"But an additional step we can take to keep insurance companies honest...

[leftstreet]

...is by making a not-for-profit public option available in the insurance exchange."

So what's left in the bill to keep insurance companies honest?

:shrug:

THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
_________________________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release                                                September 9, 2009
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
TO A JOINT SESSION OF CONGRESS
ON HEALTH CARE
U.S. Capitol
Washington, D.C.

Now, I have no interest in putting insurance companies out of business.  They provide a legitimate service, and employ a lot of our friends and neighbors.  I just want to hold them accountable.  (Applause.)  And the insurance reforms that I've already mentioned would do just that.  But an additional step we can take to keep insurance companies honest is by making a not-for-profit public option available in the insurance exchange.  (Applause.)  Now, let me be clear.  Let me be clear.  It would only be an option for those who don't have insurance.  No one would be forced to choose it, and it would not impact those of you who already have insurance.  In fact, based on Congressional Budget Office estimates, we believe that less than 5 percent of Americans would sign up.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/remarks-by-the-president-to-a-joint-session-of-congress-on-health-care/

[EFerrari]

1. They promised Rahm they'd be his best friends forever?

:(

[leftstreet]

3. We're all gonna need friends

[amborin]

2. k&r dream on

[Thickasabrick]

4. There will be a national not-for-profit plan in the exchange. I don't

have the details but I think it was somewhat of a "bone" for not getting a public option. Still a private insurance company though. Would like to see more details on it....anybody up on that??

[girl gone mad]

12. It just would require state exchanges to offer a "non-profit" insurance company.

Like Blue Cross Blue Shield. Non-profit hasn't meant non-corrupt or non-loot-able, and it definitely doesn't insure better access to care or oversight.

[jgraz]

5. Oh, c'mon. This bill will make insurance companies more honest than they've ever been.

Once it passes, they can stop pretending they give a fuck whether you live or die and just hook a shop vac up to your bank account.

[dflprincess]

9. +1

Especially as United Health Group is running the most obnoxious ad about how important the health of their customer is to them.

I gag everytime I see it.

[leftstreet]

10. LOL

just hook a shop vac up to your bank account

:spray:

[ima_sinnic]

16. +++1 but insisting in minimum provision of a nonprofit component means we "hate Obama"

and "want him to fail."

such a provision, had he really fought for it, would have elevated him to the status of god, or at least to that of a JFK or FDR. But that would have involved a lot of risk. Status-quo lovers don't like to take risks. Better to play safe than take the chance of alienating the most important constituents, the ones with the biggest wallets but also the most insatiable greed.

[Cleita]

6. Strong regulations would keep them honest. I don't see much of that

in the bills. As far as putting insurance companies out of business, it seems there is a lot of things they can insure, inanimate things like cars and houses, but damn get them away from our bodies!

[dflprincess]

11. They could provide supplemental policies

for things like vision or if you wanted a private room if you went to the hospital. They wouldn't have to go out of business completely.

[Cleita]

13. Exactly and we have all tried to point this out and it works in France and

other European countries, but they are so greedy that they want the whole enchilada. How do you think they became the one-sixth of the economy that the Obama administration is trying to protect? Unfortunately, he's missing the real pot of gold in doing this.

[katandmoon]

7. Just buy stock in health insurance companies! Its value is skyrocketing since the P.O. bit the dust.

Says it all, doesn't it?

Obama's "to keep insurance companies honest" statement says loud and clear that Obama knows they are crooks, but he stood back and let us be sold out anyway.

Fuck him, fuck them, we are screwed and he held us down while they screwed us.

[Cleita]

14. I could have been a millionaire over and over again if I had followed

that advice. First with IBM. I did buy a small amount of stock on the suggestion of a money savvy friend that quintupled in value over the years. I sold it because I thought it was blood money. Then I could have entered the war economy with the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq by buying Haliburton and other related war businesses. And now, I knew I should have bought into those grim reaper insurance stocks. No thanks. My conscious is clean even though I struggle every day to pay the ever escalating bills.

[bfarq]

8. What happened to ending the anti-trust exemption?

That alone would do more to create real competition than any version of the public option that got any consideration. There can be no justification for giving these crooks the anti-trust exemption. That ought to be something the House pushes for in Conference. It would not fundamentally change the particulars of the Senate bill, so there is no good reason for a Senator to disagree with that change.

[Mithreal]

15. "keep insurance companies honest" is bad framing

Should try not to use the language of those who are working against us.

It subtly implies they were honest. It also implies the issue is one of honesty and they are simply denying us care when profitable. Not honesty. Not keeping.