RutlandHerald.com - We Are Vermont

Sanders adamant on 'public option'



Toolbox

By DANIEL BARLOW VERMONT PRESS BUREAU - Published: November 24, 2009

MONTPELIER – U.S. Sen. Bernard Sanders drew a line in the sand on health care reform this weekend, saying he will not vote for a bill that does not include a public health insurance option.

The independent Vermont senator, who supports a more expansive single-payer health care system, said Monday afternoon that there are a "number of problems" with the Senate bill, including that it contains a weak public option.

Sanders did vote to begin debate on the bill Saturday night, giving Democrats the much needed 60 votes to overcome a Republican filibuster and send the 10-year, $959 billion health bill to full debate.

But he said his vote for the underlying bill is not yet secure.

"The American people overwhelmingly support a public option," Sanders said. "Democrats in the House and President Obama support a public option. And a majority of Democrats in the Senate support a public option."

Despite that support, the likelihood that a Senate bill containing such a public option – an insurance plan administered by the federal government that would compete against private plans – is unclear, with moderate and conservative Democrats saying they would not support it.

Sanders said the United States got into this crisis because President Bush did very little to reform health care or curb costs during his eight years in office.

"The American people want a public option that would compete against the private insurance companies, whose only goal in life is to make as much money as possible," Sanders said. "If we do nothing, the dollars we spend on health care will nearly double in the next eight years."

The House passed its health care bill 220-215 earlier this month. The Senate vote cleared the way for debate on a bill that is a compromise between two committee-passed versions and could undergo significant changes as senators amend it during weeks of arduous debate ahead. There are significant differences among congressional Democrats over abortion and taxes as well as letting the government sell health insurance as a competitor with private insurers.

Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, who chaired the Democratic National Committee for two terms after leaving office, warned in an interview with the Huffington Post on Monday that Democrats are in "deep trouble" even if they pass a strong reform bill.

"I think if you passed the Senate bill tomorrow it would be OK," Dean told the Web site. "But then the problem is they don't have any defense for their members in 2010. On the other hand, if they drop the public option, I think they lose seats."

U.S. Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., spoke on the Senate floor encouraging a vote on the bill.

"Vote no if you want on the final bill but at least let's have a debate and vote on it," Leahy said. "When we get a final bill we will either vote for it or against it."

Leahy said leaders in the Senate have told him there will be work done to correct Medicaid language that could disadvantage Vermont, which has gone farther than other states on its own health care reform efforts.

"I have been assured and was assured over the weekend we would fix Vermont's Medicaid problem," Leahy said. "I want to see the final wording, of course"

With the U.S. Congress on break this week for Thanksgiving, Sanders anticipates debate to begin in early December when lawmakers return to Washington, D.C. Debate could continue for several weeks and even stretch into 2010, he added.

"I can see this debate progressing over the next three to four weeks," he said. "Right now, we have four people in my office exclusively working on this bill."

Sanders said there are provisions in the bill that he likes, including ones that would give 31 million more Americans health insurance, allow young people to stay on their parent's coverage for longer and prohibit insurance companies from denying or dropping coverage due to a preexisting condition or a health crisis.

But there are problems as well, he said. The House version of the bill paid for expanded coverage by taxing the country's wealthy. The Senate version, however, taxes what Sanders calls "Cadillac" health plans, but he worries that today's good car could be tomorrow's clunker.

The Senate version of the health care bill also lacks funding right now for one of Sanders' pet issues: Expanding community health centers across the country. The House version contained expansive language and funding, but the Senate's bill does not fund that effort yet.

Sanders said Vermont – which has been very progressive compared to other states in reforming health care – should not be penalized for having Dr. Dynasaur and a generous Medicare program. He said he will fight to include language in the final bill that will give states such as Vermont "flexibility" to try other health care systems, including a single-payer system.

Louis Porter of the Vermont Press Bureau contributed to this report.

daniel.barlow@timesargus.com.








READER COMMENTS


Bernie and Leahy need to prioritize things just a little.
Before we expect taxpayers to support a healthcare overhaul, maybe it might just make a little sense to work on jobs and the economy. I can't believe their priorities. Wait until the economy is in the tank and people are losing their jobs and their homes, then implement a 750 billion dollar stimulus that isn't stimulus and provide healthcare for all!!
Great job guys.
-- Posted by Ann Marie None on Sun, Nov 29, 2009, 8:42 pm EST

report this comment



the worst part of this is that we have been debating this forever and yet we still dont have the only FACTS that matter.

Essentially this "reform" proposes we purchase insurance for those that don't have it. When I bought insurance for my household i asked two questions right off the bat....
1. how many people in my household does it cover and
2. how much does it COST?

Here we are months later and we still dont have a remotely close answer to that question. Take the news in VT that the fed estimated something like 74 K uninsured, VT says 47 K....

if a company I was looking into buying from couldnt tell me how many poeople are covered and for what price...Id walk away from the table...which is what we should do from this reform...just walk away...

no idea who will be covered, no idea what it will costs...if we cant get these answers in 6 months...how can we provide care?
-- Posted by Eric Stanson on Fri, Nov 27, 2009, 9:32 am EST

report this comment



Yes insurance companies are in business to make a profit, they have the years of experience to know what they pay out in cost and what they have to take in in premiums to cover all the costs and profit. The governments plan is starting from scratch and will be accepting people with existing conditions and from the riskiest portion of the population. Does anyone in the government KNOW what the actual cost will be, no. They will start with initial estimates which will be skewed low to make the program appear more acceptable then after the program is in place the only way to pay actual cost will be higher taxes. NOTHING in this proposed bill controls cost. Sanders has been in the unions pockets forever and the unions want the government to take ove rthe high medical programs they've forced on industry over the years. The auto unions are now responsible for their memebers medical insurance and they want to unload those cost onto the government. It's a bad plan, poorly thought out and sure to fail. How many poor politicians are there? Bernie and his fellow congressmen aren't about to give up their health insurance do you really think they want to pay for the uninsured, don't be fooled the middle class will end up bearing the cost as usual.
-- Posted by ex-vermonter None on Fri, Nov 27, 2009, 8:36 am EST

report this comment



Trust me. Health care will be free under Bernie's plan. As long as you use the logic Bill Clinton used when he spoke about what the definition of what the word "is is".
It depends on what the definition of the word free is. Wake up people. It will be a disaster for the country. Congress and the last 2 administrations are spending us into oblivion. There has to be rationing for us to survive. The GOP is being very disingenuous when they say grandma will die (which is true) and the dems are saying there is no death panels (there will be) WE CANNOT AFFORD TO OFFER HEALTH CARE TO ALL AMERICANS AND ILLEGALS (which will happen because do you think it is legal not to treat someone in need) Both parties are big liars and do not vote before doing research from both sides. The true debt caused by health care for the boomers, etc is over $50 trillion over the next 20 years.
Think we can afford that ?? Dream on
-- Posted by None None on Fri, Nov 27, 2009, 8:31 am EST

report this comment



That last line summed it up well, because why should one take care when the feds are footing the bill? Have a tummyache? Go see the doctor. This US sense of entitlement is a big reason why socialized medicine will work even less efficiently here than elsewhere. I really wish the libs supporting this garbage could see even half the abuse of existing govt programs at street level I've witnessed.

So you Google a name and think you know me? In fact I have had medical emergencies, negotiated with the hospital and paid them off. And saved a bundle over what insurance would have cost. I've considered several low to no deductible plans covering hospitalization that were around $100 a month, x 8.7 and anyone making over 12,000 a year with my stats is getting a raw deal from Sanders' plan, IMO. Unless they plan on taking advantage of all the bells and whistles he offered (as many inevitably would) or can't afford $65 for an annual checkup. So it'd cost me well over double actually. Don't know what company you're looking at where a $7000 premium is standard but they must have seen you coming... So yeah, BS, of course buddy.

This is an article about Sanders and you're talking like his plan isn't even relevant. This nut is our senator and wants 9% more, on top of 15.3% for MC and SS plus income, property, sales, and wants to up the gas tax... What's so wrong with people spending their own money on what they want, and living with the consequences should they arise?

And even by your wait time figures, 18% wait longer than 3 months, and 40% wait 1-3 just for surgery. Not including the visit to the PCP and specialists. The figure I used was total wait time, from symptom onset to surgery. Ooh, but Fraser supports a free market, they must be full of BS too huh?

It's too bad, but I can see that you'll never be happy until everyone is spending their money on what you think they should be spending it on. So much for live and let live, I'm outta here.
-- Posted by Justin Tanger on Fri, Nov 27, 2009, 12:20 am EST

report this comment



@ SOTG. Pray tell me what The Government does that is in any way shape of form run efficiently. Name one thing that doesn't cost 2 or more times the projected cost, is not overladen with administrative persons, or is understandable to a human being. They can't even do the H1N1 vaccine distribution effectively. Medicare is broke and they want to gut it some more. The Govt can't even keep gate crashers out of the chosen one's party. You want them to run health care?? As I said, do you think Bernie will take the public option, or keep the Special Plan he has now?
-- Posted by No More on Thu, Nov 26, 2009, 4:50 pm EST

report this comment



I knew I should have waited until after eating to check back in...

First, here we go again with the "we don't even know you are" whining. Who cares? You've proudly put your own name here. Great. So what? So now we know you really likes yer four-wheelin'. Bully for you. Does nothing for your arguments, though -- except to possibly reveal yourself as an insurance risk due to high-risk activity. (Nah. Private industry would NEVER hold that against you, would they?)

You've done the math, eh? And figured out that "Bernie's touted single-payer plan" would cost you "double" the price of a hypothetical "satisfactory" plan through the private sector? And you are, of course, referring to the "American Health Security Act" he introduced back in March? Very interesting... especially because, under Sanders' plan, there are NO individual premiums or co-payments.

Perhaps you're referring to payroll taxes? Well, that comes out to 8.7%, so unless you're making over $60,000 doing whatever it is you do, it's still cheaper than the average private individual premium in Vermont. And good luck getting a family plan... you and your significant other would pay more for anything under a combined salary of roughly $120,000. So I guess the "double" number is pure BS... unless your own personal "satisfactory" plan consists of a box of Band-Aids and a can of Bactine.

(Sorry... let me know if my "dazzling logic" starts to confuse you. It shouldn't, of course, because you've already "done the math" on Sanders' plan, which isn't even a part of the discussion in D.C. right now... is it?)

As for leukemia... it's just an example, big guy. There are many, many more. You believe that life is full of risks, and one only "insures away" if one fears crazy stuff may happen to some tiny Other in a safely distant minority? Spoken like an 27-year-old with no life experience with health emergencies of any size, shape or form.

I WILL give you credit, though, for your creative dodge on what private insurance companies can or cannot do with your premium. I never SAID they'd "change or cancel" them BEFORE the end of the term; but of course, I suspect you knew that. They CAN and often DO "readjust" -- that's INCREASE, for those of us not looking to shade the truth -- if the individual receiving care has suddenly proven unattractive according to their own actuarial tables, which is one of the problems here. (And good luck shopping around for a better plan if you have the temerity to get sick!)

My favorite part of your post is where you assume that, by the end of any given insurance term, "treatment would have been undergone" and the formerly ill person "would be just fine". Impressive. In one fell swoop, you've managed to a.) misrepresent how insurance policies are renewed, b.) assume that one treatment within a limited, proscribed time period will do the trick, no matter the illness, c.) ignore the inevitable rise in premiums that often occurs after moderate or severe illness, and d.) ignore medical payment limits entirely. Man, you could work for the private insurance industry!

As far as wait times are concerned: you're getting your information from a conservative "think tank" that opposes public health care; I'm getting my information from the government itself (http://www.healthcoalition.ca/index-eng.pdf). Scroll ahead to Sec 1:25 for the relevant data.

Time to go eat turkey. Have a good one... and you're really going to want to make sure to be careful when carving that bird -- unless you have good insurance, of course!
-- Posted by Son Of That Guy on Thu, Nov 26, 2009, 3:59 pm EST

report this comment



All those who think Bernie will avail himself of a public option if it is passed raise your hands please. Seriously. If he thinks we should have it do you think he will take it. Please say so if you think he will.
-- Posted by No More on Thu, Nov 26, 2009, 2:53 pm EST

report this comment



Make that a .aspx not/
-- Posted by Justin Tanger on Thu, Nov 26, 2009, 2:51 pm EST

report this comment



Wow, dazzling logic from the man who won't post his name here. "Risk pooling" - (my low risk their high risk)/2 = more $ than I should be paying. I've done the math and Sanders' plan would cost me nearly double what I could get satisfactory coverage for through the private sector. But of course you would know that - you must have read his bill also before leaving so many informed comments here, right?

So let's see, less than 13 Americans of every 100,000 are diagnosed with leukemia. Your ilk would have us all live in fear that *gasp* we could be one of those! But if I wanted to fantasize about odds like that I'd play the lottery. Life is full of risks, if you're pulling your hair out over the remote possibility that something might go wrong then by all means, insure away. Don't try to force your decision on the rest of us.

Insurance policies cannot be changed or cancelled unless you don't pay your premium, or applied fraudulently. They may be readjusted at the end of the term, if one is on an individual policy not through employment, at which point treatment would have been undergone and the hypothetical 27 yo lottery winner would be just fine. Nice try with the scare tactics again though.

fraserinstitute.org/newandevents/news/6994/aspx has the wait time figures. It has dropped slightly from the 2007 figure I glanced at earlier... All the way down to 113 days! Hoo boy, is that the longest 4 weeks I've ever heard of! Just can't wait to hear more fictional "facts" and fear-mongering opinions about why SOTG wants the feds hands even deeper in my pocket!
-- Posted by Justin Tanger on Thu, Nov 26, 2009, 2:49 pm EST

report this comment



"Sanders said the United States got into this crisis because President Bush did very little to reform health care or curb costs during his eight years in office."

Of course, Bernie, of course! It's George Bush's fault.

More wisdom from the nitwit Vermont socialist.
-- Posted by Mr. Moderate on Thu, Nov 26, 2009, 12:11 pm EST

report this comment



"Why should a fit, non-smoking 27 yo pay the same premium as an obese 60 yo smoker as we would under Bernie's touted single-payer plan?"

It's all about risk pooling: obtaining cost efficiencies not available through separate buying pools.

By the way, in this situation, if this hypothetical 27-year-old -- let's just call him "Dustin Sanger" -- was diagnosed with leukemia next year, his ass would be bailed out, in part, by the healthy 60-year jogger who lives next door. That's the whole point.

"People should pay according to the risk of payout they represent which is what the free market system we have now enables!"

Excellent. Of course, chances are real good that "Dustin's" gonna die, now, if he can't afford his soon-to-be-jacked-into-the-stratosphere premiums. Who needs Death Panels when the "free market" will take care of the situation for us?

"If the liberal crowd is so unhappy with the current setup why don't they start an ins company and implement some of the policies used in precious Canada to lower cost? For example the average wait time for surgery and therapy of nearly 5 months?"

False. The median wait time for surgery in Canada is four weeks, not five months. Look it up.

"As for me, Montana is sounding better every time our Socialist ass of a senator opens his mouth."

Well, that's the beauty of a free country with open internal borders. Don't let the door hit you on the way out... and say "hi" to Bozeman for us!
-- Posted by Son Of That Guy on Thu, Nov 26, 2009, 10:42 am EST

report this comment



Granted the original Pilgrims were less than model citizens, why don't we remember how the US started at least: freedom from heavy handed governance and excessive taxation. So many individuals are trying to force their choices on the rest of the nation through legislation these days... Some of us young people don't want to subsidize the older pre-Medicare crowd and the unhealthy though a national program, which is the reason the premiums for some would drop - because those representing a low risk would pay a lot more $ than the proportion of risk they represent.

Why should a fit, non-smoking 27 yo pay the same premium as an obese 60 yo smoker as we would under Bernie's touted single-payer plan? Or even be capped at half the maximum rate as the Senate plan would do? People should pay according to the risk of payout they represent which is what the free market system we have now enables!

If the liberal crowd is so unhappy with the current setup why don't they start an ins company and implement some of the policies used in precious Canada to lower cost? For example the average wait time for surgery and therapy of nearly 5 months? See how much people in the US like it when their ins co tells them,"Sorry about that cardiac condition, try these 3 drug regimes over the next several years and if it doesn't go away then maybe we'll operate. In the meantime just deal with the pain and immobility." Convenience costs money!

And how about the financing of this trillion dollar 10 year plan, the cost without even being fully operational for the first 4 of course... Wouldn't it be nice if all businesses could function at that level of deficit? Just what future generations want to be paying off. As for me, Montana is sounding better every time our Socialist ass of a senator opens his mouth.
-- Posted by Justin Tanger on Thu, Nov 26, 2009, 10:04 am EST

report this comment



I'm sorry... did I get anything wrong in my post?

Part of the greatness of America lies in its ability to make mistakes, over and over again, and learn from those mistakes in an effort to forge an even greater nation.

We're not perfect. Far from it -- and that's what the idiotic "my country, right or wrong" crowd doesn't seem to get. We are a big, sloppy, messy, imperfect nation, and most of us know it.

The beauty of that imperfection is that, for the majority of our history, we have still constantly striven to better ourselves and our union in the face of war, strife, racism, sexism, disease, and the many different issues that repeatedly threaten to tear us apart. Somehow, we never give up, even when we fail. That's America.

"Blame America First"? A useless, cheap-shot slogan from those too dense or too angry to appreciate the incredible variety of attitudes, opinions, beliefs, fears and hopes in this country.

Happy Thanksgiving... to everyone, no matter what you choose to believe or how you choose to live your life.
-- Posted by Son Of That Guy on Thu, Nov 26, 2009, 8:13 am EST

report this comment



SOTG - I must say a prayer for you this day of thanks as you are not even able to accept a kind statement without some retort. You are obviously and angry person. Discussion of issue with different ideas is a positive approach to problem solving. Providing personal attacks is not. You obviously choose the attack approach.

And yes, humans are not perfect - yourself included. We make mistakes with the choices we make.
-- Posted by Allen Seiple on Thu, Nov 26, 2009, 8:12 am EST

report this comment



SOTG, It's confirmed you really do hate America..You fit in perfectly with the blame America first crowd..Chickens coming home to roost huh. Say hello to the Rev on Sunday..Remember to say a big thank you tomorrow for the generations of heros who have secured the very blanket of freedom you enjoy.

Happy Thanksgiving
-- Posted by That Guy's Really A Nut on Wed, Nov 25, 2009, 6:35 pm EST

report this comment



"Enjoy your holiday and I hope you have a great Thanksgiving.

Remember how it all started!"

By fleeing England because their brand of Christianity wasn't intolerant enough for us, crash-landing in the New World, and then slowly driving off the original Americans through violence, greed and disease?

Huh. I don't get it. Maybe something's been lost in the translation...
-- Posted by Son Of That Guy on Wed, Nov 25, 2009, 6:17 pm EST

report this comment



Notta, while I appreciate your views and frustrations, I think you're being naive if you believe that only the private sector seeks to profit from others' misery. There are a huge array of government programs that do exactly that every day, it's just that their "profits" are concealed in their tremendously inefficient and lethargic bureaucracies. Such will be the case if we permit the government to take us down another rat hole (of highly dubious constitutionality) and create another monolithic program under the pretense of morality, sensitivity, and/or altruism.

I think we have to ask ourselves what the true motivations of the public option proponents are. I for one do not believe them to be sincere and am exceedingly skeptical of their unwillingness to accept sound and logical incremental solutions that could readily improve the healthcare landscape, both from an insurance, cost, and delivery system perspective. These include:

- Interstate competition for insurance
- Mandating coverage for pre-existing conditions
- Permitting small businesses to band together in the form of LLCs, etc., to purchase group policies at more affordable rates
- Tort reform
- Increasing the numbers of doctors through expanded numbers of medical school seats

Most of the medical doctors that I have discussed this matter with, including Dr. Griffith, a congressman from Alabama, are supportive of such an incremental approach and I believe the majority of the American public would be, as well. As Dr. Griffith as so aptly analogized, why would you want to blow up the system and hope that all of its multitude of pieces reform in the explosion and create a more perfect form? The unknown unknowns that will undoubtably reveal themselves from such an extreme course of action should cause any rational decision maker great pause, at a minimum.

What continues to be called for is greater rationality, objectivity, and honesty to what has become a thoroughly poisoned political debate. Unless that can be achieved, we will all be losers.
-- Posted by For the Fair Tax on Wed, Nov 25, 2009, 5:50 pm EST

report this comment



Some simple math. Go to this website. Look at how we have 1,993,000 families making over 250k. Now assume they already pay 40% of their income to both Federal and State taxes. Now multiply the balance together and guess what? There is not enough money to balance the annual budget if you take everything they earn. So the next time a social program is proposed and the funding mechanism is to tax those making over $ 250k think twice. The middle class will eventually be paying for all of the "nice to haves."

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/income_expenditures_poverty_wealth.html
-- Posted by Allen Seiple on Wed, Nov 25, 2009, 5:20 pm EST

report this comment



Notta, on behalf of the Internet Bandwith Institute of Proper Notation, please keep your responses to less than 5000 words.

Signed,

Senior Compliance Officer
-- Posted by That Guy's Really A Nut on Wed, Nov 25, 2009, 5:05 pm EST

report this comment



NB - You definitely need to go get a turkey and enjoy a nice dinner. Be careful though, the food company you get the turkey from and the grocery store where you purchase it might be making a profit. Oh, how will you get there - in your car that is made by a company making a profit. Oh I am so wrong here, you will be driving a government owned chevrolet because with excessive regulation and high union costs, the government had to bail them out.

A quick lesson in capitalism. Profits are good, they lead to investment, risk taking and ultimately adding more jobs. Spending government money on social programs adds little to the overall growth of the economy. If you want to solve social problems, you need the economic engine to grow so there is more money in the system.

Enjoy your holiday and I hope you have a great Thanksgiving.

Remember how it all started!
-- Posted by Allen Seiple on Wed, Nov 25, 2009, 5:01 pm EST

report this comment



Jack Bauer, your inability to see things in anything but a black vs white perspective is indicative of your type. Think gray sometimes, Jack. I'm no Socialist (with a capital "S"). I doubt very many people in western societies really are. Even the Scandinavian countries, those horrible, dark places with the ugly blue-eyed, blonde people who excel at sports and good, clean living obviously aren't suffering too badly in socialist democracies. They look pretty good to me, Jack, although I think we Americans can improve upon what they've built and make our country even better.

One place to start is by taking the first steps toward taking the profits out of human misery. So long as someone can make a profit when you or I get sick or injured we are never going to be the country we could and should be. By pooling our resources and paying for everyone's wellness (the poor, the middle-earner and the wealthy), by recognizing our humanity and our ability to take care of one another, we all advance as a people.

Let's lift the yoke of heathcare payments from our broken-back industries and allow them to compete internationally with other democracies that have solved this problem. Let's stop pinning the ability to get quality basic health services to being in a particular kind of job for a prescribed number of months rather than treating a person's illness or fixing their broken bones or whatever. How can you find that offensive, especially now with so many workers either unemployed or underemployed with no benefits? Are you like our state auditor and want to increase the suffering of the unemployed while handing out pay raises to those around him?

Does my expression of caring for my fellow citizens make me a "socialist?" NO, Jack, it makes me a pragmatist and a humanist. I don't want my unemployed neighbor to go without medical care because the place he used to work went under due to the shortage of credit for small companies. They should be unrelated.

Do I like the idea that two administrations in a row think it's more important to bail out companies that have grown so big that they are now failing - unless all the little people chip in and keep them afloat until they show a profit and can pay their executives millions of dollars in bonuses for having conned the government into keeping them afloat? No, that's my idea of socialism - corporate socialism, handouts to billionaires, enriching the rich from the treasury of the masses. It may even be fascism.

So, if Bernie wants to call himself a democratic socialist, fine. He'll probably still get my vote - unless he gets in the way of passing a public option as part of this first step toward health insurance reform. He's absolutely right that we should be looking at single-payer and getting the profit-freaks out of people's health care, but the time is not yet right for passing something as meaningful and necessary for our people's welfare and our country's ability to compete in the world. Too many people live in fear of black helicopters and Manchurian candidates and god-only-knows whatever madness is the latest foolishness cooked up by talk-entertainers to boost their ratings while stirring up trouble for all of us. Some day, however, they'll realize that those people are the real enemy. They are the rot from within - like a cancer on society. They do it with words that cause mental gaps in the brain.

Before you go off on my using the word "profit" in vain, Jack, I see nothing wrong with someone making a profit from 99.9% of businesses. I don't see it as morally right to profit from someone else's misery. If you can afford to have your tummy-tucked or you mams lifted or your faced tightened or your brain put in dry ice after you die or whatever you want - well go ahead and let the guy with the knife make a nice profit from you. But that same guy, repairing the face of a child who had her nose ripped off in a car accident should get a standard fee determined by someone other than a profit-seeking insurance company bureaucrat - if he allows the operation to go ahead at all.

Have a nice holiday. Be thankful you have this outlet to spew your totally irrational hatred, Jack. It's fairly harmless here and your kind are a noisy but small lot for the rest of us to pity.
-- Posted by Notta Bushman on Wed, Nov 25, 2009, 4:12 pm EST

report this comment



Bernie has become just another Congressional sideshow, which explains his popularity with the rest of the world. He prides himself on disparaging the free market and making a mockery of our system of governance, which foreign critics of the US and those who can't compete successfully within that system find so atractive.

The man who has made a career out of government and made a living as a second rate ringmaster in the "big top" that is today's government circus, is just another pathetic example of how an apathetic public has allowed lame and ineffective hucksters like Sanders to hijack the halls of Congress.

Bernie's not selling realisitc healthcare reform, he's pitching his usual snake oil remedy...BIGGER GOVERNMENT...and he doesn't care if the patient chokes on that kind of medicine because to him and those like him, bigger government translates into their own increased personal power and job security.
-- Posted by Bill O. Rights on Wed, Nov 25, 2009, 3:11 pm EST

report this comment



So Notta, you are Socialist, right? SOTG, you are a Socialist too? If that is the case you believe the Government has to take care of you and your problems. You believe others should suffer so that you with your problems can complain and ask for more. You will hold your hand out asking for help instead of helping yourself. Bernie is going down in the next election. You can count on it. He has frustrated his base because there will be no Public Option. There will only be higher taxes, less Medicare and less freedom of choice. This is not reform it is a take over.
-- Posted by Jack Bauer on Wed, Nov 25, 2009, 1:57 pm EST

report this comment



So, Hassen, next time he's up for re-election, you should join the tiny minority who don't vote for him. Your problem is solved!
-- Posted by Notta Bushman on Wed, Nov 25, 2009, 12:45 pm EST

report this comment



Yea sure Notta, everyone around the world "Loves Bernie"!! I don't know what we would do without him but I think we oughta try!!!!
-- Posted by Hassen Bin Soabur on Wed, Nov 25, 2009, 12:07 pm EST

report this comment



And, Jack, you are so right. People in other states love Bernie just like the majority of us love Bernie. And of course I agree that Bernie is right about single-payer but that's not part of this bill so it will have to wait for another time.
-- Posted by Notta Bushman on Wed, Nov 25, 2009, 11:00 am EST

report this comment



Ahhh, one can always count on the RH's readers of the RWNJ persuasion. Polls = votes? Getting the VA and NJ results right verifies all their other polls? (ALL the polls got the VA and NJ results right.) How did the folks at Rasmussen do on the NY 23 election?

Look, RWs, you are listening to a pack of weasels who are selling you down the river in a chickenwire canoe without a paddle. That would be OK with me except you are trying to take everyone else along for the ride.

Turn off Beck, Hannity and Limpbag and you'll eventually recover. The talking points you spout come right from their sources even if you change their terms a little bit. If you want to talk to someone from Louisiana about prostitutes you'd be much better off talking to Sen Vitter from that state than his female counterpart. But then you couldn't be a ditto-head, could you?
-- Posted by Notta Bushman on Wed, Nov 25, 2009, 10:54 am EST

report this comment



There's nothing left in the US Treasury to pay anyone off anyway...The more our Congress resorts to such tactics the greater will be the debt burden on our children and their children...Our Congress has become a disgrace and the sooner we toss all of them out on their...ear...the better!
-
-- Posted by Bill O. Rights on Wed, Nov 25, 2009, 9:39 am EST

report this comment



Bernie should have held out like Landau and gotten the payoff.
-- Posted by Monty Fox on Wed, Nov 25, 2009, 9:26 am EST

report this comment



The health care reform bill has become toothless. Bernie should stick to his principles and point out how the emperor has no clothes. There are so many people in other states that wish they had a Sander's as their senator.
-- Posted by Jack on Wed, Nov 25, 2009, 9:18 am EST

report this comment



They seem more like Larry, Curly, and Moe to me!
-- Posted by Hassen Bin Soabur on Wed, Nov 25, 2009, 8:53 am EST

report this comment



Larry (Sanders), Daryl(Leahy) and their other brother Daryl(Welch) are completely out of touch with the mainstream.
-- Posted by Katherine Silta on Wed, Nov 25, 2009, 6:38 am EST

report this comment



What a hoot, that idiot SOTH states the poll was biases toward a white, older population. Now how would you describe Vermonts population? I'll give you a hint, it ain't young minorities, and I'm kind of confused whats the difference between a vote and an opinion in a poll, really there isn't any, an opinion is how a person would vote IF THEY HAD A VOTE. Time for Socialist Sanders to be rejected from office.
-- Posted by ex-vermonter None on Wed, Nov 25, 2009, 6:20 am EST

report this comment



THANK YOU BERNIE!!!
-- Posted by doc johnson None on Tue, Nov 24, 2009, 11:39 pm EST

report this comment



Oh, Bernie's such a proud little socialist, isn't he?

Now don't get me wrong. I will support a public option if and when the following things occur:

- Congress gives up their exclusive health plan and joins the public option, like the rest of us, with the same taxes, rates, co-pays, deductibles, choice of doctors, rationing, etc.

- Congress gives up their exclusive pension plan and is not exempt from social security. They are eligible for inclusion in their State's government employee pension plan with the same eligibility requirements. This means that when they retire at age 65 they get to rely on this and social security to make ends meet, not exclusively on the backs of you or me.

- Congress travels on commercial transportation to and from Washington DC at coach rates. If they want to go home every weekend while in session they can stay at the BOQ at the areas military installations. If they stay in Washington for the session they get a modest allowance for a decent apartment.

- Being a member of Congress does not entitle you to be a globetrotter at the taxpayers expense. Foreign relations is the pervue of the State Department, a part of the Executive Branch. We have plenty of state of the art videoconferencing systems and if you want to know what the weather is like in Rome, we have the Weather Channel.

- Congress should not have its own Bank. Members should be eligible to join one of the Federal Employees Credit Unions.

- Last, but not least, each morning in Congress should open with the Pledge of Allegience and a moment of prayer.
-- Posted by Bart Logan on Tue, Nov 24, 2009, 11:20 pm EST

report this comment



SOTG

Yup! Anything that doesn't go along with your warped thinking has got to be Republican influenced. ROFLMAO

I love it, The Libs don't listen to Fox, because they think it is all slanted and Republican controlled, even though the owner, Mr Murdoch gave money to Hillary Clintons re election fund. Can't say that about any Liberal News sources. LOL

Now Rasmussen has go to be Republican as well. What a Dork, Son of that guy is, where do you get your info that brands everything Republican?

I only posted that one due to the fact that someone said the majority supported. The Majority according to who?

I have to agree Polls are worthless, too many variables and not large enough to state a trend. Best Poll is the Election Poll.

I don't know of too many people that are supporting the Health Care Bill in any form, we have lean to the Socialist side way too much for my liking and for most people I know.


If Sanders supports it, it has to be wrong. ROFLMAO
-- Posted by Name Change on Tue, Nov 24, 2009, 10:52 pm EST

report this comment



Congratulations, Back Nine... you've just exposed the main flaw in Rasmussen polling: that it works better on political RACES (where voting is involved and it's an either/or question) than on social and economic OPINIONS (where the issues get a little muddier). Heck, don't take my word for it: you can probably just Google "Rasmussen" and "bias" and start reading!

I'm sure in your eagerness to score points, you didn't even bother doing a little research to discover that Rasmussen's focus on older, whiter, more Republican demographics produces slightly less egregiously biased results for political races versus opinion polls... but then, perhaps your judgment was clouded by visions of sugarplum "gotchas" dancing about in your head.

So close, Back Nine Eckhardt. So very, very close. Buck up, little camper... better luck next time!
-- Posted by Son Of That Guy on Tue, Nov 24, 2009, 10:03 pm EST

report this comment



Lets see how accurate those big mean Republican pollsters are using some recent examples..Let's hark all the way back to the first week of November 2009. For those playing at home, grab a cold one and let's review the results of those Governor races in New Jersey & Virginia..The Republican Spin machine controlled by the Kennebunkport Bushies had Christie in New Jersey up by 3 points..

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2009/new_jersey/election_2009_new_jersey_governor

Well Christie won by 5 points, so I guess Rasmussen and the Bushies erred on the side of more Democrats getting out of bed..

Now on to Virginia...GOP Pollster Rasmussen pegged Republican McDonald as a 13 point favorite leading up to the election..

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2009/virginia/election_2009_virginia_governor_election

But again, they were wrong, the Republican won by 18 points in Virginia..There is a pattern here of underreporting or characterizing discontent within the electorate for incumbant Democrats.

So what does this have to do with Uncle Bernie's Public Option? Recent polling confirms the majority of Americans want true health care reform, but not this disaster of a gov run program getting slammed down our throats. Americans want tort reform and the ability to buy insurance across state borders. Not slashing medicare and ******* off the 85% of the people satisfied with their healthcare.

You know what else the polls know? Stay tuned...
-- Posted by Back Nine on Tue, Nov 24, 2009, 7:45 pm EST

report this comment



I met with Dr. Parker Griffith this afternoon, D-AL. He has studied this issue intensively and understands the inticasies of the matter and remains firmly opposed to any such Government run option. He voted against HR 3692, which would create a national federal agency health program, otherwise know as a "public option". He described what's being proposed as taking explosives to something, blowing it up, and expecting all the pieces to land in a perfect formation -- it'll never happen, but that's irrelevant to the proponents of this legislation, who don't care what it ends up looking or performing like, so long as they get their way. Welcome back to Student Council Government. We deserve far better.
-- Posted by For the Fair Tax on Tue, Nov 24, 2009, 7:09 pm EST

report this comment



Ah, good old Rasmussen... the pro-GOP polling company (yes, they were actually employed by the 2004 Bush re-election campaign) that robo-calls heavily weighted Republican households -- far more than the general demographic -- for utterly predictable, pro-Republican results. They specifically target what they like to call "reliable" or "likely" voters, which means that if you use a cell phone and/or are younger than the national average, your chances of being contacted by a Rasmussen robo-caller are close to nil.

I love Rasmussen. Whatever results they get... go the other way. Don't believe me? Take a look at these numbers and tell me which one is obviously, completely out of whack:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html

Or here:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/generic_congressional_vote-901.html

Awesome. Anyway, good to see that Rasmussen's elderly robo-called polling base is still agin' stuff they doan' unnerstand.
-- Posted by Son Of That Guy on Tue, Nov 24, 2009, 4:05 pm EST

report this comment



polls are inherently biased...
call during the day, get liberals...
call at night (after work hours) get conservatives...
-- Posted by Eric Stanson on Tue, Nov 24, 2009, 3:59 pm EST

report this comment



"WASHINGTON, D.C., November 24, 2009 - A Rasmussen poll released Monday revealed support for President Obama's health care overhaul at an all-time low, with only 38% of respondents favoring the Democrats' plan, and 56% opposed.

The health care numbers were the lowest of the nearly two dozen Rasmussen tracking polls conducted since June, which had not dipped below 41% support. Rasmussen also reports that the survey, which was ongoing during Saturday's procedural vote on the measure in the Senate, showed a slight decrease in support following the vote.

As in previous polls, stronger feelings reside with those opposed to the health care overhaul: 21% said they "strongly favor" the plan, while 43% consider themselves "strongly opposed."
-- Posted by Name Change on Tue, Nov 24, 2009, 3:28 pm EST

report this comment



@MR. jeffreys...

the one thing I am sure of...is that this debate contains no FACTS...
POLLS ARE NOT FACTS...
we still dont know how many people will be effected and who they are...we have no idea of the costs (the ony 2 important facts) everything else is double talk like Walt's suggestion of dying in the streets when this bill is supposed to lower the costs of the care we are already providing to uninsured...which is it...no care...(meaning adding care must cost more) OR too expensive care (meaning care is given to uninsured but we need a way to lessen the cost...)but the double talk has to stop and the claim of "facts" has to stop...
if we were all honest we would admit that this has been made into a philosophical debate based upon NO FACTS WHATSOEVER!

for example we have a poll saying 51% how is that an overwhelming majority?

4 people on his staff are working on this when the state economy is in the dumper...and no one has any jobs!
-- Posted by Eric Stanson on Tue, Nov 24, 2009, 12:21 pm EST

report this comment



Once again, I would ask Bernie or any of his supporters to point to one Gov. run program that is both cost effective and successful. Public option or not this is one boondoggle that will have to be paid for by generations to come. I for one do not want to saddle future generations with this expense. I might also ask Whit: Name one person in this country that is "denied" health care. I believe there are laws on the books, and hospital policies to the contrary.
-- Posted by Hassen Bin Soabur on Tue, Nov 24, 2009, 12:15 pm EST

report this comment



@No More

Whit is right, the polls are clear that a majority of Americans want a public option. It's a fact, and your saying otherwise does not change that fact.

As for tort reform, it cannot solve the cost problem, and indeed, at best would have a minimal impact. All the malpractice lawsuits amount to a measly 2% of the total spent on health care each year. I lived in Texas when they put a $250,000 cap on pain and suffering. The result was that doctors' insurance payments went down by about 10%, that represents 0.2% of the total spent on health care in Texas. The result? NO decrease in either the amount or rate of increase of health insurance costs in Texas, costs continued to rise at the same rate as before the tort reform. The doctors kept their savings in insurance, they didn't pass it on to the patients. And, people who were actually harmed by malpractice found it difficult to find a lawyer who would take their case, because lawyers generally take these cases on contingency, which means that they spend a lot of their own money up front in the hopes that they will get a fee at the end. Lower awards, lower fees, and the lawyers don't find it worth risking their own money if there is no reasonable chance that they will get that money back in the end. So, a lot of people in Texas who were actually victims of malpractice can't get any recompense. They are SOL.

..
-- Posted by William Jefferys on Tue, Nov 24, 2009, 10:14 am EST

report this comment



This overwhelmed American does not support a public option.
-- Posted by M W on Tue, Nov 24, 2009, 10:07 am EST

report this comment



51 percent of Americans said a bill that contains a government-run health insurance plan, or "public option."
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/11/17/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5687505.shtml
-- Posted by anony mous on Tue, Nov 24, 2009, 9:02 am EST

report this comment



Hey Whit, the majority of American Citizens don't want a public option. We can't afford it, we don't need it, how about tort reform. That will bring the cost down, or are you a lawyer? If you think Socialized medicine is so good (which is really what BS and the libs want), why don't you move to Canada or England, they have a great system. If some of the people who live off the public dole would try to make something of themselves, the uninsured numbers would vanish.
-- Posted by No More on Tue, Nov 24, 2009, 8:52 am EST

report this comment



So sez Senator Bernie: "The American people overwhelmingly support a public option" I believe the Senator has not been following the Poll data which shows just the opposite. The American voters wants less big government, and fewer taxes in their lives. Can you imagine the Feds sending people to jail for not buying mandated health insurance?? How many new jails will have to be built? I am disappointed in both our Senators for not obtaining millions of earmark dollars for Vermont infrastructure projects such as bridges, railroads and highways. Our two Senators need to become hard-nose horse traders to help Vermont. You have got to hand it to Senator Landreau. Louisiana wins, Vermont ends up in the tank with our tax dollars headed down country.
-- Posted by Buck Tracker on Tue, Nov 24, 2009, 8:21 am EST

report this comment



Trust the disinformation crew to show up with the untruth here. Good old "northstar62" hasn't looked at any of the polls, or doesn't care about the truth. He doesn't care about the tens of thousands of Americans dying every year because they're denied health care. He doesn't care that we spend twice as much per person on health care as the "socialist" countries (like the Netherlands and Switzerland) but have worse health. He doesn't care that how much we, in total, are spending on health care would go down under the reform bill - especially with a strong public option to bring real competition with the for-profit insurers - while the quality of health care delivered would improve.

And he doesn't care that 85% of the Americans without health care work, but still can afford the current, extortionate insurance rates. Meanwhile health care CEOs make tens of millions per year (some keep spare castles among Vermont's mountains) while their companies siphon the dollars of the sick off into profits.
-- Posted by Whit Blauvelt on Tue, Nov 24, 2009, 7:57 am EST

report this comment



"The American people overwhelmingly support a public option". There he goes again talking out of his A$$ again. He wouldn't know what the American taxpayers wanted if it bit him. Spending 800 billion to multi trillians to provide health care for 30 million people who may or may not want it and taking the money from the 240 million Americans who actually work and pay taxes. That sounds fair doesn't it.

Yesterday was Sen. Landreau's birthday and guess what mr reid gave her a 300 million dollar birthday gift.for her vote. Oh but guess what, it wasn't mr. reid's money that he gave her, it was your money. They are so free whith handing out so much money that doesn't even belong to them.

Politics is about as disgusting a profession as you can find. If you're too ugly to walk the streets picking up john's you can be a politician, just less honorable.
-- Posted by northstar62 on Tue, Nov 24, 2009, 6:53 am EST

report this comment



Why isn't leahy helping? He's got all this supposed clout. Why won't he use it?
-- Posted by noozereeder on Tue, Nov 24, 2009, 6:51 am EST

report this comment


You must be logged in to leave a comment. Register | Log In

Logout