Busted! Senator Kent Conrad of Wyoming, a doctor, when asked by Ed Schultz

[Cleita]

why single payer wasn't being considered, got the stock answer that there wasn't enough votes. Remember when Nancy Pelosi used to say that about impeachment?Didn't we deliver enough votes in the last election? Instead he kept trying to push his idea of small health insurance cooperatives. Well, a caller directed him to this page on Open Secrets and Ed read it on the air:

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00004613&cycle=2008

Here's another Democrat whose been bought by the health and PhRMA industries. I think it's time that we publish all the campaign contributors of the Democrats who are resisting this idea. Also, it doesn't take 60 votes to pass a measure but 51. Yes, the Repugs will filibuster. Let them. I don't think Obama will veto any laws that pass both houses and that have a liberal bias.

[slipslidingaway]

1. Thanks, the AMA doctor at the meeting said that although they are not in

favor of the public option, they might consider the cooperatives after seeing more details.

[Cleita]

2. Apparently the AMA is one of the obstructionists, but Thom Hartmann

pointed out that the PHNP has far more members than the AMA. So it seems even the doctors aren't buying their bias. Cooperatives are fine for banks and utilities but I don't want them running health care. It means that poor people will still go without healthcare, just like they go without telephones and probably don't have bank accounts.

[slipslidingaway]

3. Problem is we know who usually gets a seat at the table nt

[madfloridian]

4. Well the PHPN is even opposing the public option now. So where does that leave us?

http://www.progressiveparty.org/blog/?p=803

[Cleita]

5. They are right to and they back Medicare for all, HR676, which replaces

all private insurance plans because the public option being talked about is more private insurance. What's public about that? One of the plans being talked about is to allocate a trillion dollars for people to buy the insurance they want. How is this a medical plan like Medicare? It's more insurance company BS with the cherry picking, deductibles and claims denied by claims adjusters. Also, it creates a two tiered system of the haves and have nots which causes such plans to erode like Medicaid has because nobody really cares about poor people and that requires means testing. The rest of us get to keep and pay for the system we already have. Where is the reform in this? The second plan is insurance cooperatives, which won't be able to spread the risk enough and they will be forced to limit coverage and deny more claims. Also, it will open the door for the big insurers to offer something similar undercutting the competition of the smaller companies.

My take is that if PNHP digs in their heels, with our backing, the compromise might involve HR676 or an improved Medicare for all being put out there for everyone to buy into if they want it. It should be made affordable for everyone, which would require some government subsidies for those whose employers don't buy into it and who can't afford to buy to buy individually. I hope anyway that it takes some form like this. I'm sure private insurance will still be available. But that would be the compromise. Otherwise in the "compromise", the public option will take the form of what I outlined above. We will end up back at square one but with the insurance companies and HMOs walking away with an additional trillion dollars.