nytimes
 WASHINGTON — After a half-day of animated debate, the Senate Finance Committee on Tuesday rejected efforts by liberal Democrats to add a
government-run health insurance plan to major health care legislation, dealing the first official setback to an idea that many Democrats, including
President Obama, say they support.
All of the other versions of the health care legislation advancing in Congress — a bill approved by the Senate health committee and a trio of bills
in the House — include some version of the government-run plan, or public option. Please visit the link provided for the complete story.
Another link, for those who don't want to register for nytimes:
news.yahoo.com
This just in about an hour ago.
The Senate Finance Committee is just one committee voting on health care reform bills. I am not surprised the public option was defeated here because
there are so many Republicans on the Finance Committee. They are concerned with protecting the profits of the health insurance companies.
There are I think four other bills that have the public option included in them.
Which version of the bill is passed by Congress is yet to be determined.
The public option is not dead yet.
This is the time for the president to make a strong stand in favor of health care reform that will really work, and not just be a big federally funded
bonanza for big insurance and big pharma, as the Senate Finance Committee wants.
[edit on 29-9-2009 by Sestias]
|
Baucus, the main person leading Obama's Healthcare planned voted with the Republicans to scrap public option. 4 other Democrats as well.
I really don't see public option being a part of the Senate bill.
|
I read that they knew the PO amendment wouldn't get in. They voted on the amendment to see what Democrats voted for it to test the waters for a
senate floor vote.
I see it going three ways:
The PO gets crammed in for the final floor vote, and either the moderate Dems say, "Well, it's better than nothing" and vote for it, or
The PO gets crammed in and the moderate Dems back away from the Bill and Reid uses reconciliation to pass it, or
The PO is written in as a trigger if the current legislation and insurance industry aren't moving the way the should (which is probably what will
happen)
Any which way you look at it, I bet America will get a Public Option.
|
Go ahead and let Reid try the reconciliation path - it's the surest way to piss off his constituents and guarantee that he won't be re-elected in
2010.
|
reply to post by Avenginggecko
I agree.
There's more to this fight and ultimately there will probably be a public option in the final bill.
I just hope it isn't watered down so much that it won't really be effective.
IMO the 'trigger" will ultimately end up costing the government many billions more than the public option would if it passed in the first place.
|
The Dems seem to be a bunch of spineless nerds for having allowed themselves to be led into this. Without the PO, the bill doesn't have teeth or much
usefulness.
|
Republicans and Conservadems have adopted a Marxist strategy:
[edit on 29-9-2009 by Sestias]
|
If this administration and Congress are so sure that this country needs a "public option", then let them have the balls to put it to a real vote.
Put it on the ballots in 2010 and let the people vote on it.
Polls have easily shown that the majority of this country is against a public option. Reform is needed, but government control is not.
|
Well at least this is one good first step in killing the public option. The public option is unamerican. How can a private company that must make a
profit compete with the government that is a pro at pissing money down a rat hole.
|
Originally posted by skeptic1
If this administration and Congress are so sure that this country needs a "public option", then let them have the balls to put it to a real vote.
And let them also put their own healthcare on the line by accepting for themselves.
|
