http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/03...l-philadelphia/

It's nice to know that exactly 7, count 'em, 7 of our 100 Senators have actually read (or plan on reading) the stupid bill. They don't even know what the !@#$ they're voting on. Pathetic. And I don't want to hear the "It's too long" excuse. Bull!@#$; read 25-50 pages a day while you're on your much-needed (yeah, right) summer vacation. It's not that hard. Kids in this country probably read as many pages of written material or more with summer reading programs. Is it any wonder that people are fed up and have no faith in these politicians? Another excellent point made by one of the people at the meeting; they couldn't get Cash For Clunkers right; how do we expect them to make split decisions on people's health? Utter nonsense.

As much as I would like to see something with healthcare, I dont see anything good coming until something is done with the Ins company, These CEO's and other big wigs making Millions each year.

OK so I opened my mail today and got all the bills for my son's knee surgery. Thankfully I only owe a few hundres dollars, but here is a break down of what got paid...

Surgon's bill $4,400 Ins paid him $805.00

Total of all the hospital bills (ER bill, stay, cruches, etc.) $18,200 Ins paid them $4,100

Understood. There are abuses in these corporations to be sure. I'm also certain that a lot of claims are denied to protect the company's bottom line, ensuring that they meet their quarterly profit goal. The thing is, I just don't believe that government is the answer. They never seem to do anything right the first time and I am not convinced that they will rein in costs. Medicare ended up costing nine times the original projections. How about tort reform? Let's find a way to throw out these baseless lawsuits before they cost everyone an arm and a leg in litigation fees. I hear that some doctors' malpractice insurance premiums are well over $100k per year. They're getting squeezed and it gets passed to patients. Couldn't we also open up more options for people? Let them get insurance policies in other states instead of being restricted to their own. Wouldn't that open up competition?

stop making sense will you..after all this is gov't were talking about. you would want consumers to have the opportunity to get better prices due to competition. all your banter is starting to sound like the "American way".

CEO pay is so minor in the scheme of things, but sells well.
Add all CEO pay and replace with zero, then compare to the whole healthcare cost and realize it makes no difference.
The gvoernment wants more power, and that is all they are looking to accomplish.
The govt already controls enough of healthcare, fix those problems, then come back to me.
Dont give me, will pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today.

People with insurance have so little concern about cost and that is a problem.
You need to get more people involved.
The pols will not do this, since they do not want to ask the people to do more.

When looking at healthcare, ask yourself, how much does you car insurance compay pay for your gas or oil changes. then ask what would these cost if paid by insurance without you having a care about the actual cost. Now ask, how is the governemnt being more involved going to fix this.

I think the longer it takes for the healthcare bill to pass, the better the chance it won't pass. As time goes on, more people are realizing what a bad ideal it is for the government to run this. If the politicians truly wanted to lower costs of healthcare, they would do something about tort reform.

That bill represents the best toilet paper ever produced. Imagine changing the coverage of 300 million people so that 5-7 million people, most of whom are probably illegal aliens who can get coverage for obvious reasons. This is the tail wagging the dog to the 10th power.

Seriously. Since when does minority rule in this country as opposed to the majority? Haven't nearly 80 percent of people polled said that they were satisfied with their current health care program?

welcome to the new America dev.

Disgusting. And add Harry Reid to the list of horse's *** politicians. He says that the people protesting the health care proposals are interfering with the Democratic process. Hey, moron. Protesting is one of the most Democratic things you can do! But it was OK when the loony lefties were protesting violenty at G8 summits during Bush's presidency and starting riots with police during the Vietnam era. What a bunch of hypocrites. The town hall meetings may have been heated verbally, but I didn't see any violence.

Actually it wasn't. They were labeled as terrorist-supporters and anti-American (esp with the Iraq War). Anyone who went against Bush was against the troops.

But I agree protesting is a good thing and it keeps the country fresh and open.

Not according to the media. They didn't have much of a problem with the rioting from what I remember.

http://blog.nj.com/njv_paul_mulshine/2009/...lping_obam.html

give me a quick summary if you can. munshine is usually pretty good. can't access here at work.

I wonder who's the genius who first thought up the idea of having a bunch of thugs all wearing the same colored shirts show up to intimidate opponents of the government.

Now I remember! It was that funny little guy with the mustache from Austria. What's his name again? I think it was "Schicklgruber" or something.


Anyway, that sort of stunt loses a little something when it crosses the Atlantic, as you can see from the above video. A gang of thugs wearing matching shirts bearing the initials of the Service Employees International Union can be seen engaging in what appears to be an attack on a person who was handing out "Don't tread on me" flags in opposition to the Obama administration's health-care plans.

Various liberal bloggers are already trying to put a positive spin on this incident that occurred outside a town hall meeting in Missouri. But they've got a couple of problems. One is that according to the St. Louis Post -Dispatch, "Two men were arrested for misdemeanor assault for allegedly punching, pushing and holding a man who was handing out American flags and fliers outside the school."

The paper didn't report whether the two were among those wearing SEIU shirts who participated in the assault. But that will come out in time.

But more damning evidence comes from the video itself. At the one-minute mark, you can hear a man remark, "Two of you guys attacked that poor guy." The anonymous goon who responds says, as if to justify the beating, "he attacked America."

The clear implication of the goon's statement is that America and the Democratic Party are the same thing.

I've seen this sort of thing before. Back when the Sandinista Party was ruling Nicaragua in the 1980s, those Marxists declared both the police and the army to be arms of the party, not the government. Oh, and they also had gangs of thugs called "turbas divinas" who would attack opposition protesters.

To descend to a more mundane level, I recall the Democrats amassing armies of T-shirted union goons to hang around events at which Jim McGreevey appeared in the 2001 gubernatorial election. One such event was the televised debate with Bret Schundler held that year at Rowan University in Glassboro. Debates are supposed to be civilized affairs at which opponents politely disagree, but there was a distinct air of menace in the air that evening.

Am I arguing here that advocates of a political candidate don't have a right to show up at an event dressed in a similar manner? Not at all. They have every right.

But as this video shows, their purpose is often not discussion but intimidation.

Not only that, but their opinions should be considered in light of their obvious affiliations. I much prefer to listen to the opinions of individual citizens dressed in their individual shirts who are making particular points about their own lives.

In that regard, I have to say Obama and his minions are making a big mistake with their tactics and rhetoric here, the same one Jon Corzine made with his infamous toll-road plan.

The time-honored way to get a ghastly program through is to rush it to a vote before anyone knows what's in it. The longer it's in the open air, the more it begins to smell like a dead fish.

Instead, both Corzine and Obama made the mistake of assuming that the more people heard about the plan, the more they'd like it. They believed their own spin, in other words. That's a really amateurish mistake.

Also, the Dems are kidding themselves when it comes to the alleged "Astroturf" origins of the bulk of the dissent. As I noted in a column last month, I attended one of the first such forums. Congressman John Adler sponsored it. It was held in the Ocean County Library in Toms River, which is in Adler's district.

This forum was a relatively sedate affair and Adler, a Democrat, acquitted himself quite well in the face of strong opposition to the plan. But there was little doubt that the opposition was real and came from ordinary citizens opposed to Obamacare. Adler himself accepted that when I spoke to him afterward, and I think he took it to heart.

The opposition rose up from the grass roots. The Dems just don't know what those roots are. In this, these otherwise canny political operatives are succumbing to what I call on this blog "the Moron Perspective." Like so many of my readers, they fail to understand the political spectrum.

They seem to believe it is the old, dying GOP establishment of George W. Bush and Newt Gingrich that got these protests started. Nonsense. It was the new, upstart revolutionaries of Ron Paul. Democrats seem incapable of comprehending that the "tea party" movement began as a Paulian protest against not the Democrats but the big-spending Bush administration.

The original "tea-party" plan, from way back in December of 2007, came from Paul supporters who wanted to hire a blimp to dump tea in Boston Harbor. There's a nice summary of this on the blog of the one leftie who comprehends it, this guy at the Huffington Post.

In that regard, a couple of days before that Adler hearing I attended a July 4 tea party in Jackson at which the most well-received speaker was failed gubernatorial contender Steve Lonegan. He represents the upstart branch of the New Jersey GOP against the establishment pick, Chris Christie.

The main subject at that rally was another awful Obama initiative, cap-and trade. The tea partiers were calling for the removal from office of the three Republican congressmen from New Jersey who voted for cap-and-trade.

As for Christie, he not only skipped the tea party. He went out of his way to poke the Paul supporters in the eye by releasing a video a few days later embracing Obama's alternative-energy plans.

I bring that up to close the circle. It was not the thoroughly useless mainstream Republican Party that sunk Corzine's toll plan. It was Lonegan and a few outsiders. The town halls were humming along just fine, you may recall, until Lonegan sparked a similar parking lot clash with uniformed forces allied with the Democratic Party. That occurred when he refused to stop handing out leaflets outside one of Corzine's town-hall meetings on the toll plan in Cape May County and was arrested by police in the Democrat-dominated town in which the rally was held.

The toll plan soon collapsed, and with it Corzine's popularity.

That's the sort of thing that happens when a politician misreads peaceful protest and over-reacts. Will the Obama Democrats learn their lesson?

I certainly hope not. Keep those T-shirted goons coming, guys! It's always fun to watch a politician commit political suicide.

http://blog.nj.com/njv_paul_mulshine/2009/..._stuff_fro.html

The bill isn't for a complete takeover of the healthcare system by the government. It's about holding the insurance companies accountable and reigning in their obscene profits. They want to stop the caps on coverage that you can have and the refusal to coverage you because of past health incidents. He also wants them to cover pre-emptive screenings. You can keep the same healthcare if you want. It gives you options like the current Congress has.

And I love how some on the right are making things up like "Obama Death Panels" and "Communal Standards".

Some may or not like Obama's plan, but I have to give him kaos for actually trying to reform the system. No other president has done it before even though they always talk about it.

want if i don't want my current coverage?

I actually like my current plan. It's not perfect but it's saved me tons of money especially this year. I really wouldn't want to lose it. I wonder if we're going to start moving away from company type plans.

Nit, what I read didnt look good. But, it changes with each idea. One thing I read had age brackets on things that would be done. say 70-75 somethongs are OK to have done but not if your 77. Went by age not the persons health. Do we want the Gov deciding what should be covered and what age? My wife works at a hospital and hasnt found on Dr. that was for it so far (and most of them are Dem )



One thing worries me. If the Gov comes out with cheaper plans, what would stop most companys from swithching to it? Plus read this....

http://money.cnn.com/2009/07/24/news/econo...sion=2009072410



5 freedoms you'd lose in health care reform


If you read the fine print in the Congressional plans, you'll find that a lot of cherished aspects of the current system would disappear.


NEW YORK (Fortune) -- In promoting his health-care agenda, President Obama has repeatedly reassured Americans that they can keep their existing health plans -- and that the benefits and access they prize will be enhanced through reform.

A close reading of the two main bills, one backed by Democrats in the House and the other issued by Sen. Edward Kennedy's Health committee, contradict the President's assurances. To be sure, it isn't easy to comb through their 2,000 pages of tortured legal language. But page by page, the bills reveal a web of restrictions, fines, and mandates that would radically change your health-care coverage.

If you prize choosing your own cardiologist or urologist under your company's Preferred Provider Organization plan (PPO), if your employer rewards your non-smoking, healthy lifestyle with reduced premiums, if you love the bargain Health Savings Account (HSA) that insures you just for the essentials, or if you simply take comfort in the freedom to spend your own money for a policy that covers the newest drugs and diagnostic tests -- you may be shocked to learn that you could lose all of those good things under the rules proposed in the two bills that herald a health-care revolution.

In short, the Obama platform would mandate extremely full, expensive, and highly subsidized coverage -- including a lot of benefits people would never pay for with their own money -- but deliver it through a highly restrictive, HMO-style plan that will determine what care and tests you can and can't have. It's a revolution, all right, but in the wrong direction.

Let's explore the five freedoms that Americans would lose under Obamacare:

1. Freedom to choose what's in your plan

The bills in both houses require that Americans purchase insurance through "qualified" plans offered by health-care "exchanges" that would be set up in each state. The rub is that the plans can't really compete based on what they offer. The reason: The federal government will impose a minimum list of benefits that each plan is required to offer.

0:00 /2:07Health reform and you
Today, many states require these "standard benefits packages" -- and they're a major cause for the rise in health-care costs. Every group, from chiropractors to alcohol-abuse counselors, do lobbying to get included. Connecticut, for example, requires reimbursement for hair transplants, hearing aids, and in vitro fertilization.

The Senate bill would require coverage for prescription drugs, mental-health benefits, and substance-abuse services. It also requires policies to insure "children" until the age of 26. That's just the starting list. The bills would allow the Department of Health and Human Services to add to the list of required benefits, based on recommendations from a committee of experts. Americans, therefore, wouldn't even know what's in their plans and what they're required to pay for, directly or indirectly, until after the bills become law.

2. Freedom to be rewarded for healthy living, or pay your real costs

As with the previous example, the Obama plan enshrines into federal law one of the worst features of state legislation: community rating. Eleven states, ranging from New York to Oregon, have some form of community rating. In its purest form, community rating requires that all patients pay the same rates for their level of coverage regardless of their age or medical condition.

Americans with pre-existing conditions need subsidies under any plan, but community rating is a dubious way to bring fairness to health care. The reason is twofold: First, it forces young people, who typically have lower incomes than older workers, to pay far more than their actual cost, and gives older workers, who can afford to pay more, a big discount. The state laws gouging the young are a major reason so many of them have joined the ranks of uninsured.

Under the Senate plan, insurers would be barred from charging any more than twice as much for one patient vs. any other patient with the same coverage. So if a 20-year-old who costs just $800 a year to insure is forced to pay $2,500, a 62-year-old who costs $7,500 would pay no more than $5,000.

Second, the bills would ban insurers from charging differing premiums based on the health of their customers. Again, that's understandable for folks with diabetes or cancer. But the bills would bar rewarding people who pursue a healthy lifestyle of exercise or a cholesterol-conscious diet. That's hardly a formula for lower costs. It's as if car insurers had to charge the same rates to safe drivers as to chronic speeders with a history of accidents.

3. Freedom to choose high-deductible coverage

The bills threaten to eliminate the one part of the market truly driven by consumers spending their own money. That's what makes a market, and health care needs more of it, not less.

Hundreds of companies now offer Health Savings Accounts to about 5 million employees. Those workers deposit tax-free money in the accounts and get a matching contribution from their employer. They can use the funds to buy a high-deductible plan -- say for major medical costs over $12,000. Preventive care is reimbursed, but patients pay all other routine doctor visits and tests with their own money from the HSA account. As a result, HSA users are far more cost-conscious than customers who are reimbursed for the majority of their care.

The bills seriously endanger the trend toward consumer-driven care in general. By requiring minimum packages, they would prevent patients from choosing stripped-down plans that cover only major medical expenses. "The government could set extremely low deductibles that would eliminate HSAs," says John Goodman of the National Center for Policy Analysis, a free-market research group. "And they could do it after the bills are passed."

4. Freedom to keep your existing plan

This is the freedom that the President keeps emphasizing. Yet the bills appear to say otherwise. It's worth diving into the weeds -- the territory where most pundits and politicians don't seem to have ventured.

The legislation divides the insured into two main groups, and those two groups are treated differently with respect to their current plans. The first are employees covered by the Employee Retirement Security Act of 1974. ERISA regulates companies that are self-insured, meaning they pay claims out of their cash flow, and don't have real insurance. Those are the GEs (GE, Fortune 500) and Time Warners (TWX, Fortune 500) and most other big companies.

The House bill states that employees covered by ERISA plans are "grandfathered." Under ERISA, the plans can do pretty much what they want -- they're exempt from standard packages and community rating and can reward employees for healthy lifestyles even in restrictive states.

But read on.

The bill gives ERISA employers a five-year grace period when they can keep offering plans free from the restrictions of the "qualified" policies offered on the exchanges. But after five years, they would have to offer only approved plans, with the myriad rules we've already discussed. So for Americans in large corporations, "keeping your own plan" has a strict deadline. In five years, like it or not, you'll get dumped into the exchange. As we'll see, it could happen a lot earlier.

The outlook is worse for the second group. It encompasses employees who aren't under ERISA but get actual insurance either on their own or through small businesses. After the legislation passes, all insurers that offer a wide range of plans to these employees will be forced to offer only "qualified" plans to new customers, via the exchanges.

The employees who got their coverage before the law goes into effect can keep their plans, but once again, there's a catch. If the plan changes in any way -- by altering co-pays, deductibles, or even switching coverage for this or that drug -- the employee must drop out and shop through the exchange. Since these plans generally change their policies every year, it's likely that millions of employees will lose their plans in 12 months.

5. Freedom to choose your doctors

The Senate bill requires that Americans buying through the exchanges -- and as we've seen, that will soon be most Americans -- must get their care through something called "medical home." Medical home is similar to an HMO. You're assigned a primary care doctor, and the doctor controls your access to specialists. The primary care physicians will decide which services, like MRIs and other diagnostic scans, are best for you, and will decide when you really need to see a cardiologists or orthopedists.

Under the proposals, the gatekeepers would theoretically guide patients to tests and treatments that have proved most cost-effective. The danger is that doctors will be financially rewarded for denying care, as were HMO physicians more than a decade ago. It was consumer outrage over despotic gatekeepers that made the HMOs so unpopular, and killed what was billed as the solution to America's health-care cost explosion.

The bills do not specifically rule out fee-for-service plans as options to be offered through the exchanges. But remember, those plans -- if they exist -- would be barred from charging sick or elderly patients more than young and healthy ones. So patients would be inclined to game the system, staying in the HMO while they're healthy and switching to fee-for-service when they become seriously ill. "That would kill fee-for-service in a hurry," says Goodman.

In reality, the flexible, employer-based plans that now dominate the landscape, and that Americans so cherish, could disappear far faster than the 5 year "grace period" that's barely being discussed.

Companies would have the option of paying an 8% payroll tax into a fund that pays for coverage for Americans who aren't covered by their employers. It won't happen right away -- large companies must wait a couple of years before they opt out. But it will happen, since it's likely that the tax will rise a lot more slowly than corporate health-care costs, especially since they'll be lobbying Washington to keep the tax under control in the righteous name of job creation.

The best solution is to move to a let-freedom-ring regime of high deductibles, no community rating, no standard benefits, and cross-state shopping for bargains (another market-based reform that's strictly taboo in the bills). I'll propose my own solution in another piece soon on Fortune.com. For now, we suffer with a flawed health-care system, but we still have our Five Freedoms. Call them the Five Endangered Freedoms.

Second, the bills would ban insurers from charging differing premiums based on the health of their customers. Again, that's understandable for folks with diabetes or cancer. But the bills would bar rewarding people who pursue a healthy lifestyle of exercise or a cholesterol-conscious diet. That's hardly a formula for lower costs. It's as if car insurers had to charge the same rates to safe drivers as to chronic speeders with a history of accidents.

That's a scary thought and this is what the problem is with so many of the things Obama wants to do. His goal, which is to provide insurance to everyone is admirable on the surface, but unfortunately will be a regrettable one if he gets it through. In order to do what he wants you need to make it impossible and very expensive for anyone to maintain their status quo (while he says with a smile that folks can keep what they have) because he needs to undo what works for 90% of the population in order to provide for the missing 10%, many of whom self choose to not have healthcare coverage. The only way to do that is to create brackets based on income or age. This is now the healthcare version of spreading things around. Whenever you do that you take away the incentive to do things and you drag the whole system down. My mother recently fractured her hip and required surgery. So I've met a bunch of doctors since late June. No doctor I met has anything nice to say about Obama and almost all of them are dems that voted for him and now wish they had that vote back.

One reason why healthcare is so expensive is that you have so many malpractice awards. This has led to doctors orderring a lot more tests than are necessary in a CYA mode thereby increasing costs unneccessarily. Can't blame them because lawyers have taken over the system with these malpractice cases causing doctors to have sky high insurance and to practice out of fear rather than common sense. How about limiting or capping these amounts before uprooting an entire system that works?? Nit says doctors make too much money but would you want to be on call and have to drop what you are doing at a moments notice for a lesser income? We have several doctors who are close friends and while they are well off, just planning an evening together or a few days away together is so difficult because of their responsibilities. Great rewards go to folks that take risks, work hard and have high levels of responsibility. Changing that system is going to open up a hell of a can of worms.

Excellent post, Ice. I hate to say it, but I think a lot of hardcore liberals have this utopian vision for the world in mind where nothing bad ever happens, everyone is the same and everyone is happy being equal. It's just not realistic and doesn't take human nature into account whatsoever. And I totally agree about your points on people being motivated through reward. Another thing to consider is how much money doctors spend to put themselves through medical school. Many of them are in six-figure debt for years after their education has been completed.

I agree with what you say Ice except for one thing. I would bet anything that nowhere near 90% of the population are satisfied with their healthcare. I have family that doesn't even HAVE any coverage at all and I think i come from a pretty normal background.

It might not be 90 percent, but polls indicate that the majority of people are satisfied with their present coverage. I just don't think we need to rip up the entire script if something is working for a preponderance of the population.

84% of Americans have healthcare coverage and 90% of that 84% are satisfied. What you need to get at is the sliver of 16% of the people who lack coverage because they can't afford it, not the ones that opt out of coverage altogether. From what I read that is only about 5% of the population with 11% self choosing to bypass coverage. I have a cousin who chooses not to have health insurance (she certainly can afford it) because she views medical costs the same way she views electric bills. In her mind she saves money by not being insured. She pays as she goes just like she pays for electricity as she uses it. Naturally she has great risk if something goes wrong but she views that likelihood as very low and though she's never said it I know that her opinion is that the system will take care of her and her children should something go very wrong.

I will bet you that many of the same folks that bypass coverage are folks that think they should never pay taxes. Helping those folks may in fact be the real irony of this reform package.

Never said that. I said insurance companies make too much money. I am all for doctors getting paid well, what they do is incredible.

Well for anyone i know who doesn't have insurance it's not a matter of choice that's for sure.

the reason we are bleeding is not only ins making money its the illeagal aliens that don't contribute a penny to the cost. they sneak in have a baby for free...then get free food and diapers. second is an elderly population that came here (some leagally) and get medicare/caide that again, never contributed to that. can't keep giving handouts and expecting things to work.

There are a lot of younger people who dont get coverage and its by choice. I know a few who skip it. One of the problems is its hard to find the right products. Its not easy finding a high deductible catastrophe product, which is what most younger people actually need.

Yeah i do understand the mentality for that. It's crazy not to have it though. You could be one car accident away from being in debt for life. Obviously the high ded catastrophe product would cover that most likely.

unless your here illeagally, then the tax payers pay for it.

That's a good point. And anyone can get sick; you could be in the best shape possible and still have a heart attack or develop cancer. No one is immune from it.

Another point, do you want to see violence? Did you see the Republican's town hall meetings when Bush was in office. Those were the most polite political events I've ever seen and certainly hand-picked.

And while some people are pointing out that Obama's were much less raucous than the Senators, shouldn't that be the case? I would hope some people would have respect for the office. Which is why I had no problem with Bush's years back.

Ask your damn questions, but there is no need for mob yelling. I just don't understand. Town hall meetings are question and answer, not yell and protest profusely so nobody can get anything said.

And Glenn Beck has really continued to turn the corner into a downward spiraling lunatic. This is all for reparations? Ha.
Nevermind that he also said "Barack Obama, has exposed himself as a person with "a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture.""

watch this, he misspoke

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rpDH0XFchOI

You know the one thing I am getting real tired of is being told protest groups are against the interest of America and are being seeded by the media's slanted view and parties whose aim is to thwart Obama. This is the samre media that Obama used to his advantage in getting elected and it's the same media that helped him look like a rock star. Now it doesn't have anything nice to say about his healthcare plan and it's suddenly an evil group. When I see the NY Times, perhaps the biggest Obama supporter in the world, having nothing good to say about his healtcare plan, that is a real bad sign.

But anyway back to all this rhetoric about how protesters are being un-american and are being led astray by both the media and plotters against the healthcare bill. Obama himself is saying this day in and day out but never does he make anything about his reform clear. Does anyone else see the parralels to Iran saying similar things about protesters to it's own presidential vote being misled and blaming the west, mainly Britain, for planting the seeds of the protests. Naturally that didn't work so they had to resort to violence. But the admins rhetoric about these protests, plus Obama hiding details and mistating things for fact that are not the case (in the case of AARP he did it many times) is really reminding me of regimes I abhor.

all the plans in the world are great....how are we going to fund it remains a problem.?!

While Obama is certainly championing healthcare reform, the current proposal is not Obama's plan. It's the House of Rep proposal and the Senate hasn't even supplied their version yet. What I see happening, unfortunately, is that politics have taken over the dialogue. I am not for overhauling everything, but I do see certain issues that IMO are long overdue for change. The concept of denying people who are willing and able to pay for health insurance on the basis of a pre-existing condition is just plain wrong and needs to be changed. The concept of forcing people who are not employed with a company to pay much higher premiums for health insurance because they are not part of a group plan is wrong. They should be allowed to pool with others and not have to pay a huge increase in rates for the same health coverage. As a former employer, the concept of health insurance being state regulated is incredibly inefficient and forces multiple policies and plans for companies which have offices in various states. I can go on and on. I do not believe that everything on the table makes sense. However, I certainly believe that some things need to be changed. What concerns me is that things are stopped before they even get out of the starting gate and everything is tossed aside, the good as well as the bad. BTW, on the "protest" issue, it's not about people not having a right to protest. It's about people shouting down and yelling over people at town-hall meetings and preventing an exchange of ideas and questions. That's simply a bully tactic at the wrong forum and takes away rights from others who disagree with a viewpoint.

i agree with your above sentiments on what does need to be changed. i think those issues can be delt with, without further burden to the tax payors, especially when people are not part of a group(why can't they pay the same as others with the same plan?) as for the protestors, i'm sure some are bullies, but some seem scared/uninformed or both. when that comes into play its hard to hear what needs to be said. now if the gov't would explain in plain english and condense this nonsense 1200 page reform and take out politics...maybe people can start to understand. this really can't be too hard. obama should have come up with his own plan and work it out from there. the reps are making a joke out of this and people are finally fed up. i think the people that nomally protest have been replaced with people that usually are working(sure it sounds bad). im trying to say that, on many occasions i would have like to protest certain things along the way, but i was always working, so to these people might have been in the same boat. now the reps are dealing with many people that may have lost their jobs and are aware of more than the reps want to deal with.

Couldn't agree more. The AARP gaffe was really bad. He states that they're on board with the proposal, then one of their reps comes out and categorically denies it. There seems to be a major communication gap in the Obama White House. They almost seem to be tone-deaf at times.

Obama has mentioned taking off the public option as a means of negotiating with the Republicans and being bi-partisan. However it once again appears that the Republicans don't want to negotiate and will simply just try to stop anything that Obama puts forward. Especially with the recent comments made by Grass. They've done this to him in the past too. Call him out for being involved in partisan politics and then turn around and do it themselves. To make it worse, some Democrats now say if he pulls off the public option, they will now not vote for the bill. So much for trying to be bi-partisan.

so it illustrates two groups of azzes with no 3rd option.

actually he didn't

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/17/hea...care/index.html

They may have re-thought removal of the public option as a backlash among liberal elements and dem party faithful was starting to gather steam. Not sure what was trying to be accomplished. The reps will oppose any healthcare reform put on the table, no matter what, so why try to placate them. The dems should swing for the fences and let it either fly or crash. Either outcome, it would be truer to one of the mainstays of the democrats' campaign platforms. BTW, the health insurance and pharma stocks had a bonanza yesterday amidst rumors of the public option being abandoned. Watch those same stocks dive today on rumors that it's back to stay.

Yes he did, he offered it but still favors the public option. Especially since he will lose his own party support without it, and will gain no Republican support.

Yeah I agree there

well then the article is confusing/wrong....the dems have majority, so push it through.

The whole issue is confusing. It wasn't officially offered, but it was mentioned by Obama. That's what sparked all of the above mentioned debate.