Strong majority of Americans still ‘favor’ a public option.

[SouthLink02 8]

My link

On Tuesday night, reports trickled out that Senate Democrats had “reached a deal to replace the opt-out public option in the Senate health care bill with a network of nonprofit insurers administered by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM).” Thought the compromise is reportedly gaining support, a poll released today by the New York Times and CBS News serves as a reminder that the full-blown public option that has been abandoned by the Senate is still quite popular with the American public as 59 percent would favor a public option

[TitanTiger 20,708]

An even larger majority of Americans (61%) oppose public funding of abortions, but the pro-choice lobby deemed it more critical to force taxpayers to fund a health care plan providing abortions than it did to ensure a public option that will cover more people. That was the cynical trade off the Democrat Senators in these negotiations chose to make.

[SouthLink02 8]

An even larger majority of Americans (61%) oppose public funding of abortions, but the pro-choice lobby deemed it more critical to force taxpayers to fund a health care plan providing abortions than it did to ensure a public option that will cover more people. That was the cynical trade off the Democrat Senators in these negotiations chose to make.

Fair enough

[autigeremt 6,970]

When you add a price tag to it, the American people change their minds. That's why the back rooms of the Democrat majority have locked doors these days.

[SouthLink02 8]

When you add a price tag to it, the American people change their minds. That's why the back rooms of the Democrat majority have locked doors these days.

Where the majority doors unlocked the past 8 years?

[autigeremt 6,970]

When you add a price tag to it, the American people change their minds. That's why the back rooms of the Democrat majority have locked doors these days.

Where the majority doors unlocked the past 8 years?

Hope and Change????? NADA!

[Auburn85 434]

When you add a price tag to it, the American people change their minds. That's why the back rooms of the Democrat majority have locked doors these days.

Where the majority doors unlocked the past 8 years?

Democrats won majority in the 06 elections?

[BamaGrad03 0]

When's the headline going to read:

"Majority of Americans still not being asked whether or not they support having to PAY for a public option."

[Justin5 20]

An even larger majority of Americans (61%) oppose public funding of abortions, but the pro-choice lobby deemed it more critical to force taxpayers to fund a health care plan providing abortions than it did to ensure a public option that will cover more people. That was the cynical trade off the Democrat Senators in these negotiations chose to make.

Well the House bill had a public option and the most STRICT funding ever against federal funds going towards abortion. You must love that bill then.

When you add a price tag to it, the American people change their minds. That's why the back rooms of the Democrat majority have locked doors these days.

Where the majority doors unlocked the past 8 years?

Democrats won majority in the 06 elections?

Is this a question? I honestly can't pick up if there is sarcasm here. (the answer is of course yes, in 06)

[autigeremt 6,970]

Democrats are in the bag with Big Insurance as well!

By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR, Associated Press Writer Ricardo Alonso-zaldivar, Associated Press Writer – 1 hr 52 mins ago

WASHINGTON – A loophole in the Senate health care bill would let insurers place annual dollar limits on medical care for people struggling with costly illnesses such as cancer, prompting a rebuke from patient advocates.

The legislation that originally passed the Senate health committee last summer would have banned such limits, but a tweak to that provision weakened it in the bill now moving toward a Senate vote.

As currently written, the Senate Democratic health care bill would permit insurance companies to place annual limits on the dollar value of medical care, as long as those limits are not "unreasonable." The bill does not define what level of limits would be allowable, delegating that task to administration officials.

Adding to the puzzle, the new language was quietly tucked away in a clause in the bill still captioned "No lifetime or annual limits."

The 2,074-page bill would carry out President Barack Obama's plan to revamp the health care system, expanding coverage to millions now uninsured and trying to slow budget-busting cost increases. A tentative deal among Senate Democrats to back away from creating a new government program to compete with private insurers appears to have overcome a major obstacle to the bill's passage.

Officials of the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network said they were taken by surprise when the earlier ban on annual coverage limits was undercut, adding that they have not been able to get a satisfactory explanation.

"We don't know who put it in, or why it was put in," said Stephen Finan, a policy expert with the cancer society's advocacy affiliate.

Democratic officials of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee would not comment publicly but said the bill contains numerous provisions that will benefit patients with cancer and other life-threatening illnesses, not to mention improvements in preventive care.

Advocates for patients say they're concerned the language will stay in the bill all the way to Obama's desk.

"The primary purpose of insurance is to protect people against catastrophic loss," Finan said. "If you put a limit on benefits, by definition it's going to affect people who are dealing with catastrophic loss." The cost of cancer treatment can exceed $100,000 a year.

Under the health care bills in Congress, the major expansion of health insurance coverage won't take place until three to four years after enactment. Democrats have touted a series of consumer protections as immediate benefits Americans will secure through the legislation. Both the Senate and House bills, for example, ban lifetime limits on the dollar value of coverage.

But Finan said the change in the Senate bill essentially invalidates the legislation's ban on lifetime limits.

"If you can have annual limits, saying there's no lifetime limits becomes meaningless," he said. A patient battling aggressive disease in its later stages could conceivably exhaust insurance benefits in the course of a year.

It's unclear how widespread such coverage limits are in the current insurance marketplace. Large employers have moved away from coverage limits, but insurers have wide discretion in designing plans for small businesses and individual customers.

In the House bill, neither annual nor lifetime limits would be allowable under an essential benefits package intended to provide comprehensive coverage.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

An even larger majority of Americans (61%) oppose public funding of abortions, but the pro-choice lobby deemed it more critical to force taxpayers to fund a health care plan providing abortions than it did to ensure a public option that will cover more people. That was the cynical trade off the Democrat Senators in these negotiations chose to make.

Well the House bill had a public option and the most STRICT funding ever against federal funds going towards abortion. You must love that bill then.

Actually, I was fine with the bill. If I have to choose between:

A. A bill with a public option but no taxpayer funds paying for abortions.

B. A bill with no public option but accounting loopholes that end up with taxpayers funding abortions.

I'll take "A" all day long and twice on Sundays.

I'm somewhat ambivalent about an public option anyway. I'm not convinced it will actually save us money or that it will be effective and efficient at providing good healthcare (the mess that Medicare is doesn't give me great hope), but it's not an intrinsic evil either.

[autigeremt 6,970]

I actually think it is an intrinsic evil. It's a part of the erosion process of the United States as it was founded. Some things should not change.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

I actually think it is an intrinsic evil. It's a part of the erosion process of the United States as it was founded. Some things should not change.

Intrinsic evil is something that is an objective moral evil or something that by it's very nature is wrong, not something that merely violates a country's constitution or someone's vision of government. We can debate the pros and cons of gov't run health care all day long, but there is nothing morally wrong about a society deciding to pay for a gov't health care system.

[autigeremt 6,970]

I actually think it is an intrinsic evil. It's a part of the erosion process of the United States as it was founded. Some things should not change.

Intrinsic evil is something that is an objective moral evil or something that by it's very nature is wrong, not something that merely violates a country's constitution or someone's vision of government. We can debate the pros and cons of gov't run health care all day long, but there is nothing morally wrong about a society deciding to pay for a gov't health care system.

It's wrong when we are talking about the United States of America. It's another government power grab, and that's the very thing we broke away from over 200 years ago. I don't mind helping people. I've been doing it all my life, but I chose to do that. No one should force me to do it.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

I actually think it is an intrinsic evil. It's a part of the erosion process of the United States as it was founded. Some things should not change.

Intrinsic evil is something that is an objective moral evil or something that by it's very nature is wrong, not something that merely violates a country's constitution or someone's vision of government. We can debate the pros and cons of gov't run health care all day long, but there is nothing morally wrong about a society deciding to pay for a gov't health care system.

It's wrong when we are talking about the United States of America. It's another government power grab, and that's the very thing we broke away from over 200 years ago. I don't mind helping people. I've been doing it all my life, but I chose to do that. No one should force me to do it.

Again, it's within the framework that our Constitution allows. This isn't an edict from a dictator, these are elected representatives. It's still not an intrinsic evil. Murder is an intrinsic evil. Gov't run healthcare may be a lot of not so great things, but it isn't that.

[CCTAU 3,369]

Democrats, continually dragging the majority down to the minority level. Dragging 85% of the people who have insurance down to the level of the 15% that don't. Reminds me of education and integration.

[Justin5 20]

Democrats, continually dragging the majority down to the minority level. Dragging 85% of the people who have insurance down to the level of the 15% that don't. Reminds me of education and integration.

Its possible to bring up the bottom, without dragging down the top.

Examples:

Ending Slavery

Allowing women to vote

Workers rights in the early 1900s

etc.