Comments on: Media Falsely Equates Cantwell’s Amendment with Public Option

By: alank

alank — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 13:10:28 +0000

I read through the whole thing and missed the bit explaining how the amendment is not a public option. I’m sure there is an explanation somewhere, but I don’t see it here.

By: SomeGuy

SomeGuy — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 06:12:54 +0000

This is the substitute for a public option? A plan where two people making minimum wage that have two kids are too rich to participate? A plan that would force the poorest of the working poor to buy health insurance when it probably makes more sense economically for them not to buy health insurance at all. The people who qualify are hovering just above the cut off for Medicaid. If they get sick they may qualify for Medicaid because they don’t get sick pay, or they get fired for not coming to work. If they have to declare bankruptcy they have less to lose. There is no guarantee that they would not have to declare bankruptcy even if they did get health insurance with this plan.

By: readerOfTeaLeaves

readerOfTeaLeaves — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 04:33:02 +0000

It would be unfortunate if the progressive grassroots were forced to attack a decent idea because some political operatives tried to use it as an excuse for not including a real public option as part of health care reform

Bullseye.

One of the primary virtues, as I view it, is that Cantwell pulled the rug out from under the GOP crapola about ’state’s rights’. In fact, the risk of a hodgepodge of rules and standards is a nightmare; however, she did demolish this banal GOP claim.

However, the number of people actually covered under her plan is small; the ‘public’ would not be covered.

Nor would the monopolistic control of healthCos be broken up; these corporations would have to bargain with states to lower costs. But over time, it does not build in the kinds of ‘feedback loops’ that competition needs in order to function and adapt properly to changing circumstances.

Cantwell’s amendment was a terrific political strategy in exposing the GOP’s flawed claims.

But it was **not** a solution for health insurance cost containment. It does not introduce genuine competion into the system, and so it can’t move us toward ‘wellness models’.

By: bmull

bmull — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 03:41:36 +0000

Speaking of false equivalences, what’s up with this group Progressive Media circulating a YouTube Mash-up entitled “Progressives aren’t the only ones to support an individual mandate….”

Since when did the individual mandate become a Progressive cause??!?

As for the Cantwell amendment being broadly mischaracterized I agree with you. It’s actually a quasi Medicaid expansion. I’ve gone round and round about this and finally concluded it would be much better if it were an *actual* Medicaid expansion. As is, it’s enough of a mixed bag that I could do without it in the final bill.

By: Knoxville

Knoxville — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 03:09:53 +0000

Thank you!

The organization is called the Fountain Clinic and is based in Michigan?

By: tw3k

tw3k — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 03:08:20 +0000

lol

By: tw3k

tw3k — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 03:04:07 +0000

yup!

http://www.google.com/search?h.....038;aqi=g2

By: Beerfart Liberal

Beerfart Liberal — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 03:03:08 +0000

This isn’t Late late Night where we can go off topic anytime we want?

Jankees won!

By: tw3k

tw3k — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 03:02:21 +0000

Am I the only one that thinks TP is regressive?

By: Knoxville

Knoxville — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 03:01:15 +0000

Olbermann is just finishing his moving Special Comment, calling for people to donate for free health clinics in the six states where there are Democratic Senators blocking the public option.

I do not know exactly where to send a donation.

Can someone help?