White House Open to Deal on Public Health Plan

[katandmoon]

Source: Wall Street Journal

WASHINGTON -- The White House signaled a willingness Monday to compromise on details of a public plan to compete with private insurance companies as negotiators sought ways to advance health-care legislation.

A senior administration official said one way to meet President Barack Obama's goals would be a mechanism under which a public plan is introduced only if the marketplace fails to provide sufficient competition on its own.

Mr. Obama has pushed hard for a public option, saying it will keep the insurance industry honest, but he has also said he won't draw a "line in the sand."

Read more: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124692407982802911.html#mod=rss_Politics_And_Policy?

[Captain Hilts]

1. The folks in the White House all have govt-provided health insurance. nt

[marshall]

80. And that's working out pretty good for them

As long as we get the same thing, it's all good.

[DJ13]

2. Here comes the "trigger" plan

Were fucked.

[xchrom]

3. deal -- schmeal -- they're gonna fuck this up -- then the

republick party can run on fixing it.

there way, way too many irons in the fire to make this come out right.

[Oregone]

4. This is like "Lets Make a Deal"

And everyone is about to find out that the goat is behind the "Public Option"

Bait and switch.

[masuki bance]

5. Kerry sent up this trial balloon a couple weeks back. nt

[dflprincess]

6. He needs to draw a line in the sand

otherwise, just drop it. Any "compromise" with the insurance companies will just leave us worse off than we are now - with no real public option and probably forced to hand our money over to the crooks who are cheating us now.

[brianna69]

7. Everyone call the Whitehouse Tomorrow

This trigger plan is unacceptable.

[JamesA1102]

70. Don't call the WH. Call Congress. nt

[Demeter]

8. The Only Deals Obama Should Be Making Are With We The People

NOT with for-profit corporations.

[Indydem]

11. 62% of US hospitals are not-for-profit...

Organized and run by religious and humanitarian oraganizations. Educate yourself before you attack them.

[ldf]

21. not for profit doesn't mean they don't make a profit.

they do. otherwise they wouldn't be in business.

it is bottom line for all of them.

and you can get shitty, overpriced "healthcare" at all of them. THAT is the american healthcare system.

educate YOURself.

[dflprincess]

37. The clip above refers to a deal with the insurance companies

most of them are for profit. Even the nonprofit insurers pay out millions every month in commissions to agents and brokers. None of them serve any purpose other than to make money for middlemen and to make it more difficult for us to actually access health care.

[JDPriestly]

42. But, the paying patients are covered by for-profit insurance companies.

No one is complaining about non-profit hospitals or other providers. The problem is the for profit health insurance companies and hospitals. They need to be put out of business now. They are robbing sick Americans. Let's stop the robbery.

Competition in the health insurance field is meaningless unless there is a truly public option, not a non-profit option. The problems with non-profit insurance are that a) they will continue to cherry pick the healthiest patients to remain profitable; they will find excuses to deny coverage for certain conditions; they will pay their management far too much money; they will not operate in a transparent fashion.

Compare to a public option or a single payer option: everybody gets insured in the public option; all conditions are covered; managers will be public servants and paid civil service salaries; the government will review their books and records (except as to personal patient information) and insure transparency.

The public option is necessary now. The for profit insurance companies have only themselves and their greedy managers to blame for their lack of popularity.

If we do not get public option or single payer insurance now, we will never get it.

[readmoreoften]

49. Non-profits scam, collude, and union bust with the best of them.

Some of the most vicious money laundry factories in America are "non-profits." Madoff didn't get rich scamming them because they're bleeding hearts.

[eilen]

61. I have to second that

many non-profits are in the business of real estate development, not healthcare. They do union bust and practice many of the worst deeds-- their patient discharges are not any safer than for-profits.

[Doctor_J]

72. Been drinkin'?

The deal is being made with the corporations that 20% or more of their revenue and pay it out in stock dividends, bonuses, and salaries. That's PROFITS.

Enjoy your brief stay.

[Indydem]

77. Been a member for 3 years...

It always amazes me that whenever someone doesn't want to burn every corporation and money making enterprise at the stake, they are a freeper...

Oh well...

[Zhade]

25. As I keep screaming from the rooftops...

[pjt7]

51. Obama left "we the people" behind a firm 2 months

ago & he's never coming back.

[Iowa]

9. Obama is a sell-out. That's what he does and who he is. So this is not surprising. n/t

[JDPriestly]

43. Bush was a total failure. Obama is a total disappointment.

Got our hopes up just to let us down.

[droidamus2]

52. I don't know about sell out but...

A big problem many liberal to moderate politicians in the Democratic party have is that they think 'get along' is the sign of a 'good person' and therefore they are too quick to compromise. Though the Republicans carry the 'we want it our way or no way' thing way too far they are right in the fact that if you believe strongly enough a program or law is the right way to go then you fight tooth and nail for it. If you have the votes and the power you don't need the oppositions support. In my 55 years I have seen the Republicans pull this trick over and over again. The Democrats come up with a program the people (not corporations but actually voting people) want and the Republicans do everything they can to defeat it but when it becomes clear it won't be defeated they do everything they can to water it down and/or underfund it to the point where it is largely ineffective. They then use this ineffectiveness to claim that they were right and it was a bad idea from the beginning. Though I strongly support the idea of single payer as the solution to our health care problems I think 'public option' is the compromise position and therefore Obama and the Democrats should draw a line in the sand which says that they will not accept anything short of a full non-triggered public option. As a final idea I think we deserve to see an up or down vote on this anything less is just both parties doing a little cya. The Democrats were saddled with huge problems by Bush and the Republicans but we gave them the Presidency and the numbers in Congress to get things done if they don't use this to its full advantage they are only cutting their own throats politically speaking.

[Ms. Toad]

10. While we're focused on a meaningless public option

The insurance companies are quietly playing hide the ball with the provisions that really scare them (Hint: It's NOT the public option that scares them).

What they are really afraid of, and what may well put them out of business, are the requirements that they provide coverage for all applicants, they cover pre-existing conditions, and that their premiums not be based on health conditions. They can only make the profits they thrive on if they are allowed to continue to cherry pick the most profitable individuals to cover. That they will be allowed to play be different rules is the real threat to meaningful change.

[Better Believe It]

16. Meaningless public option? Sounds like political spin to justify dumping the public option.

Where did you read that?

A strong public option is the main thing the insurance industry is worried about. They are willing to provide coverage for all. They can increase their insurance rates and reduce benefits to make up for additional expenses. And they are currently required to provide coverage to all employees covered under employer paid health benefit plans.

Better to take a small cut in profits than be faced with a strong public option costing less and providing better benefits that would drive the private insurance industry out of business.

[droidamus2]

53. Insurance?

What the insurance companies are looking for is a bill that requires everybody to have private insurance. They don't really care whether its paid for by the government supporting lower income buyers or out of pocket by those that can 'afford it'. I am sure they would even be willing to lower the prices intially to show 'good faith'. Don't believe the bastards once they get everybody locked in to private insurance they will start to ratchet up their take as high as they can (think oil companies and their manipulation of prices). The worst future scenario is Congress passing a bill that basically does nothing but require insurance and then a 'George Bush' style non-regulatory president gets in charge and the health insurance companies are allowed to raise their prices with no restrictions. Somebody please explain to me why we need private insurance companies to begin with. Single payer is the best way to go but full, strong public option is a decent compromise.

[Ms. Toad]

64. I didn't read that anywhere.

It is what I have been saying all along, when the most prominent calls for a public health option (Dean and Obama) have not included the minimum requirements to allow such an option to be successful. It is based on reading and analyzing the generic calls for public option (which do not require real change) and the bills (two for single payer and Kennedy's).

Just having "a public option" does not require any meaningful change at all. All "a public option" requires is that there be a government managed insurance plan.

If the Kennedy proposal (which is not ideal, but at least includes the bare minimum conditions to ensure a level playing field) is gutted so that insurance companies are not required to provide coverage for all, to cover pre-existing conditions, and are not forbidden from basing their premiums on health, what will happen is that all of the sickest people will have no option other than the public option. That will force the public option (which would be required to take all applicants, to cover pre-existing conditions, and to charge the same rates to all (with minor variations for age - the current proposal limits the difference from top to bottom of the age range to 2 to 1). It will be the most expensive plan around because all the healthier (i.e. more profitable) individuals will flock to the the insurance companies who will only choose to cover the most profitable patients and will be able to charge rates which are a fraction of the public option rates and still be more profitable. In fact, the existence of "a public option" will likely satisfy the HIPPA requirement that there be a means to cover high risk individuals, and it would not surprise me to see insurance companies relieved of their state imposed obligations to participate in high risk pools - giving them even higher profits.

Competition (which both Dean and Obama insist will drive prices down with a public option) is a relatively small driver. It will be non-existent unless the law is written so that insurance companies are forced to compete for the same patients. "A public option," without the additional restrictions that are currently in the Kennedy bill, cannot compete because it must charge premiums that cover the cost of running the plan - which will always be far higher than the costs associated with running an insurance plan for the cherry picked most profitable patients.

Insurance companies are not currently required to provide coverage to all employees. Many companies choose only to offer insurance to large businesses because the risks generally even out (it is the equivalent of the Massachusetts plan on steroids - all are covered so the cost of covering everyone levels out - AND - it is unlikely that the sickest will actually be employed so the top layer of most expensive patients is removed). When insurance companies do offer coverage to small businesses (defined as under 50), the premiums are based on the health of the individuals in that company. Each employee must fill out a detailed health history before the company placed on their premium scale. Within the company, the premiums are on the same scale for all, but the scale is vastly different than the scale used for larger businesses (which is not based on individual health histories). This places insurance out of the price range for most small businesses. My family coverage through my (small) employer costs $22,000 a year because of the health conditions of individuals in our company - virtually the same cost as the cost of the state's high risk pool. Health based pricing is forbidden under the current Kennedy proposal - my small business would be able to offer insurance at the same rates as the Fortune 500 companies - a fraction of what it currently pays.

"A public option" without the restrictions I have outlined is the insurance industry's wet dream - it gets to continue to cherry pick, and will most likely be relieved even from providing high risk pool slots that some states now require. In contrast, we would be far better served (overall) by the restrictions I have set out (combined with subsidies for low income) even if there is no public option involved, or a public option with a trigger. At least the premiums would be based on what it costs to cover the entire population - not on what it costs to cover the sickest portion (what the public option would cover). Neither Dean nor Obama are calling for a strong public option - just "a public option."

You need to do some reading (of the bills proposed - not just the generic statements which call for public options, which would accept a public option in name only as satisfying the call) and do some analysis. It doesn't take much to figure out the economics that will force a public health option to fail because it would costs MORE, not less than the insurance companies currently charge, unless there are strong additional restrictions placed on the insurance companies. As long as we are so focused on the name "public option" that we do not look beyond the name to see what is actually being required of insurance companies, there will be no meaningful change - even if something called a public option is included. As I noted - ALL that is required to offer "a public option" is that there be some government run insurance plan. Without more, that is meaningless change.

[Better Believe It]

78. You made some valuable points in your response.

The bottom line for me is a really strong public option that would essentially put the private health insurance industry out of business in the long run. And that's the kind they most fear. Any public plan than can't provide better benefits at a lower cost than private insurance is doomed to fail. Why would anyone want it?

I'm for an unlevel playing field in which the private insurance companies will not be able to compete in costs and benefits with the government insurance plan, an expansion of Medicare.

[Ms. Toad]

82. Unfortunately, an unlevel playing field

is what they have now - and they want to keep it. I don't care if it tips unlevel the other direction - but unless it is AT LEAST level (i.e. insurance companies must accept, provide care for, and set prices in the same way as the public option plan) the public option plan will not be able to compete.

When we call for a public option, the call needs to include (at least) what we mean by a public option (i.e. the minimum acceptable conditions imposed on insurance companies - and the minimum standards for the public option). Neither Obama's nor Dean's calls include anything much stronger than the name "public option," and far too many people are jumping on the name bandwagon - but the name alone carries virtually no meaning and no minimum requirements.

[theophilus]

12. Nuts to that action! n/t

[Cleita]

13. Sold down the river again.

The public plan will be similar to Medicare part "D". I'm very sad.

[heppcatt]

14. Wow this idea sounds awesome!!!!11!!!!!!

"The official noted that congressional Republicans created a similar mechanism when they introduced a prescription-drug benefit in Medicare. In that case, private competition has been judged sufficient and the public option has never gone into effect."

We all know how well Medicare scrip plan worked out.
It did such a great job at forcing the private companies to give the government a reasonable price.





/s

If this is the plan and everyone is forced to buy coverage.
Well that would really be awesome, a Republican couldn't do any better.

[Lorien]

75. Truly; a huge "bailout" to greedy insurance companies if ever there was one!

why should anyone be FORCED to buy a product that is so often a complete scam? I've had private insurance (the best I can afford-which isn't good) for 16 years and they've never paid for ANYTHING!

[spanone]

15. i know how to advance healthcare legislation...get the fucking democrats behind it

this is open to complete and total fraud and manipulation

[starzdust]

17. Federal Health Care Is Already A Private Plan

I am a federal employee and I can tell you that, although
better than no insurance, it is not a single payer, which is
what I want. I have to battle with my PRIVATE health care
provider over denial of coverage, especially for prescribed
medical equipment and treatments. Congress isn't getting the
message, that being my message of a single payer system and
eliminating the insurance companies who make their profits by
denying coverage. The current system is bankrupting me and I
have health care. We all need to band together and demand that
our representatives pass a single payer system, nothing less.
I have written to my representative already, I encourage all
of you to do the same.  

[drm604]

20. Welcome Starzdust

and thank you for that message. You are right about single payer. I wish that I could believe that there was a chance that it could happen. Is your attitude common amongst federal employees?

[starzdust]

31. A qualified yes

because I have had only limited conversations within my small work site. I would say that all most all would like to see a change but like many poles on the subject are unsure what "change" means.

Right now as a federal employee we have a choice among 6-8 different plans. But I have to say based on the types and amounts of coverage I compared, most are nearly the same in terms of benefits and coverages. I have a $300 yearly deductible. I pay a share of the cost <$142 per month>, plus co-pays for doctors visits, 20% for other procedures, co-pays for medications <$8-$35>.

We also have separate vision and dental care plans that cover basic items for an extra cost <$40/month>. For example I just had a dental check up for the first time in ten years . I received the initial exam and X-rays at no additional cost. My exam showed that I needed some fillings replaced and it will cost me 50% of the total. None of these health care plans are "required", employees may opt no coverage. In fact, one of my co-workers as opted not to take any of the dental or vision.

So, as you can see, I do not have a free lunch as a federal employee, and I am single, employees with a spouse and children pay more.

I would also like to dispel the notion that federal employees pay no social security payroll taxes. This is no longer true. Now, all who are hired pay social security taxes, no choice. I understand that once upon a time, a decade or two ago, federal employees had their own retirement system. This is no longer the case.

[drm604]

32. I know about fed employees and SS.

My father worked for many years for the Post Office without paying any SS. That changed towards the end of his career. I don't recall if he had to start paying SS or just the new employees coming in. He passed away a few years ago and my mother still gets a portion of his federal pension.

[starzdust]

36. Yeah

I'm a recent new hire <5 years now> so I'm not real sure how it works for those who have been around for many more moons than I. That being, that the old timers keep their other retirement accounts and they now pay into social security. Which would mean that upon retirement, they will have two different accounts to upon which to draw from.

[katandmoon]

59. I'm a retired Fed. Back in the "olden days" (i.e. before Ronald Reagan), Federal employees

Were covered under the Civil Service Retirement System, which did not include SS. Under CSRS, about 7% was deducted from each pay check for your retirement. If in addition to your Federal employment you had also been employed by the private sector at some point (long enough to be eligible for SS benefits) during your working life, then that was taken into account when your CSRS amount was calculated when you retired, i.e. there was some kind of SS offset.

However, if you only ever worked for the Federal government, then you never paid a dime into SS and you never got a dime in SS benefits.

The CSRS was a very good system for employees. So, naturally, once Reagan came into office, his administration quickly proceeded to change all that. The CSRS that had treated employees fairly for so many years was shitcanned and a new system, which included SS, was adopted. That system was FERS (Federal Employee Retirement System). FERS included SS.

When FERS was adopted, current Feds were given the option to switch to it from CSRS. I did not know a single Fed (and I knew plenty, since I'm in the DC area) who was willing to change to FERS. However, new employees were given no choice in the matter. They were automatically under FERS.

So, the Federal Government has two retirement systems, one for pre-Reagan administration employees and one for Reagan and beyond hires. Big surprise, huh?

To end my little history lesson (thanks for humoring me) I'll add that there is no president more despised among old-time Federal employees than Ronald Reagan. Every one I know despised him (and still despises him) with a raging passion.

[starzdust]

66. Now, you have refreshed my memory, thanks

I wasn't sure when the "switch" took place as I was a teacher in a public school system in Arizona (20 years), now a teacher on the Navajo Reservation working for the BIA or now called BIE. So, I've only known the SS system. Boy am I glad I am no longer in the public school system. Here in Arizonaee, y'all know that the rethugs have been in control of the state for 30 years, and of coarse the public school system in at or near the bottom annually in terms of education spending.

All in all I have known that ever since "Saint" Reagan was elected it has set back education, health care, yadda, yadda, yadda, over 200 years. Now that the BFEE (Bush Family Evil Empire) has bankrupted the country and stole trillions of dollars from the American public it will take another 500 years to bring us back to where we need to be, IMHO.

I too despised Saint Reagan and the rethugs that continue to ruin this state and its economy.

[rpannier]

30. Interesting...

My father was a federal attorney/judge had 4lmost 40 years with the US Government.

They never denied any coverage. He chose Blue Cross as his provider from the choices given

[Better Believe It]

18. Well, Senator Kerry suggested a 10 year trigger so here we go!

[drm604]

19. No way would a trigger plan be acceptable.

Let's hope that this article is simply the WSJ spin on things.

If you read the article, nowhere does it say that the President would support a trigger plan. It says that "a senior administration official" said that that would be one way to meet the President's goals. It doesn't say who that official is or give any context for the statement. It could have been an off the cuff answer to some kind of loaded question.

What the article does say is that the President is willing to consider nonprofit cooperatives as a compromise. I don't know the details of this option but it might be an acceptable alternative if it's done right. The problem is that if it's done right then the insurance industry will fight it.

The big problem is that anything that would actually help will be opposed by the insurance industry. Any successful compromise will be capitulation, because the insurance cos won't "compromise" on anything that could hurt their profits.

[Triana]

22. As long as the for-profit healthcare industry can make the public plan IMPOTENT...

...and useless (or likely to never take effect) - THEY will be happy.

And NO ONE else counts.

[Triana]

23. PeeEss: CORRECTED headline: "White House Open to Gutting Public Health Plan" n/t

[avaistheone1]

40. True.

[Zhade]

24. Failed before it even passed. Fucking pathetic.

If this isn't a sign that the Democratic party does NOT stand for the average American, I don't know what is.

[JamesA1102]

71. Claiming it failed before it even comes out of Committee. Even more pathetic. nt

[mvd]

26. The public option has gained momentum lately

Why say this now? Geez, please - this is one thing that needs a line in the sand.

[IndianaGreen]

27. How about a deal with the American people?

How come we are cutoff from the table?

Aren't Americans entitled to the same quality of health care that the President and members of Congress get?

[dysfunctional press]

28. looks like we're going to be needing plenty of this in the coming weeks...

[bluestateguy]

29. A poorly written, anonymously sourced garbage

It strikes me as false.

[Kablooie]

33. I never believed there would be anything close to a public plan.

It's just going to be government subsidized insurance companies and payments that are slightly lower for the rest of us.

Oh, and stiff penalties for anyone who doesn't pay protection money to the insurance companies.

[Stuart G]

34. If there is not a public plan, a good one, I will be very disappointed in Obama

Only time will tell. A public option is the only way to keep the insurance companies honest.

Hard to know if this article is accurate. But, in the end, the final outcome will tell the truth. I am more than willing to wait to make any real judgment, but without viable public option, at the end of the day, I will be very sad indeed.

[caseymoz]

35. Since it only gives anonymous sources . . .

I am thinking this is bait to get negotiations going again. It is the reason why we are hearing it so indirectly.

However, we have to call these politicians, Congress-creatures and President every day on this. They are being hit by the health care lobbies every day, and the only thing that can counter that is to hear from people on the phone and by writing all day every day.

[mvd]

38. Only quotes Emanuel from "an interview" and is the WSJ

Googled for more results and didn't find any.

I hope he didn't really say Obama is that open.

[Better Believe It]

39. White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel is an anonymous source ???? !!!!

Didn't read the article?

[caseymoz]

54. I swear the text of the story changed. See the top of the thread.

The top of the thread says, "senior White House official." That's what I read. I swear, the WSJ altered the story.

[Frank Booth]

41. I fucking hate the wimps and the corporate toadies in the senate. And Obama's apparently as

much of wimp as any of the rest of them.

Sometimes I don't even know why I bother voting Democratic, since so they're so fucking ineffectual anyway.

[maryf]

44. Healthcare for People not for Profit

NO private option!! which means only public option, which equates to HR 676...

[MannyGoldstein]

45. Strange... I Thought The Democrats Won The Elections

Guess not.

[depakid]

46. Sorry, ain't buying ANYTHING the Wall Street Journal is selling

[tinrobot]

47. I agree....

[farmboxer]

48. Obama does not need to make deal with criminal insurance companies

Europe has Universal health care and our politicians have it. They should give up their health care. Why should "We the people" pay for their health care? They are rich and don't need it like the rest of us. America the Plutocracy is still owned by the rich criminals.

[scytherius]

50. If true, I'm done

Oh I'll never vote GOP again. I've been voting since Carter. But I'll sit out from here on in because it really doesn't make a difference anymore. I DO think we jump on Obama too quickly. I mean the man just hasn't been in there that long. Give him 18 months. However, if this Health Plan doesn't include a public option, well, that's it for me. My political junkie days, my voting days, are over. Too tired of this dead end Nation to care anymore.

[No Elephants]

57. I think I'd rather vote third party than sit anything out. It's a much clearer message, IMO.

I was so furious with Nader when he first started. And, after Florida 2000, I considered abandoning my non-violent stance.

Now, I realize that the man got it a few decades before I did, just like he got the desperate need for consumer protection long before anyone else. No matter which Republicrat you vote for, the money people are in control of the country and probably the world. K Street. Big Pharma. Agribusiness. Financial institutions, including insurance companies.

I've said over and over that I am so proud to be in a blue state, and here goes Kerry, Senator from the bluest state in the country (supposedly), "floating" a trigger plan, with Democrats having the Oval Office, 60 Senators and a healthy margin in the House. If this doesn't probe it, I don't know what does.

Well, I'm drawing a line in the sand.

[eilen]

62. I registered 3rd party last year--Independent

I've been canvassed twice this past week to get people on the ballot for the Independent Party. I would have registered Green Party but they are still much younger as a 3rd party and I want some more choices.

It's not that I dislike what the Democratic Party stands for, it's just that there are too few elected Democrats representing those ideals.

I live in NY and hate both parties right now. I'd like to throw the entire state senate out and start over. The Democrats, in this instance are no angels.

[change_notfinetuning]

55. With friends like Rahm Emanuel, who needs Republicans to screw the

American people. I thought euthanasia was illegal, but the White House sure seems to be pulling the plug on the Democratic party just as it was showing signs of coming back to life.

[Vidar]

56. "Keep the insurance industry honest" implies it had once been honest.

Obama can't be that naive. He's complicit as hell.

[No Elephants]

58. MAYBE it was, the day it started. It filled a need because Teddy Rooseveltt and those who came after

him did not succeed in getting government to deal with paying for health care (except for Medicare and Medicaid, much later).

But that's history, literally and figuratively.

[No Elephants]

60. I just send this to everyone in

Washington, D.C. who purports to represent me--both my Senators, my Congressional Representative and the WH. If you are not inclined to compose your own message, feel free to use this one, modified or "as is."

This is to advise that I fully support and desire “single payer” for health care payments, but will settle for a strong “public option” (emphasis upon “strong”).

At that point, however, I do draw my own "line in the sand." Without limiting the general nature of the prior sentence, a so-called “trigger plan” is unacceptable to me.

Voters have done their absolute best to send a message to Washington. As a result, Democrats currently “own” the Oval Office and Congress. That is the good news. The other good news (from the perspective of voters) is that Democrats in Washington have no excuse whatever for acting like Republicans.

I have voted Democrat since my first proud vote. Additionally, I could not have been more furious with Mr. Nader and his Green Party after Florida 2000.

Without a strong public option, however, I will finally "moveon" and become as loyal to the Green Party (or another third party) as I have been to the Democrats. No more Republicrats for me.

Thank you for your service. I do very much appreciate it. Nonetheless, I will not cross my own “line in the sand.”

[Vinca]

63. If Obama and the Dems cave on this, I'm out.

I will never support any of them again and I'll reregister as an Independent. If they're going to bow to Republicans at the only time in history I remember when something good can actually get done, there is really no need for 2 parties. I'm seriously pissed off.

[harun]

65. I'll be with you.

[fascisthunter]

67. same here

[Lorien]

76. Sadly I agree. I'm a lifelong Dem but I will vote third party for the first time

in my life if they won't take a stand for the people on this issue. It's THAT important! This is a matter of life and death for millions; corporate profits should not be their first concern, and if it is, then they ARE the opposition!

[fascisthunter]

68. I hope this is a BS article from the Wall Street Journal

[JamesA1102]

69. Why would anyone beleive anything from the Wall Street Journal?

They are as bad as FAUX.

[Doctor_J]

74. true. This is just right-wing psy-ops. WSJ shouldn't be allowed in LBN

stragne how many Dems believe WSJ, Fixed News, Sludge, Limpballs, etc.

[Lorien]

73. So, the Dems have a supermajority and they STILL can't find their backbones?

Our party seems hellbent on snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. IF NOT NOW, WHEN??

[undeterred]

79. In 2012 lets "deal" on the Democratic nominee

and make sure its not Obama.

[armodem08]

81. Nice try, Rupert!

Poorly sourced, from a paper with an agenda, and uses on the record quotes that do not specifically deal with the headline.

Um...I'm gonna guess that this is one of those Murdoch orchestrated "controversies."

Until I hear from Obama or another WH official, ON THE RECORD, I will not believe this. If you remember, similar hijinks have been ensuing over taxing health benefits in the Senate, only to be met with denials from Dems.

[David Zephyr]

83. Here comes the "co-op" which will be a victory for the GOP and Insurance Corps.

I will keep saying this. Mark my words.

This is the snake in the grass that few are paying attention to.