Porter Goss, Come On Down!
Tortured Logic: Jawad and Ghailani Cases Challenge US Torture Under Rule Of Law

Health Care: HELP Bill Released During Public Option Call With Sens. Dodd, Brown and Whitehouse

Just got off a call with Sens. Dodd, Whitehouse and Brown on the HELP (Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions) committee health care bill. They have finally released a full copy of the proposed bill along with the most recent CBO scoring of it:

CBO’s new score of the bill – which would reduce health costs, allow Americans to keep the coverage they have if they want it, and make health insurance affordable to those who do not have it today – would be $611 billion over 10 years, a significant reduction from earlier, incomplete estimates. The new estimate includes a provision on employer responsibility and a strong, national public option, the Community Health Insurance Option.

According to Sen. Dodd, the $611 billion figure comes from CBO, but does not include the numbers for any Medicaid expansion, which is under the Finance committee’s jurisdiction and their bill is not yet completed so it couldn’t be scored.

Small businesses, NOT TO INCLUDE businesses with fewer than 25 employees who would be exempted (PDF), would have an annual fee of $750 per employee for participation in the public option plan that would be assessed directly through HHS if they aren’t already providing insurance for employees. There would be a cost of a little over $300 per person for individual coverage on an annual basis. Both these numbers come from CBO scoring as well, and are contained within the CBO information link above.

Sen. Whitehouse was very specific about the need for a strong public option: "The public needs an honest, nonprofit federal option as competition to keep the insurance industry honest. . . we need a better business model for the insurance industry."

According to Sen. Dodd, the benefits would be determined by the Secretary of HHS, with premiums and provider rates set as consistent with local rates. This would be done in a way to make costs and payments competitive, putting the full strength of the federal government’s broad buying power behind negotiations while meeting reform and costs standards of state and local considerations.

As Sen. Whitehouse put it, the goal is to take the direct focus away from perks, profit and management and move it toward health care for the consumer.

They emphasized several times that 14,000 Americans a day are losing their health insurance.

For consumers to buy into the public plan, there is a firewall built-in if you are already part of an employer-based health plan. If your plan costs more than 12 1/2% of your annual salary, then you can contemplate switching to the public option. If not, then you are stuck with your employer-based plan, whether or not you are satisfied with it. It’s a cost containment decision, with the hope that competition from the public plan will, over time, shift the operations of private insurers.

Sen. Brown emphasized that this plan is designed to reward "best practices" for insurers — and that each state will have an advisory council to monitor local competition in an effort to keep insurers more competitive and, hence, he says, more honest. He used the student loan industry as an example. I’m not certain that was the best example, frankly, given the profit-grubbing nature of any number of lenders in that industry, but there you are.

I asked about the Blue Dog assault on reproductive freedom, but the staffers and Senators on the call had not heard about that issue, and could not comment.

I followed up with a question about pre-existing conditions and coverage under the bill. I was told that the bill contains protections for people who have had to deal with recission issues and/or who have pre-exisiting conditions which make it difficult to find or switch coverage. Insurers will be barred from refusing coverage for pre-existing conditions going forward under this bill — there is a requirement for coverage for all, and a ban on insurance ratings for pre-existing conditions as well. This was done to ensure that people who most need the health coverage actually get care.

It’s going to take a while to digest the full text of the bill, the CBO scoring and everything else. But I wanted to get the info out to everyone as soon as I got off the call. So have at it in the reading — please let us know what you find in the comments.

UPDATE:  Forgot one thing: Whitehouse also emphasized that the cost control measures that could occur through better preventative care, quality reforms within the health care system itself, reduction in paperwork costs, etc., could not be scored by CBO — but that recent studies on GDP consideration and through the President’s Economic Council of Advisers show a substantial potential savings in costs that could occur.

UPDATE #2:  Also, all three Senators emphasized that all 13 Democratic Senators on the HELP committee had committed to voting FOR the bill.

UPDATE #3:  I made an error in the initial draft on this: small businesses with fewer than 25 employees will be exempted from the fee.  See above for link.

  Spotlight
64 Responses to "Health Care: HELP Bill Released During Public Option Call With Sens. Dodd, Brown and Whitehouse"
Christy Hardin Smith | Thursday July 2, 2009 08:55 am 1

Typed all of this up from my copious notes — the call was a 70 minute call, and there was a lot more, but that’s what I could glean for you all as quickly as I could report it.

There will be a lot more as we all read and digest the bill in its entirety, I’m certain.


Christy Hardin Smith | Thursday July 2, 2009 09:04 am 2

Oh, forgot one thing above: Whitehouse also emphasized that the cost control measures that could occur through better preventative care, qulity reforms within the health care system itself, reduction in paperwork costs, etc., could nto be scored by CBO — but that recent studies on GDP consideration and through the President’s Economic Council of Advisers show a substyantial potential savings in costs that could occur.


selise | Thursday July 2, 2009 09:18 am 3

CBO’s new score of the bill – which would reduce health costs

i don’t think the cbo report says anything such thing. it is federal costs only (or is there more i’m missing?).


Christy Hardin Smith | Thursday July 2, 2009 09:20 am 4
In response to selise @ 3

I think that’s a staffer trying to characterize the bill the way that’s written. The CBO scoring is simply on costs.

I pulled that quote from Dodd’s website, as you’ll see from the link.


selise | Thursday July 2, 2009 09:34 am 5
In response to Christy Hardin Smith @ 4

here’s a comment i just left on jane’s thread on this topic:

i just looked at the report and unless there is more, this looks like another bogus cbo report (as was the previous one) as it looks ONLY at the cost to federal budget and not TOTAL healthcare costs which include costs to states, employers, households, etc.

some background here:

A Note on Healthcare Costs
DrSteveB: The CBO Analysis We Really Need

note: this comment is in no way a comment on the HELP draft itself. i have no idea yet about it — my point is only that the CBO scoring is woefully incomplete (and that’s being charitable) and as a result we have to be careful not to fall into the msm error of thinking that this report tells the cost of healthcare with this proposed legislation.


Christy Hardin Smith | Thursday July 2, 2009 09:36 am 6
In response to selise @ 5

There is also the issue of that number not including anything about expansion of Medicare/Medicaid because that’s under jurisdiction of the Finance committee, which hasn’t yet completed it’s bill.

So the cost number is still way up in the air, from my perspective.


bobschacht | Thursday July 2, 2009 09:37 am 7

Thanks for this, Christy!
Did you feel like you got a satisfactory answer on your Blue Dog question?

Bob from HI currently in CA


peterboy | Thursday July 2, 2009 09:37 am 8

best to get out the $600 billion score as fact, just as the RW got out the partial CBO score as fact.
create your own reality.
or will it bite you when the truth comes out.


Christy Hardin Smith | Thursday July 2, 2009 09:38 am 9
In response to bobschacht @ 7

No, but I wasn’t expecting a full answer on that. I just wanted to make certain that they were aware of it if they didn’t know about it already, frankly.

I hoped I might get something more than a “wasn’t aware, no comment,” but I wasn’t expecting to, to be honest. It’s just not the sort of open debate they want to raise at the moment. Which is exactly why I asked the question, so they had to think about it. *g*


ralphbon | Thursday July 2, 2009 09:42 am 10

Christy, can you give more background on this call? Paricipants? Ground rules? Were parts of the briefing off the record or on background, and if so, can you characterize those parts without divulging specifics?


selise | Thursday July 2, 2009 09:42 am 11
In response to Christy Hardin Smith @ 6

i agree – that’s really important!

one thing we’ve seen in MA is that the costs of reform were greater than officially anticipated (although there were people who were warning us) and as a result, money that was supposed to be used to provide healthcare services for the very poor has been redirected to pay for some of that. as a result, the really needy in MA can find themselves WORSE off than before reform.


selise | Thursday July 2, 2009 09:44 am 12
In response to selise @ 11

just to add to the cost issue re the bogus cbo report, some more from jane’s thread:

it doesn’t include the costs to households or employers or states! (unless i’m missing something?)

that’s why we need to know what this bill is expected to do TOTAL healthcare costs — what if the costs to households goes way up under this or any other proposal? this is the kind of analysis that has previously been done. it’s not unusual, in fact it’s absolutely critical.

the federal dollar component is only a fraction of our healthcare costs (less than half). without total (and component) cost projects (instead of fed budget only) we can’t tell the difference between cost shifting and cost saving.

http://www.cms.hhs.gov/Nationa…..jected.asp


Christy Hardin Smith | Thursday July 2, 2009 09:45 am 13
In response to ralphbon @ 10

It was a media briefing call — several of the news services (USAToday, WSJ, AP, Politico, Time, etc. etc.). I was invited on as a blog media person.

Senators briefed on the bill, and then we got to ask questions on specifics. There were a LOT of questions, which is where a lot of this information was gleaned.

Tried to type this up for everyone as soon after the call as I could hit the keyboard so I could extrapolate from my notes to the best of my recollection on information conveyed.


Christy Hardin Smith | Thursday July 2, 2009 09:46 am 14

Oh, and there wasn’t anything on background, it was all on the record.


spacefish | Thursday July 2, 2009 09:47 am 15

Did you have to pay $25,000 to be in on the call?


Christy Hardin Smith | Thursday July 2, 2009 09:47 am 16
In response to spacefish @ 15

HAHAHAHAHA

No, just my phone bill.


STTPinOhio | Thursday July 2, 2009 09:47 am 17

Look, no one knows what this thing is gonna cost — at best we have very rough guesstimates.

As over 50 million people run (not walk) into doctors offices in who-knows- what condition, costs will be all over the place.

The great news here is a solid public plan with reasonable participation costs to employers.

And, woo-hoo, look at you Redd; fresh off a conference call with senators!

Most impressive.

This place is great!


PonchoLefty | Thursday July 2, 2009 09:47 am 18

So, does this give Obama an opportunity to come completely into total support for a public option? With an actual bill like HELP do we know what the administration’s “line in the sand” position is going to be?


selise | Thursday July 2, 2009 09:48 am 19

thanks for that info – did you get to ask a question? is there a recording of the call?


Christy Hardin Smith | Thursday July 2, 2009 09:49 am 20
In response to STTPinOhio @ 17

I was excited to get some questions in, frankly. Usually the question time is really limited, but they extended the call twice to allow for more time for questions from everyone. What was supposed to be a 30 minute call ended up being a 70 minutes call — partly due to some technical difficulties that occurred during the middle, but Whitehouse especially hung in all the way through the call to answer questions, which I really appreciated.


ralphbon | Thursday July 2, 2009 09:51 am 21

Thx


STTPinOhio | Thursday July 2, 2009 09:53 am 22

This post restored some of my confidence in the Senate Dems.

Maybe they aren’t gonna fold on us after all.


Christy Hardin Smith | Thursday July 2, 2009 09:54 am 23
In response to selise @ 19

I don’t have a recording of the call — sorry. My tech savvy doesn’t extend that far, but someone else might have one. If I find one, I’ll let you know.


Christy Hardin Smith | Thursday July 2, 2009 09:56 am 24
In response to STTPinOhio @ 22

I think the tendency in DC is always toward compromise. It’s one of the reaons that the push on the public option that Jane and everyone else have been working on has been so important — pushing for that end of things had to be done from the outside because the CW was that it couldn’t be done. But with an outside push, including from people who have just met with their Senators (both Whitehouse and Brown mentioned talking with constituents about this and how that impacted their thinking).

It’s all important. All of those calls people have made and discussions they’ve had made a difference on some level — it’s so gr3eat that so many people have been working so hard on this. I honestly believe without the calls and face to face discussions, we’d be nowhere on this.

But we aren’t done yet — so we have to keep pushing. Hard.


selise | Thursday July 2, 2009 09:57 am 25

that’s most excellent that you got to ask some questions! next time, if you know about the call in advance, would you consider taking suggestions for questions from us?


Christy Hardin Smith | Thursday July 2, 2009 09:58 am 26

I’m told that small businesses with 25 or fewer employees may be exempt on the $750 fee via e-mail — am going to look into this and will do a correction if that’s not right.

I was writing so quickly onthe call that it was all I could do to keep up — sorry if that’s an error. Wanted to let everyone know just in case…


tbsa | Thursday July 2, 2009 09:58 am 27

Christy you rock! Thanks so much for this.
I am so glad to hear some of the Senate Dems aren’t complete a-holes who’ve already sold out to the insurance lobbyists.


Christy Hardin Smith | Thursday July 2, 2009 09:59 am 28
In response to selise @ 25

Absolutely — I found out about the call only minutes before it happened, or I would have asked for them from everyone.


selise | Thursday July 2, 2009 10:00 am 29

I think the tendency in DC is always toward compromise.

and that’s just one reason why single payer (policy, experts and advocates) should never have been excluded.


ralphbon | Thursday July 2, 2009 10:02 am 30

Well, the restriction on opting out of employers’ plans certainly puts a crimp in Obama’s cherished talk point about how you can “keep what you have if you like it or opt for the public plan.”

Now it’s, “You can keep what you have if you like it, but unless you meet eligibility requirements for the public plan you will have to keep it even if you hate it, in which case you can pray that the magic of competitive pressure will eventually turn it into something you like.”

Doesn’t fall off the tongue quite as trippingly.


selise | Thursday July 2, 2009 10:02 am 31

(((christy)))

thanks!

have to run (want to make some phone calls for whipping effort and other stuff) but will try to get more info on bill and cbo report later…


RonD | Thursday July 2, 2009 10:03 am 32

single payer (policy, experts and advocates) should never have been excluded.

Yes. The problem is lack of available healthcare, not health insurance. Great work, Christy!


selise | Thursday July 2, 2009 10:03 am 33

oops. almost forgot. wanted to thank you for this too. thanks!


Christy Hardin Smith | Thursday July 2, 2009 10:04 am 34

I did make an error — if you look at the PDF for Employer Responsibility linked above, you’ll see that small businesses with fewer than 25 employees are exempted from the fee — I’ve corrected above in the post. Here’s the language:

The  Affordable  Health  Choices  Act  sets  a  new  framework  to  achieve  shared 
responsibility: 
 
• Employers who  do  not  offer  adequate  coverage  to  their  full‐time  workers  will  be 
assessed an annual fee of $750 for each uncovered employee;     
   
• Employers  who  do  not  offer  adequate  coverage  to  their  part‐time  workers  will 
be assessed an annual fee of $375 for each uncovered employee;     
   
• Firms with fewer than 25 employees will be not assessed;     
 
• Employers  must  contribute  at  least  60  percent  to  the  cost  of  monthly  premiums 
to avoid the assessment;               
     
• Assessments will be collected quarterly;           
   
• The  Secretary  of  Health  &  Human  Services,  in  collaboration  with  the  Secretaries 
of  the  Treasury  and  Labor,  will  establish  rules  and  procedures  to  implement  this 
requirement. 


ralphbon | Thursday July 2, 2009 10:11 am 35

Christy, your hard-won seat at the briefing table gives encouragement to those of us struggling to get our viewpoints, eg, single payer advocacy, on the discussion table.


Elliott | Thursday July 2, 2009 10:12 am 36

Christy, you always provide us with awesome coverage of the issues in your posts, but you also find the best images to illustrate them.

Even if you published gibberish (as if!), I’d peek in to see what pics you posted.


Blub | Thursday July 2, 2009 10:13 am 37

“$750 per employee for participation in the public option plan “

He.. Some of these small businesses probably pay closer to $750 per MONTH per emplyoee, not per year, for coverage today.


Christy Hardin Smith | Thursday July 2, 2009 10:14 am 38
In response to Blub @ 37

There were a LOT of questions on where that $750 number came from — and it’s from CBO. I’m not certain how they will make that workable, honestly, given what I know of current costs for most businesses.


Beerfart Liberal | Thursday July 2, 2009 10:15 am 39

Yeah. What other people said. Great job getting a place at the table Christy. Now, don’t be like that blogger Mico and make sure the dinosaur media has a fair chance to ask dumb-ass questions after you’ve asked intelligent ones.

Just checked my e-mail and I got an invitation to a July 4th tea party from my teabagger friends. they are, like, totally mobilized against socialized medicine and it’s, like, totally grass roots.


Christy Hardin Smith | Thursday July 2, 2009 10:17 am 40
In response to Elliott @ 36

I have to say, I was really encouraged by Whitehouse’s emphasis on preventative care as a starting point. I heard an interview yesterday afternoon on NPR with a couple of physicians, one of whom was going into primary care. And it was so depressing when they were talking about how few medical students want to do that because of all the constraints and disincentives in terms of pay and other issues that primary care doctors have.

AI just kept thinking about how much better off we’d all be if we had preventative medicine and better nutrition and such as a starting point. And how many insurance companies keep cutting back on basic care in favor of drugs and more drugs — it’s bizarre how things are done right now.


Christy Hardin Smith | Thursday July 2, 2009 10:19 am 41

I should say, it was nice to hear an elected official talking about something that important and basic to fixing the way we do things so bass-ackwards now. It’s not a fix, but its at least something that’s being discussed somewhere in the halls of power…which is, frankly, such a nice change and so sad that it’s so unique that I actually noted it at the time.


katymine | Thursday July 2, 2009 10:25 am 42

Christy I am so excited ….. I’m trying not to hold my breath on this….thank you for the review and analysis, trust your opinion.

The other day during my chemo my friend and I were talking (she is uninsured) and asked……. has that 47-48 million uninsured number ever moved since the 2004 Kerry/Edwards campaign?

Here we have 1/2 million unemployed every month for over 6 months, companies are closing (complete loss of insurance) and many have maxed their unemployment benefits…….. foreclosures, home repos, tripling of those living in homeless shelters, in rural areas we have Bushvilles living in RV’s, tents and shacks.

WHERE did that figure come from and why over the last 5 years it has NOT been adjusted up?


SouthernDragon | Thursday July 2, 2009 10:27 am 43

Katherine Weymouth says there will be no “salons”.

Those damn bloggers fucked up our new revenue stream.


Christy Hardin Smith | Thursday July 2, 2009 10:29 am 44
In response to katymine @ 42

I haven’t yet begun to analyze the bill on my own — it’s huge, and it’s going to take me time to number crunch and absorb because healthcare is not intuitive for me as a specialty, ya know?

The bill is incredibly complex and convoluted — I’d almost say intentionally so in the drafting if I didn’t know that was the way these things always get patched together. The thing I worry about with this is that the competition I’d hope would be fostered between the public/private seems muted — but that’s only from a cursory read and not a full one.

Everything above came from the call. It was clearly designed to sell the plan to the media from Dodd, Brown and Whitehouse — but there are some aspects of this that look good, too, including the fact that a public option was included in any way whatsoever, which I feared wouldn’t happen at all for the longest time.

All of this to say, this is just a first pass on what will be a lot of analysis to come.


Becca | Thursday July 2, 2009 10:30 am 45

Damn… I glanced through the main links, and while it isn’t perfect (not single-payer, not really enough of an option for people whose employer-provided insurance is garbage), this proposal is way, way better than I’d expected.

But what looks like a viable public option, coupled with a ban on higher premiums and/or outright denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions? Wow. They done good.


ArkansasDem | Thursday July 2, 2009 10:34 am 46
In response to Christy Hardin Smith @ 1

Just met with Senator Lincoln as she stepped off the plane at Drake Field in Fayetteville, Arkansas. Bad news for progressives: No on EFCA and No commitment to a strong public option on healthcare.


Ann in AZ | Thursday July 2, 2009 10:34 am 47

Blue Texan’s regularly scheduled post is up on the front page: “Boehner Enlists Bloodhound to Look for Stimulus Jobs, Forgets They’re in His Home State”


katymine | Thursday July 2, 2009 10:51 am 48

If you have any questions about health care & insurance please email me. Worked for 5 different health insurance companies, also worked in their marketing department for a few months. Started on those insurance tests to be certified……


brendanscalling | Thursday July 2, 2009 10:55 am 49

oh oh, holy rape gurney joe’s gonna cry.


beth meacham | Thursday July 2, 2009 11:02 am 50

$750 a year as a fine for not providing health insurance to your employees is not a sufficient incentive. It will be much, much cheaper for companies to pay the fine than to pay 60% of any insurance plan.

Where do they come up with these numbers?


STTPinOhio | Thursday July 2, 2009 11:06 am 51
In response to katymine @ 42

…and why over the last 5 years it has NOT been adjusted up?

Damn good point!

I’ll bet it’s at least 10 million higher by now; add in the under-insured and you’re probably closing in on 100 million.


Millineryman | Thursday July 2, 2009 11:06 am 52

Thanks Christy.


Cynthia Kouril | Thursday July 2, 2009 11:13 am 53

The exemption for businesses with less than 25 employees is correct. I have that in my notes from the call


katymine | Thursday July 2, 2009 11:13 am 54
In response to STTPinOhio @ 51

actually I think the number of uninsured is around 100 million with another 50-75 million in the underinsured category…… the 48 million was out there with the Dean campaign and it came off one of the union websites so it is sooooooo old that it is crap. It would terrify congress & senate if we walked in and gave real figures…… our rate of % requesting public/single payer would be around 95%


Cynthia Kouril | Thursday July 2, 2009 11:15 am 55
In response to ralphbon @ 30

I noticed this during the call. In fact, a writer from (was it Time magazine?) made a big deal about it.

If your employer based health insurance premium is less than 12.5% of your gross income, you are stuck with the employer plan, even if you hate it.

OTOH, there are foing to be some kind of minimum standards that employer plans have to meet in order to be considered actual health insurance.


fatster | Thursday July 2, 2009 11:23 am 56

No wonder they didn’t want Howard Dean. He wouldn’t screw us.

Obama health czar directed firms in trouble
DeParle made millions from companies under federal investigation

By Fred Schulte
Investigative Reporting Workshop, American University
updated 6:18 a.m. PT, Thurs., July 2, 2009

“Nancy-Ann DeParle, President Barack Obama’s health policy czar, served as a director of corporations that faced scores of federal investigations, whistleblower lawsuits and other regulatory actions, according to government records reviewed by the Investigative Reporting Workshop at American University.

“Several of the companies were investigated for alleged kickbacks or engaging in other illegal billing schemes, while others were accused of serious violations of federal quality standards, including one company that failed to warn patients of deadly problems with an implanted heart defibrillator. Several of the cases ended with substantial fines paid to the federal government, even though the companies admitted no wrongdoing.

“Since leaving her government job running Medicare for the Clinton administration, DeParle built a lucrative private-sector career. Records show she earned more than $6.6 million since early 2001, according to a tally by the Investigative Reporting Workshop.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31…..ealth_care


art3 | Thursday July 2, 2009 11:42 am 57

what about pushing choice?
a question-should progressives push not just a strong pub plan but choice? see the sen help plan denies choice. if u dont like your employer’s crappy insurance u have no way out. u cannot opt into another plan if u want. obama has said u can choose whatever plan u want if u dont like it. ezra mentioned this too.


ralphbon | Thursday July 2, 2009 11:59 am 58
In response to Cynthia Kouril @ 55

OTOH, there are going to be some kind of minimum standards that employer plans have to meet in order to be considered actual health insurance.

The problem with that, of course, is that standards on what a policy says do not translate into standards on what the insurer chooses to do. When the insurer says, “Well, the lab charged x and we’ll pay y, so you owe z,” the average American doesn’t have the wherewithal, or time, to investigate whether this statement conforms to standards or not. After the second or third dunning letter, unless the individual’s resources are already at the breaking point, he or she will typically break down and pay z, which all too often equals y or even x.

Only the widest possible capacity to fire private insurers for reflexive claims denials will generate the kind of competitive pressures the public option enthusiasts (with fingers crossed and knocking on wood) claim we’ll see under Obamacare.


art3 | Thursday July 2, 2009 12:35 pm 59

chocie is then crucial in our fight. a pub opt alone is nto enough. it msut be avail to all no matter the case. period.


Leen | Thursday July 2, 2009 03:11 pm 60
In response to art3 @ 59

keep pushing, calling go to D.C. when they come back after vacation. the only way we are going to get a complete public option is to keep pushing for single payer…let the Insurance companies know what they are up against


redfish | Thursday July 2, 2009 08:42 pm 61

This looks like an excellent bill all things considered. The reduced cost should give it some momentum and also could give rational GOP’ers and Blue Dogs a reason to support it.


tejanarusa | Friday July 3, 2009 09:15 am 62

Skimming rapidlly – as usual, will have to come back for more thorough reading/digesting later.
Found a very interesting smackdown of the phony cries of “rationing!” in today’s NYT Economix column, by Prof. Uwe Reinhardt of Princeton, pointing out clearly how the private insurance companies ration things now.
Most interesting, he points out that basic economic theory assumes rationing by price.

I saved it as a quick reference for future arguments.

[As always, we tend to focus on issues that most affect us - once again, it looks like I’m going to be off COBRA, even with the Recovery Act subsidy, because when you get the bill, it covers all the months you weren’t on, and you have to pay it all at once.
Sigh.]
Single payer!
My focus is we have to get employers out of the health-insurance provision business to save both individuals and companies. I’m upset that this still goes through employers first.
Still, public option! public option!
Bbl.


tejanarusa | Friday July 3, 2009 09:16 am 63

eek! Where’s the rest of my post? So well-thought out, carefully drafted, etc.!/s


tejanarusa | Friday July 3, 2009 09:20 am 64

What I was trying to say, after how interesting this post is (which I have skimmed along with comments), and plan to skim the bill later, was to point out this column in the NYT today, by Prof Uwe Reinhardt of Princeton about how price has always been the method of rationing any good or service, including health care. He does a great job of briefly explaining how insurance companies ration now.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes……s-it-mean/

Sorry about the above truncation – must’ve hit send by accident.


Sorry but the comments are closed on this post
Tortured Logic: Jawad and Ghailani Cases Challenge US Torture Under Rule Of Law
Porter Goss, Come On Down!

Close