain the illusion of a free market.
I agree with this. So reform should take a different form then simply a public option that in some imaginary way is supposed to force the prices down.
1. National arbitration for malpractice. All doctors pay into a pool and is subsidized by the government like the FDIC that insures people against malpractice. Doctors premiums are drastically reduced while sill forcing them to pay into a pool. 1 percent of health care premiums are additionally paid into this pool so that any malpractice is Arbitrated and not tried in a court of law.
2. Health care policies can be customized to not include drug abuse. Mental hospital stays. Alcohol abuse. Lowering an individuals premium because their is no expectation of these ever being needed.
3. No maternity coverage. Especially for a man who is single. For older couples who are done with kids. Simply put you can customize your auto insurance. Why not health insurance.
If your married and 25 years old then obviously maternity coverage would be something you would include in your policy.
4. No preexisting conditions…done away with….nada, zip. Zilch.
5. No loss of coverage for any reason.
6. National program that pays for cobra when you lose your job for up to 1 year.
7. Purchase pool of insurance. No state lines.
8. customized deductibles.
9. Preventative care that is zero deductibe and includes one or two annual physicals.
I could go on and on and on. These are things that are doable without raping the insurance industry whom the Democrats decided needed raping. Their must be a bad guy. In this case you guys have chosen the Insurance industry as the bad guy when in fact they are so over regulated that they can barely move under the weight of federal regulations.
There are many things that could be done…..But offering a public option via governmental health care is simply a way to run the insurance companies out of business.
October 1st, 2009 at 4:41 pm
Republicans don’t care about Americans.
Well by your reasoning then neither do Democrats because the democrats want to force millions of Americans in the insurance industry onto unemployment so they can have free insurance for poor people.
But you did just say it. You do want single payer. At least your honest. Our politicians know they cant be honest. Watch the interview with Barney Frank.
They dont have the votes for it. Why is that? Because in the end 80 percent of Americans love their health care.
You guys have created a boogey man with the Insurance industry when in fact their is no boogey man and their is no CRISIS in the health care industry.
CRISIS….CRISIS….CRISIS…its what the Obama Administration came into office screaming.
We need a bad guy. We need someone to demonize. When Bush was gone…Palin faded….Rush didnt cooperate…then they created the bad guy out of the INSURANCE industry.
Classic Alinsky….create a crisis then fix it….Like Emmanuel said..”Never let a good crisis go to waste.”
October 1st, 2009 at 4:50 pm
Justin:
Baucus Bill Includes Kucinich-like Option for State Level Single Payer and it just may pass.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/10/what_if_they_passed_single-pay.html
October 1st, 2009 at 5:15 pm
Doomed -
You missed the point. The hyperbole was to counter yours, not because I thought it was reasonable. I may have said this before but I used to have a brokerage license and stock brokers thought insurance people were sleazy. Might give you an idea.
Right now denying coverage is profitable, if it seems logical to you and a good thing for our society, then we won’t ever see eye to eye. As to crisis, it is one which is why more of us voted to get rid of all the Republicans and we want something done.
and btw, If Republicans were honest they would say “Screw anybody who can’t take care of themselves for whatever reason, we just don’t care. ” I know some people honest enough to say that but you don’t hear their politicians doing it. They’d get rid of minimum wage, social security, medicare, medicaid, safety standards and regulations. Go ahead and run on what you really believe and see how far that gets you.
October 1st, 2009 at 5:35 pm
Once again Word your pulling an Alinsky.
There is no doubt that health care companies are in the business of making a profit. If that means you have aids and are going to cost them 2 million dollars for a 1000 dolllar a month policy then your going to be denied coverage.
Its the same principal that auto industries use. Life insurance uses.
Health care IS an option. A luxury. A benefit. The health care industry operated accordingly.
Health care is not as of today in America a RIGHT that is being denied to people. At least not as of today.
You have NO right to automobile insurance if your do not meet conditions. YOU have NO right to life insurance if you are not a healthy risk…..Its a luxury….a benefit…..NOT a RIGHT.
Now you and the democrats are suddenly creating a boogey man out of their desire to work as a corporation providing a benefit and not a right.
So you want to redefine the starting point…..then demonize them.
You complain that I miss your point then go on to some rational explanation and then once again you end your post with ……Republicans should just say SCREW>>>> blah…blah…blah.
You obviously do not want rational discourse. You seem to agree with Howard Dean when he said.
“I hate Republicans and everything they stand for.”
And then you blame me for not agreeing with you.
October 1st, 2009 at 7:16 pm
Doomed -
You are consistent in missing the point. I will give you that. You made it a conspiracy from one side from the start. I pointed out you were overstating the case and creating a bogeyman of ulterior motives and deceptions. I tried to make the point that if one were going to leap to a conclusion it could be done from the other side as well. You then again pulled out a red herring and said that there was a conspiracy to IMO someday arrive at what we’d like from my view. I then tried to point out that if you held Republicans to the standard that you want Democrats to adhere to they’d have to be against all of the things I mentioned since they were opposed to ALL of those things.
If you don’t think that the wealthiest, most religious industrialized nation can achieve what all of the other industrialized nations can because we should make the decisions based on profit to companies, state that— but then I’d likely say that since it wasn’t profitable to run electricity, clean water and roads to many of the Red States and they get more money back than they put in that we would like that money back since they chose to live there and I’d rather take care of people who often without any fault of their own can die and/or go bankrupt so that you can siphon off money to the non-health care industry. People are more important to me.
I don’t care about you agreeing, I’m just looking for you to realize you are holding a single side to task for what you say are important criteria for you. They obviously, to me, aren’t or you’d see that they are one-sided. The point was to get you to see that everything you rail against you are accepting of.
October 1st, 2009 at 8:02 pm
I said nothing about a conspiracy but IM glad you brought that up because that is exactly what the democrats are doing. They are lying about what a public option really means to America.
I’m glad that you admit that it is in fact a conspiracy to fool the American public into voting for something that is not what they thought it was….You know…Sorta like Iraq.
So Then how do we pay for all this?
John Podesta, who is an Obama adviser, said the administration should consider a tax on consumption, such as a value-added tax system similar to that in use in the European Union.
White House economic adviser Larry Summers and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner refused to rule out middle-class tax increases during Sunday talk-show appearances over the summer.
Of course this was all disavowed by Gibbs. We cant tell Americans whats really going to happen. Can we?
I get the point. Democrats want a public option which they know will eventually turn into single payer. They will lie about it. Use deceptive methods. Deflect and change the subject to get what they want. Then accuse Republicans of hating Americans.
Thats the point. Everyones starting to understand this which is why the Presidents numbers are down to like 40 percent now on favoring Obama’s healthcare plan because they are being dishonest.
FOOL ME ONCE(Bush) Shame on US
FOOL ME TWICE(Obama) aint gonna happen.
October 1st, 2009 at 8:13 pm
Doomed-
Just hold your side to your standard.
Don’t want health care reform
Don’t want to work for health care reform
Don’t particularly care about those who lose under the current system (If we did we could easily have changed things far more easily than Democrats can because they would have supported it)
We will say and do anything to defeat Health Care Reform
We will say and do anything to defeat Obama because we think it will be good for our Party
So who’s lying?
October 1st, 2009 at 8:38 pm
Don’t want health care reform
Don’t want to work for health care reform
Don’t particularly care about those who lose under the current system (If we did we could easily have changed things far more easily than Democrats can because they would have supported it)
We will say and do anything to defeat Health Care Reform
We will say and do anything to defeat Obama because we think it will be good for our Party
So here is a classic Alinsky bait and switch. Now instead of talking about the opening premise which was the public option being a disingenious method of bringing about single payer healthcare in the USA we are now condemning Republicans as being anti American because they do not want another huge entitlement program piled on top of a 767 billion dollar deficit already.
Classic. However I reiterate the Democrats took the healthcare industry wich was operating under a certain expectation given them by both the public and a mountain of government red tap and now in the middle of the debate the goal posts were moved, the rules were changed to make them into an EVIL entity thats robbing America of her health.
Classic…Alinsky….create a crisis….perpetuate the crisis…offer a solution for the crisis.
The problem is there is no Crisis Word. Your just making one up and when you run out of talking points you then start shouting…Republicans are evil.
Classic.
October 1st, 2009 at 8:48 pm
Now as to your points. Ill answer as I feel is appropriate.
Don’t want health care reform……totally wrong. They just dont want a public option and they dont want to do what YOU want them to do.
We will say and do anything to defeat Obama because we think it will be good for our Party
Now this might have some validity to it. It is after all a political test of wills and the Democrats just spent 8 years saying and doing anything to defeat Bush because it was good for their party.
October 1st, 2009 at 9:31 pm
If you could say Alinsky a bit more I could take you more seriously. :-)
Please tell me when the GOP has pushed for Health Care Reform—EVER. Because if they had, we’d already have it.
Your opening premise was Democrats have a trojan horse to someday have a single payer plan. They are so damn sneaky about it that almost everyone says it’s what they’d like in a perfect world but that it isn’t likely which many would say destroys your premise since they said it in public or in front of cameras.
I have been repeatedly trying to show you that it is just as much if not far more plausible to say that the secret plan of the GOP is to kill reform and that everything they say on the subject to the contrary is every bit as deceptive if not more so than what you are railing about.
The Democratic premise, as I would state it, is that the system doesn’t work. Part of that system is that putting lives of Americans in a situation where profits determine someone’s ability to live is not a good way to run health care. They also take the position that although based on the market we get much less than we pay for when compared to other countries. You may think all of that is wrong. The most recent election shows that more Americans disagree with you than agree. Health Care Reform was one of the major reasons stated for the results.
You may disagree with that but Death Panels and Killing Grandma are where your side has made their stand. So who has really taken the deceptive approach to the argument? All of the independent fact checks that I have seen are overwhelmingly that the debate from the Right is not factually based.
Oh and I have never read Saul Alinsky.
October 1st, 2009 at 9:50 pm
One thing I don’t get is that for decades now the Republicans have been working to cut or even get rid of Medicare, now all of a sudden they are fighting against any cuts to it at all.
Seems pretty opportunistic.
October 1st, 2009 at 11:30 pm
I’ll sidestep the bogart of the thread. Quite a battle there.
I think I like the ideas of giving a state’s residents access to the purchasing power of that state’s workers’ pool. One of the most troubling inequities of the current system is that folks without access to a pool pay higher premiums. Insurance cos negotiate premiums to get the business of big groups.
Another thing I’d like to see is some way to bring down the “sticker” cost of various treatments. You know, the full price tag that almost no one pays. Like,you get oh I dunno a custom splint to immobilize a sprain, and your bill says it’s $561, yada yada they accept your insurance which reimburses for $280. Some sap without insurance pays the full $561. If the doctor can get by with $280, n one sb paying the $561. Maybe their could be a rule where your sticker price can’t be more that say 30% greater than the average reimbursement you get.
October 1st, 2009 at 11:36 pm
Curious Kranky- If it makes sense on a state level because the pool makes things more equitable because of the numbers. Wouldn’t that be an argument for a national pool/plan whatever? I guess what I am asking is if you think there is a compelling reason to go state rather than national?
October 2nd, 2009 at 1:57 am
Dude, have you ever read the story?
The Trojan Horse was secret. That was the entire point. The Greeks didn’t put a note on the front saying “Bring this into the city, because we think you won’t expect us to be inside this thing.”
Us leftists are quite honest about what we think will happen if a strong public option goes through. It will out-compete the private plans because it will have gigantic cost advantages. Of your nine points 4, 5, 7, and 9 are already in Obama’s bill. 3 won’t be included because there are women in the Senate, and, to quote Debbie Stabenow, “I’ll bet your mother needed maternity care.”
2 won’t be included because most health care problems are, by definition, unexpected. Especially when you’re talking about a policy that applies to an entire family. It’s not like you can force a teenager to stay off drugs.
1 may be included. AFAIK the tort reform details haven’t been hammered out yet. Some kind of reform is necessary, and not just caps on punitive damages because it’s clear those don’t work. A major problem with the current system is that if your wife dies on the operating table you have to sue to see the medical records. Which means you don’t know whether it was malpractice, or an act of god until you’ve filed suit. That’s good for the lawyers, but not so good for everyone else.
6 would not be a bad idea under the current system. Under the proposed system, OTOH, fired people probably qualify for subsidies on the health Exchange so it may not be necessary.
BTW, the Obama plan doesn’t actually hurt the insurance industry. It’s quite good for the insurance industry. They get lots more customers, steady revenue in the form of subsidized premiums, etc. Even the public option won’t compete with them in 80-90% of the insurance market because it’s restricted to the exchange.
October 2nd, 2009 at 2:23 am
One aspect of the health care debate seems very clear to me personally. Democrats want to force me into their healthcare system. Republicans want to force me into my employers healthcare system. No one in this debate has brought up the notion that my body is mine and my healthcare also is mine. Or that a doctor has any right to his/her own practice. No other individual, government or corporation has the right to my life or the control of my healthcare. I’m saying I do not have the right to vote your freedoms away for my personal benefit and I promise each and every one of you, I will not vote away your individual liberties for my comfort.
October 2nd, 2009 at 4:03 am
They are so damn sneaky about it that almost everyone says it’s what they’d like in a perfect world but that it isn’t likely which many would say destroys your premise since they said it in public or in front of cameras.
U.S. Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., said today there will be a “public option” in whatever health insurance reform bill comes out of Congress.
“We are going to have a public option before this bill goes to the president’s desk,” Reid said in a conference call with constituents, referring to some kind of government plan.
You were saying????
October 2nd, 2009 at 4:23 am
Nick Benjamin.
YOU SAID:: Us leftists are quite honest about what we think will happen if a strong public option goes through. It will out-compete the private plans because it will have gigantic cost advantages.
And then you concluded.
BTW, the Obama plan doesn’t actually hurt the insurance industry.
Interesting logic. I like how you twist and conflate your conclusion by making a claim that you have no way of substatniating. How can you claim that it will not affect 90 percent of insurance carriers?
There isnt even a bill yet!
October 2nd, 2009 at 9:24 am
Doomed- I say we want single payer but it isn’t likely to happen. I say we want to have a public plan as an imperfect plan but step in the right direction. I say that most are quite out in the open over these two things while you say it is a secret plot (a Trojan Horse) To prove it’s a secret plan, you send a link with video of people saying out loud exactly that. You still don’t get how inconsistent and ridiculous your reasoning is.
Are you trying to be obtuse?
October 2nd, 2009 at 10:12 am
say we want to have a public plan as an imperfect plan but step in the right direction.
Okay at least we are back in the same ballpark now on this discussion.
I know that the democrats want single payer but are willing to settle for the public option.
WHY? Why are they willing to settle for the public option when they literally can just force thru any bill they want?
two reasons.
1. They want to not be massacre at the polls next year.
2. They know that public option will lead to putting health insurance out of business and bring about single payer in the United States over time.
To pretend anything else is simply lying, or at the very least being deceptive and herein lies the publics perception that the GOP is the party of NO. I have listed many, many things that are in need of reform that I am willing to do in congress. The problem is that none of these are really central. What is central is the public option. Nothing else matters.
Reform for democrats means a public option and health care for all.
Reform for the republicans means making changes, doing a lot of things but NOT a public option.
Your sides conclusion is Republicans hate Americans and want them to die.
October 2nd, 2009 at 10:33 am
Doomed-
You wrote
Reform for the republicans means making changes, doing a lot of things but NOT a public option.
Without the public option there are still ZERO Republicans onboard so your argument is with reality, not me.
capture bounces Brundage – I guess that means Chicago will get the Olympics
October 2nd, 2009 at 10:33 am
Join in this debate. Conservatives are taking over: Should Americans have equal access to health care? Good or Bad?. – What do you think? http://budurl.com/publichealthcare “
October 2nd, 2009 at 10:47 am
I really can’t take Doomed seriously. Sorry. Too much crazy to debate. :)
I will say, as a fan of the public option, I do really like the idea of breaking it down to a state level. Every state is vastly different, and letting each manage the best system for them is a good idea. It brings the system down to a more manageable size while increasing flexibility.
October 2nd, 2009 at 11:13 am
Reform for the Republican leadership means passing bills that are called reform but in reality do little or nothing except provide more profits for corporations. Look at the Medicare drug program they passed. It helped some while hurting them at the same time and made a fortune for Big Pharma.
October 2nd, 2009 at 11:13 am
The entire debate has been over the public option. The GOP and the Democrats are doing very little jockeying over other reforms.
The public option is the debate and it is the distraction.
Sorry Aaron if I dont say the things you like to hear. I am simply pointing out to my fellow Americans on the left that the public option
IS THE DEBATE. Healthcare reform to the democrats means public option. If not pull it and then watch Michael Moore go get a bunch of democrats fired next year.
October 2nd, 2009 at 11:30 am
Word, I think most states would provide a big enough pool to provide increased purchasing power. Plus, it seems reasonable to expect that under such a system, the nature of the program would be responsive to the demands of the people of that state. So for example, if one aspect of the Massachusetts program was unappealing to me and some of my fellow residents, we’d stand some greater chance of reform than if there were one federal program.
Further, since various states would do things differently, we’d have an ongoing opportunity to see what’s working.
That’s a fairly substantial contrast to doing a federal level program that seeks to fix almost everything at once. Even if it’ succeeds, they’d be lucky to get 60% of it right. And then it would take another generation or a fresh crisis to revise that monster.
I agree that doomed fails to make a very persuasive case on much of anything. He seems utterly convinced that the vast majority of Americans don’t want to move towards universal coverage administered substantially by the government, and sorry to say, his opposition to current effort borders on paranoia from where I sit.
Here’s the thing. Many or even most Americans feel that their current coverage is decent or good or even excellent. But these same folks are also quite concerned about what the future could bring in several respects. They are concerned that cost growth is making healthcare too big a cost burden. And they are concerned about what sort of coverage they’ll have access to should they lose their job and when they retire.
While the current system has substantial flaws and gaps, I don’t think this attempt at reform is really about the current state of affairs so much as it is about the disturbing trends in cost and coverage, and where those are leading us.
Doomed seems quite enamored of freedom. In the abstract, we all are. But when it comes right down to it, I have serious doubts about how much I would enjoy the freedom to choose between paying a really high premium or going without coverage. I am fortunate not to have faced such freedom of choice so far.
October 2nd, 2009 at 1:26 pm
He seems utterly convinced that the vast majority of Americans don’t want to move towards universal coverage administered substantially by the government, and sorry to say, his opposition to current effort borders on paranoia from where I sit.
Which is and has been my entire point. The democrats are trying to hide the public option because its so popular. In fact it keeps getting voted down because its so popular.
In fact Michael Moore had to threaten Harry Reid because its so popular.
My question to you is why are the democrats even debating it. The GOP just is going to say no. YOu have the votes…just ram it thru.
If everyone wants it,…..its so popular and Americans cant live without it then just ignore the GOP and ram it home.
Why does Michael Moore have to threaten his own party over it?
October 2nd, 2009 at 1:34 pm
kranky- I like the laboratory part of the approach and coming from Illinois, I’m in one of the groups that would most likely be a large pool area. So I could just say who cares but… But I wonder about Wyoming, and Alaska, Vermont, the Dakotas etc. They are likely a small group unless everyone is in the government plan there.
Probably too complicated but it would be nice if there was a national pool with the individual states being allowed to administer locally their premiums. That way the rate would be more spread out and likely lower. Issue I can foresee is that a dollar isn’t a dollar everywhere and what happens if someone moves.
I think the one thing that will come into play whether anyone likes it or not is that we are living longer. Technology and scientific advancements every year means we are having more years in the expensive part of the curve and that part continually is getting more expensive. It needs to be dealt with.
I really think that Republicans have lost a great opportunity to impact things with their input. If it fails, they likely take the biggest hit. If it succeeds, they only win if we all fail because it didn’t work. Either way they could have been constructive partners keeping in mind one thing. We had a referendum on the countries direction and they lost so they aren’t leading the debate but they could have constructively participated in it. Instead they chose to hang their hat on Death Panels.
October 2nd, 2009 at 4:42 pm
The only poll I have seen on health care administered entirely by the US government has those in favor at 9 NINE percent.
I hardly think our nation wants to move towards universal health care. Yet you can continue to make the claim that everyone wants it.
Obama care is now down to 42 percent support.
The proportion of Americans who think their families would be better off if health reform passes is up six percentage points (42% versus 36% in August)
These polls were published at HUFFPO….Not Fox news.
So you are 100 percent correct …….He seems utterly convinced that the vast majority of Americans don’t want to move towards universal coverage administered substantially by the government,
YEP…YEP…thats exactly what Im convinced of. Glad you cleared that up for me.