Republican activists have tried to urge the donorsphere to withhold checks from the GOP political committees as a way of punishing the alleged political indiscretions of Republican senators. Hasn't worked. An e-mail below, from a non-lefty Democrat -- a guy whose e-mails to me before have been pretty centrist, proposes a version of the tactic:
"After the failure of Schumer's public plan in committee, it's now time to come down on Baucus, Conrad and Lincoln for their dishonesty about their concerns anout the public plan option. According to polls, doctors want a public plan; Dems want it and even Republicans favor it by a plurality. The only reason the 3 of them don't support a public plan is because it is called a "public plan" and they fear they'll be demonized as socialists. As such, reasoning with them won't work.But you know what might work? I got a call today from the DSCC asking me for money. I said, while I support many Democratic candidates, I will refuse to give money to the DSCC until the 3 of those senators change their vote on Schumer or Rockefeller's plan.. Maybe that will induce the kind of pressure (money) they understand.And if I'm mad about this, I can only imagine how angry the left wing of my party will be."
Either Baucus, Lincoln, and Conrad are cowards or in the pay of the various oligarchs and plutocrats who oppose an American Health Plan for all Americans. The free marketeers of capitalism don't want capitalism at all. They want a small, interlocked group who want to have price control rather than free market competition. Free market competition leads to the best product for the best price. Why did Honda flourish when Chrysler fell into a depth spiral? Competition. That's why big pharmacy and huge insurance conglomerates want the playing field limited. They don't want any competition as it may effect their bottom line.
That is all these people care about, maximization of profits, without concern for the commonwealth who made them rich beyond comprehension. Health insurers do all they can to prevent paying claims, enrolling people whose history indicates they may not be healthy 25 year olds, and making even the well-educated jump through an almost infinite number paper work, small print, hoops.
If our representatives fail again to reflect the will of the majority of Americans, they are complicit in crimes against Americans.
Yes, the way to introduce competition, free markets and capitalism into an industry is...
for the government to take it over.
LOL!
This is why many are coming around the conclusion that Obamabots are simply incapable of rational thought. It's like the DNC poll-tested a couple of terms, like free markets, competition, etc., and came to the conclusion that their O-bots should insert these terms as much as possible in their arguments, even if what they're arguing for is exactly the opposite of free markets, competition, etc.
Maybe you should take a real look at why Chrysler fell into a death spiral? You might learn a thing or two...
After hearing so much about the sixty vote filibuster busting threshold, I have a simple question. Why dont Democrats actually make Republicans filibuster? You know, the old fashioned way, reading passages from the family bible? How would this play on the evening news? The economy continues to implode but Republicans dont want to take a simple vote. A cogent explanation would be appreciated.
If the Dems pick up even one Senate seat next year, Baucus must be out as Finance Committee Chair. Conrad should get kicked out of his Budget Committee chairmanship, too. These two have added nothing to the policy debate. Nothing. All they have is bunch of obfuscation and lies in a cynical effort to avoid health-care reform. "I can't vote for it because it does not have the votes to pass because I won't vote for it." Give me a break! Worried Baucus, Conrad, Nelson or Lieberman might leave the party? Don't be. The Democrats should NOT pretend to have a fillibuster proof majority when they don't really have one. Right now, they have 60 seats and people expect them to act like they have 60 seats. Maybe these "moderates" should give the GOP a try. Go ahead, Max cast your lot with the rural old angry white people party. See how that goes.
The Democrats ousted Lieberman in 2006 so it is kinda hard to threaten him with expulsion.
So how is it not competition to compete against a government option? I had the choice to go to UNC- Chapel Hill or Wake Forrest. The fact that I had a public option didn't drive Wake out of business. Now, I chose UNC for many reasons, one of which being cost. Many other people may have made the opposite choice because the prestige of Wake (and the basketball program at the time) was more important to them.
All the public option does is give a choice to consumers. Why do you think it is so unfair to give Americans choices?
I think you are not distinguishing between the short-run effects and the long-run dynamic effects.
(a) Suppose that the public plan is set up, and offers more favorable terms than the private plans. Many people will sign up for it. Some insurance companies will lose enough business to stop operating; some corporations will decide that it's a better deal to stop providing health benefits and let their employees sign up for the public plan. There will be a tendency toward private insurance firms closing, which in the long run will narrow the number of choices. Concern about this is intensified, too, by the fact that many advocates of the public plan have also made it clear that what they really prefer is a system where all health care is government funded. Having one source of health insurance does not increase consumer choice.
(b) Suppose that the public plan does not offer more favorable terms than the private plans (which seems likely, given the strength of the insurance lobby). In that case, what's the point of offering it? Just adding one more option that's almost the same as all the others isn't much of an increase in choice.
(c) The big choice that current proposals would take away is the choice to say, "No, I'm not buying that, it costs too much." If Congress were passing a law to compel everyone to buy a new car, and starting up a new automobile manufacture system run by the government, I wouldn't call that an increase in automotive choice!
(d) How about giving Americans real choices, by getting rid of the tax subsidy to employee health benefits, so that individual purchase of health insurance would be economically viable, and by requiring states to allow purchase of insurance across state lines? If you object to that, perhaps you'd like to explain why you think it's unfair to give Americans choices. . . .
William,
if the govt plan comesin and offers a good plan & drives out some of the competitors, hard luck..ie is what is supposed to happen. What happened when walmart went into groceries, it drove out a lot of small players. Didn' see many complain then, because it was a private enterprise.
There is is no real competition in the insurance market, the offerings are so complex (inclusion & exclusions of what is covered), u could'nt make a objective analysis and buy a product. Isn't rational dicesion the basis for market to work? You buy something that you can afford not based what offers the best value.
Why would corporations decide to stop providing health benefits with the public plan? Corporations provide health insurance to attract workers. It's part of the total compensation package.
If you were to lose your job today or tomorrow, who would pay for you and your families’ healthcare bills? The economy is in shambles and jobs are going under left and right, and that is precisely why we need healthcare reform now, so that if a person or family does happen to lose their job and healthcare, One would still be able to receive and/or obtain affordable healthcare. What is wrong with that?
William,
if the govt plan comesin and offers a good plan & drives out some of the competitors, hard luck..ie is what is supposed to happen. What happened when walmart went into groceries, it drove out a lot of small players. Didn' see many complain then, because it was a private enterprise.
There is is no real competition in the insurance market, the offerings are so complex (inclusion & exclusions of what is covered), u could'nt make a objective analysis and buy a product. Isn't rational dicesion the basis for market to work? You buy something that you can afford not based what offers the best value.