Comments on: Under 200 Votes For Public Option?

By: DLS

DLS — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 17:02:36 +0000

"Consider right now that something like 80% of the population is paying medicare in order to provide payments for maybe 10% of the population. And they are pretty much broke."

Medicare is not "insurance" (nor is Social Security, incidentally). The "premiums" that seniors pay only pay for about 25 per cent of expenses; the rest comes out of general revenue, as "mandatory" spending (appropriations are required by law, in other words).

Medicare is already losing money and will be in worse shape than Social Security. (This is the first of a number of worthless excuses opponents of Social Security reform have offered to avoid reforming Social Security, as we saw during the Bush years -- the Dems had the perfect chance to save Social Security, but actually insisted on doing nothing, which amouts in fact to criminal neglect as well as moral failure.)

Obama stressed the need for entitlement, including Medicare reform, explicitly, but who believed him, that he and the other lib Dems would repair the entitlement programs before expanding entitlements to buy more votes?

"So where will taxes have to go to pay for 100% ?"

Though some lib Dems preach class envy and warfare, in fact the Dems cannot avoid taxing Democratic voters.

Note that the more idiotic people will say that this can and should be "solved" [sic] by making all funding "mandatory." Poof! That "solves" [sic] everything, forever!

Until the need arises to raise additional revenues, or reduce benefit payments, that is. [scowl]

By: Patrick E

Patrick E — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 23:51:53 +0000

I agree that Medicare could be an example of a real problem not being discussed.

Consider right now that something like 80% of the population is paying medicare in order to provide payments for maybe 10% of the population. And they are pretty much broke.

So where will taxes have to go to pay for 100% ?

By: dduck12

dduck12 — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 23:30:59 +0000

Arnold, send two messages, but fast. However, don't use the phone in your wife's car.

By: DLS

DLS — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 23:26:33 +0000

"I meant the people that will be 'forced' onto Medicaid. It could bankrupt an already tottering state like CA."

Compounding this, is that Medicaid eligilibity would be raised in current House legislation to 150% of the poverty level.

(Example news quote: "The House health care bill is also expected to expand Medicaid to people at 150 percent of the poverty line, with federal financial assistance for states to pay for the expansion.")

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/10/28/politic...

By: dduck12

dduck12 — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 23:01:35 +0000

I meant the people that will be “forced” onto Medicaid. It could bankrupt an already tottering state like CA.
The wimpy mandate, which should apply to those above the income levels for Medicaid, may cause some people to not buy insurance until they need it, and for some healthy people to actually drop their insurance knowing they can pick it up if they need it later. Schwarzenegger, and all the other Governors, should send the same veto message-within-a -message he recently sent to his state legislator, to Washington.

By: DLS

DLS — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 21:21:40 +0000

“It is hiding the much bigger problem: the states being forced to take on an influx of un-insureds.”

Will Washington require them to care for these people (under what authority, or on what legal basis?), without paying for this? I.e., will it end up being a partially or completely unfunded federal mandate?

By: Will Johnston

Will Johnston — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 20:41:51 +0000

Isn't a whip's job to whip members into line? In other words, he should be able to get the other 18 votes. This is important enough to Dems to offer a few carrots and twist a few arms.

By: dduck12

dduck12 — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 20:28:38 +0000

This is all kabuki theater for the masses. It is hiding the much bigger problem: the states being forced to take on an influx of un-insureds.

By: DLS

DLS — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 17:24:30 +0000

The overgrown children won't grasp or accept the obvious, but this is where the Senate Dems are wiser, already, with promotion of the public option with an “opt-out” provision for the districts, ahem, the provinces, ahem, the states. It gains political cover for the Dems in Washington while putting pressure on the states, inherently, not to opt out.

By: PWT

PWT — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 14:46:05 +0000

Exactly. What is important to know is: how many votes are there for the “punk-assed-bitch” P.O.?

By: dduck12

dduck12 — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 14:40:35 +0000

Clarification: For a “robust” PO.

By: Tweets that mention Under 200 Votes For Public Option ? | The Moderate Voice -- Topsy.com

Wed, 28 Oct 2009 08:05:42 +0000

[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Hans Spee, TMV. TMV said: Under 200 Votes For Public Option ?: A leaked memo from the Democratic Whip’s office shows that they may have unde… http://bit.ly/4EQoOF [...]