Dems seek to play down role of public option idea

[Frank Booth]

Source: AP

WASHINGTON – The White House and its Democratic allies on Sunday tried to play down the role of a government insurance option in health care legislation as the party in power worked to reclaim momentum on President Barack Obama's top domestic priority.

His spokesman described the public option as just one way to achieve Obama's goal of providing coverage to the estimated 45 uninsured Americans without insurance. Congressional Democrats took care to say the idea, backed by liberals and targeted by conservatives, is not a deal breaker in a debate that has consumed Washington for the summer and shows now sign of abating.

---

Echoing that sentiment, Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., said the focus on this specific issue has become a distraction in a debate over how most people receive health care coverage.

"That's a small part of this," McCaskill said.

And Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said there's "more than one way to skin that cat" when it comes to lowering health care costs, stopping short of insisting that the overhaul include a public option.

---

Republicans, though, did not seem swayed.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090913/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_health_care

---

Well, I guess Obama's speech last Wednesday accomplished one thing -- it gave cover to the Dems to push through a bill without a public option.

[Jackpine Radical]

1. Now is the time for everyone to stand up & scream & demand the PO.

We can't let them bet away with this bait & switch.

[tridim]

2. Thanks AP for your daily F.U.D. article.

The Chicken Little party will be overjoyed!

[Frank Booth]

3. Are you happy that the public option is quickly becoming an afterthought?

[tridim]

5. I trust the what the President said Wednesday night.

[flyarm]

7. MaxTax Is a Plan to Use Our Taxes to Reward Wal-Mart for Keeping Its Workers in Poverty

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/09/11/maxtax-is-a-plan-to-use-our-taxes-to-reward-wal-mart-for-keeping-its-workers-in-poverty/

MaxTax Is a Plan to Use Our Taxes to Reward Wal-Mart for Keeping Its Workers in Poverty
By: emptywheel Friday September 11, 2009 3:41 pm

I made this point in this post, but I'm going to repeat it over and over and over until it sinks MaxTax, the Baucus health care plan.

MaxTax is a plan that will use your and my tax dollars to reward companies like Wal-Mart for keeping its workers in poverty. Here's why.

In most cases, the MaxTax fines employers up to $400 per employee if it doesn't provide its employees with health care. The fine is absurdly small (less than half of what individuals, themselves, would be fined if they didn't get insurance), but it could mean a company like Wal-Mart would have to pay up to $560 million if it refused to provide insurance to any of its employees.

The other option is to provide crap insurance for your employees. MaxTax gives very few requirements for this insurance (and it allows you to charge employees up to 13% of their income in premiums). But assume Wal-Mart decided to provide incredibly crappy insurance at a cost of $2,500 an employee. It would then pay $3.5 billion a year to meet its obligations under MaxTax.

So Wal-Mart chooses between paying $560 million or $3.5 billion right?

There is another option.

The MaxTax offers this one, giant, out for corporations.

snip: and do read the rest at the linkkkkkkkkkkk!



A $1.25 billion reward to Wal-Mart--a competitive advantage it would have--for paying shit wages.And who will be paying that reward to encourage Wal-Mart to continue to pay shit wages? Why, that'd be our taxes, yours and mine.

[flyarm]

8. Joe Wilson and AHIP Team Up to Write Max Baucus’s Health Care Bill

Joe Wilson and AHIP Team Up to Write Max Baucus’s Health Care Bill
By: Jane Hamsher

http://campaignsilo.firedoglake.com/2009/09/11/joe-wilson-and-ahip-team-up-to-write-max-baucuss-health-care-bill/

Friday September 11, 2009 7:06 am


There really doesn't seem to be any limit to what the administration will do to pass Rahm Emanuel's neoliberal giveaway to the insurance industry. The "author" of the plan released by Baucus (and apparently by Mike Ross) is a former VP of Wellpoint. Now AHIP is boasting about their role in crafting it:

Many of the changes to the insurance system now under discussion are the ones that have been advocated this year by the insurance companies themselves, said Karen M. Ignagni, the chief executive of America's Health Insurance Plans, the industry trade group. "The industry has been the leader in creating the proposals everyone is about to endorse," she said.

No wonder insurance company stocks shot up after the President's speech.

But now we find, per John Aravosis, that Kent Conrad and Max Baucus are changing their bill to appease Joe Wilson:

"We really thought we'd resolved this question of people who are here illegally, but as we reflected on the President's speech last night we wanted to go back and drill down again," said Senator Kent Conrad, one of the Democrats in the talks after a meeting Thursday morning. Baucus later that afternoon said the group would put in a proof of citizenship requirement to participate in the new health exchange — a move likely to inflame the left.

As John says, if Wilson's outburst turns out to be successful, it'll keep happening over and over again. And it will work every time.

If you want to stop this travesty from going forward -- and it's turning into a complete travesty -- ask these members of Congress from strong Democratic districts, all of whom have cosponsored Single Payer in the past and know better, why they aren't pledging to vote against any bill if it turns out to be nothing more than an insurance industry bailout:

read the rest at the link..........

.....................................................................

Reid Endorses Wellpoint’s Co-op Plan
By: Jane Hamsher Friday September 11, 2009 9:46 am

http://campaignsilo.firedoglake.com/2009/09/11/reid-end...

The Senate Majority Leader endorses the Mike Ross/Kent Conrad/Wellpoint authored co-op plan:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) endorsed the concept of health insurance cooperatives Thursday, siding with centrists in the House and Senate who want healthcare reform but oppose a public option.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) also hinted she could accept that approach a day after President Barack Obama delivered an address to a joint session of Congress that offered encouraging words for both centrists and liberal Democrats who have demanded a public insurance option.

I think I may have to adjust my prediction for the co-op "squeeze play" on July 20:

The easiest political path to passing health care is still running the "co-op" crunch. Regardless of what the House does, the Senate can pass Conrad's shitty fake co-op. The Blue Dogs band together and refuse to vote for anything else, and that's what comes out of conference. There's a PR blitz to sell it as a "public plan" (which is why we've worked so assiduously to define it as NOT a public plan), and in a rush to get something passed, Rahm starts twisting progressive arms -- which have been historically very easily twisted.

Blue Dog Mike Ross presciently submitted virtually the same co-op plan in a July 31 amendment that finally emerged this week in Max Baucus's Senate plan. But since it now looks like Pelosi is on board with co-ops, that means the Blue Dogs aren't going to have to take the hit.

[Frank Booth]

17. How do we go about getting our party name changed from the Democratic party to the

Goldman-Sachs/Wellpoint party?

[kelly1mm]

20. Would we get a naming fee like for stadiums? nt

[Iowa]

37. Right!

I've also wondered if/when the owners of DU are going to tire of their brand being associated with a party that is rapidly evolving into a corrupt, corporate-owned, sell-out party and change the name from Democratic Underground to something that more accurately reflects the ideology of progressives.

[polpilot]

40. The Progressive Demoncrats!!!

[flyarm]

10. Letting Insurance Write the Bill: How Bad Is That?

Letting Insurance Write the Bill: How Bad Is That?
By: emptywheel

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/09/10/letting-insurance-write-the-bill-how-bad-is-that/

Thursday September 10, 2009 8:51 am

Ezra has written a thoughtful follow-up to my complaint that discussions of the role of insurance company in writing our legislation neglect to discuss profit. I agree with parts of it and disagree with others. The most important point Ezra makes--which explains his focus on providers to the exclusion of insurance companies--is this passage:



a must read in it's entirety...

Of course, that's not entirely right. Patients whose health care is provided by their employer "like the health system better when it's got unlimited amounts of money flowing through it." Patients who have to pay out of pocket--like many of the ones who will be mandated to buy insurance--don't really like that so much. And it's not just patients and providers that like a system that's got unlimited amounts of money flowing through it. So do insurers (assuming you understand this to be a system as a whole). Even assuming insurance companies only make that 3.3% profit and setting aside things like huge executive incomes, the insurance companies have an incentive to have as much money flowing into the system that it can take its 3.3% profit on.

And that's one of the baseline problems with letting the insurance companies write the bill: they have just as much incentive as providers to see that as much money gets flowing into the system as possible. And, they have an incentive to make sure that as much of the money put into the system as possible stays in their pocket. For those affected by the mandate who will not be subsidized or will only be partially subsidized, it is actually the patient, and not the insurance company, with the most urgency to cut the amount of money flowing through the system. But the patient doesn't get to write the bill; the insurance company does, and it appears that it is with these patients that the insurance companies stand to make some of their highest profits.

That's one of my gripes with the Max Tax. It sets out-of-pocket caps higher than other bills and sets lower amounts (73% if they are to be subsidized) that insurers have to cover. The result will be that more middle class families go into debt. As it's written, the Max Tax (frankly, most the bills) amount to a mandate that is simply not affordable for some middle class families. But the Max Tax throws in a bit more mandated costs that will go to insurance company profitability. The extra thousand or more dollars included for insurance companies means a lot to a family otherwise faced with surviving off of less than $8,000 for utilities, transportation, education, clothing, and debt. To me, you don't have to get any further than this money--taken from middle class families who will still go into debt under this scheme and giving it to insurance company profit--to demonstrate "how bad it is" that the insurance company wrote the bill.

The other big difference with a bill written by insurance companies is that it includes no apparent means to challenge the insurance companies to limit how much money they ask to be put in the system in the first place--something the public option would help to do. Now, Ezra argues the exchange will be enough to bring costs down.

[SandWalker1984]

23. So you're ok with insurance companies gone wild??

Because that is what we're going to get. No mention of regulations or antitrust for them.

No punishment for creating a health care crisis because of their greed in denying coverage, denying care and kicking people out that may cost them too much profit to treat.

Let's just reward them by giving them millions of new victims.

Oh, and let's make sure the victims have no avenue of escape.

THAT's what Obama proposed this week in his pretty speech.

[flyarm]

28. +1

[tridim]

31. The PO or better is still the President's position, regardless of what the media says.

I'll take Axlerod's word over AP/CNN/Politco/Teabaggers/Bluedogs any day:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6539535&mesg_id=6539535

I will not join your Chicken Little Party because it requires unquestioned trust in the MSM.

[Iowa]

38. +2 Well said.

[TorchTheWitch]

44. +2

And welcome to DU.

:hi:

[creeksneakers2]

35. The president used the words NOT-FOR-PROFIT

which means it won't be a government program but 50 different co-ops that won't be any real competition for the insurance companies and won't be able to achieve anything meaningful. The president also said they won't even be available to anybody who already has insurance.

If there is a public option at all, it will be something designed to do nothing but fool liberals into thinking they won a public option.

[flyarm]

6. Yes, Obama Campaigned on a Public Option

http://campaignsilo.firedoglake.com/2009/09/10/yes-obama-campaigned-on-a-public-option/

Yes, Obama Campaigned on a Public Option
By: Jane Hamsher
Thursday September 10, 2009 10:18 am

I'm not sure exactly what Chuck Todd is trying to prove here:

he speech also will be a failure if progressives -- Obama’s second audience tonight -- are still obsessing over the public option a week from now. We've said this before and we'll say it again: Obama never made the public option the focus of his health-care ideas, in the primaries or in general election. In fact, he never uttered the words "public option" or "public plan" in his big campaign speeches on health care. But there is no doubt that the public option has fired up the left, and how he sells them near-universal coverage and lower costs -- even if it means no public plan -- could very well be the trickiest part of tonight's speech.

From the Obama '08 campaign document, "Barack Obama's Plan for a Healthy America" (PDF):

The Obama plan both builds upon and improves our current insurance system, upon which most Americans continue to rely, and leaves Medicare intact for older and disabled Americans. The Obama plan also addresses the large gaps in coverage that leave 45 million Americans uninsured. Specifically, the Obama plan will: (1) establish a new public insurance program available to Americans who neither qualify for Medicaid or SCHIP nor have access to insurance through their employers, as well as to small businesses that want to offer insurance to their employees; (2) make available the National Health Insurance Exchange to help Americans and businesses that want to purchase private health insurance directly; (3) require all employers to contribute towards health coverage for their employees; (4) mandate all children have health care coverage; (5) expand Medicaid and SCHIP to cover more of the least well-off among us; and (6) allow state flexibility for state health reform plans.

I'm not quite sure how that jibes with "never made it the focus of his health care ideas," but YMMV.

But if the DC wags think that the base is going to get over its "fixation" on a public option in a week, I seriously doubt it. Here's Rasmusssen from yesterday:

One major challenge is that while most voters oppose the legislation with or without a so-called “public option, that option is essential to supporters. In fact, without the inclusion of a government-run health insurance company to compete with private insurers, enthusiasm for the reform plan collapses among Democrats.

Mind you the polling data is from mid-August, well before the speech, but I doubt he moved that needle much:

Without the public option, just 50% of Democrats support the legislation. That’s down from 69% support measured a week ago. But here the enthusiasm gap is especially strong. A week ago, polling found that 44% of Democrats Strongly favored the reform plan. Without the public option, just 12% of Democrats Strongly support it.

Instead, he's trying to exploit this:

A cautionary note should be issued on this topic: It’s likely that there is no common understanding of just what the public option is at this point in time.

Obama says he will include a public option in his health care plan, but stipulates that co-ops or triggers could satisfy his definition. But 179 members of Congress signed on to HCAN's health care principles, which explicitly define a "public option" as not co-ops or triggers. It's not going to be easy to walk that one back without completely demoralizing the base and potentially suppressing 2010 turnout just like the passage of NAFTA did in 2004.

[No Elephants]

24. I don't like AP either, but McCaskill, Feinstein, et al. are saying these things. They should be

reported. This is the most important legislation since the civil rights act of 1964. The public should know when they need to make their voices heard. Lord knows, there's little enough voters can do anymore when lobbyists can spend $100 million a day or whatever the figure is.

[flyarm]

4. Sen. Claire McCaskill: I'm Happy We're 'Handcuffing The Public Option'

Sen. Claire McCaskill: I'm Happy We're 'Handcuffing The Public Option'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9RV_r-k9lU&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Edemocraticunderground%2Ecom%2Fdiscuss%2Fduboard%2Ephp%3Faz%3Dview%5Fall%26address%3D385x368864&feature=player_embedded

[Frank Booth]

9. Thank God our Democratic representatives our protecting the insurance companies

from us Democrats.

[flyarm]

11. No kidding.,.it warms the cockles of my heart! I just wonder..when we are all fucked over..

where will the appeasers be????

They damn well better never bitch in front of me that "they" have been screwed!

[droidamus2]

12. What I hear

What I hear from Obama and his helpers in the Democratic party is the following. When talking to conservative Democrats and Republicans I hear 'here is what will do for you to make you comfortable with this bill is there anything else you want'. When talking to liberals and progressives I hear 'Here is what we won't do for you. There are other ways to do that. You'll just have to live with not getting the public option (and don't even ask about single payer'.

[flyarm]

13. Public Option was Obama's compromise to single payer..it was his Idea!

seems we keep having to compromise to the corporate whores in this administration ..wouldn't want to miss out on those contributions!! Don'tcha know!

Hartmann on Obama's Speech: For Profit Health Industry Continue Skim $$ To Support Dems 2010!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvxNMUFd4wQ&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Edemocraticunderground%2Ecom%2Fdiscuss%2Fduboard%2Ephp%3Faz%3Dview%5Fall%26address%3D385x368974&feature=player_embedded

[Frank Booth]

15. They're very good at moving the goal posts.

The public option, which was once a compromise, is now taking on the role of being a wacky, unreasonable demand from the far left.

I understand more clearly every day why people like Howard Dean and Robert Reich were left out of this administration. Someone with real integrity would have a very hard time "just going along" with the constant lurches to the right.

[flyarm]

14. Grijalva: Baucus Bill Has “No Legitimacy”

Grijalva: Baucus Bill Has “No Legitimacy”
By: Jane Hamsher

Sunday September 13, 2009 6:30 am

http://campaignsilo.firedoglake.com/2009/09/12/grijalva-baucus-bill-has-no-legitimacy/

Amy Goodman asked Rep. Raul Grijalva, leader of the Progressive Resistance, what he thought about the Max Baucus bill crafted by former health insurance lobbyists:

REP. RAUL GRIJALVA: I think the product that has come out from his committee and himself, I really believe that it has no legitimacy in this debate. It’s an insider product. It’s there to protect the industry. It is not there to try to look for that middle ground. He is key in holding up deliberations, has been key in trying to work on a consensus, but everything you see in his legislation had to be approved by the industry before it became part of the plan. So I don’t think it’s legitimate. I think we’re struggling with real issues in some of the other pieces of legislation from the House and even from the Health Committee. And that’s where the focus of the attention should be. I consider Senator Baucus’s proposal to be essentially an insider trader move to protect an industry and really doesn’t have validity at all, both political validity or content validity.

Rep. Grijalva is doing what we always ask progressives to do. While others stood by and watched Van Jones and Yosi Sergent and a huge piece of progressive infrastructure swept away by capitulation to Glenn Beck's McCarthyist tactics, he's fighting.

Let him know we need more of that.

[Bluenorthwest]

16. McCaskill and Feinstein, just listen to them, their lexicons

Skinning cats and calling their constituents voices a distraction from serving the Insurance Industry.

[flyarm]

19. too bad we can't get dems off their asses to demonstrate in Washington!

this whole fiasco needs to be scrapped and thrown on the fire!

Those with health insurance will find themselves fucked over ..and the poor will see little if anything better than what they have now!

This shit is a total capitulation to the insurance corps and big Pharma and the Hospital conglomerates..its all about the money and how much money the big boys will put in the dem coffers..to think otherwise ..one must be naive or on the payroll!

[PSPS]

18. "the party in power worked to reclaim momentum"

The White House and its Democratic allies on Sunday tried to play down the role of a government insurance option in health care legislation as the party in power worked to reclaim momentum on President Barack Obama's top domestic priority.

The very first sentence in the article says it all in a nutshell. The democrats are, indeed, "the party in power." But leave it to president milquetoast to concede "momentum," to the minority rump party. On well, at least he had a nice vacation.

[Iowa]

39. +1

[MasonJar]

21. This is the reason we will not get it. Obama is definitely not fighting for

the public option. He is constantly downplaying its importance. If Obama had stood up for the PO, we would have had it nailed by now. He had better work harder, or I will be looking for someone else for 2012. His reasons against Single Payer are also weak. He says we cannot afford to lose all those jobs. Lose what jobs? Those in the healthcare insurance industry can work in the single payer industry and we, the people, will save billions.

[Feron]

25. Heh. They'd probably lose their jobs anyway.

As costs rise, I wouldn't be surprised to see the paperpushers outsourced.

[SandWalker1984]

22. Without a STRONG public option, we all will be forced to buy CORPORATE CARE

Obama's plan for health care "reform" as laid out this week in his speech is:

MANDATES for everyone to buy insurance.

If it makes it at all, a weak public option - no government financial assistance to get it up and running, only 5% of the people will be allowed to join. Translation: keep the insurance corporations happy as this public option will NOT give any competition to them at all.

If everyone has insurance, then the insurance corporations will do the right thing and our problems will be solved.

**********

Think I'm kidding? Go back and READ the speech.

Nothing was said about how the health care industry got us into this mess in the first place.

Not one word about fixing the real problem - which would start by removing the insurance industry from exemptions on the Antitrust laws.

Several countries around the world do not have government managed health care. They do have insurance companies. BUT THE INSURANCE COMPANIES ARE HEAVILY REGULATED, LIKE WE DO HERE WITH UTILITY COMPANIES, SO THEY CANNOT MAKE EXCESSIVE PROFITS PROVIDING ESSENTIAL SERVICES TO THE PEOPLE.

I've come to a painful conclusion - the chances of us getting any meaningful health care reform at this time are slim to none and
we may end up with an even worse system if Obama convinces the Democrats to pass a bill that mandates we all buy insurance from these greedy corporations but does nothing to regulate them.

[creeksneakers2]

36. Its best to just kill the bill

If it passes, its taxes on some employer provided policies, its mandates to buy insurance and its provisions that will raise the price of private insurance will anger the not only the portion of the public that is following this but will also anger those who haven't been.

The media keeps saying Democrats lose in 2010 if they fail to pass something. The truth is that they'll be OK in 2010 if nothing passes but will lose if what we have now passes.

[Psephos]

41. Fact check

The insurance industry in the US *is* heavily regulated - at the state level. But there is no competition permitted across state lines. This is insane. Each state provides a protected anticompetitive environment for its chosen providers.

Second, the profit of the entire US health insurance industry last year was under $10 billion. Confiscate every dollar of profit and how much of a dent have you put in the cost of health care? That's about a half of one percent of the national health outlay. The other 99.5% of it is still there.

That dog ain't going to hunt.

By the way, I am a strong supporter of a single-payer system modeled after the Swedish approach. It works well, has good levels of satisfaction, and costs about 9% of the Swedish GNP versus our current 16%.

I agree with you, the corporatists are showing who's the boss lately, and I don't hold out much hope of getting a meaningful reform passed.

[EndElectoral]

26. This is becoming a travesty.I had such high hopes of real national healthcare.Corporate acquiescence

[pattmarty]

27. My opinion, no public option, NO BILL. We'll wait ANOTHER.............

.............fifteen years when it's REALLY fucked up and finally after 75 yrs of trying we can finally get Medicare for all.

[mbperrin]

29. Reform died when Single Payer Universal was choked to death.

Everything else since then is just more $$$$$$$$$$$$ for insurance companies.

[mcollier]

30. Yes according to the "Democrats" seated at the FOXNEWS

Round table... Interesting how they flock to Fox News with their "Out of Party" experience...

Obviously McCaskill is not speaking for the Democratic Party with regards to Health Care reform...

We likely won't be speaking on behalf of her in 2010....

[badgervan]

32. Without a Public Option.....

.... the insurance companies come out as big winners; mandated coverage without meaningful competition can only add tens of thousands to the insurance companies customer list, every new sign-up adding more profit without real reform. If the Dems in Congress and the Prez pass something without the PO, I foresee massive Dem loses in upcoming elections. Many of us will just say the hell with voting if we're disregarded and taken for granted.
51 votes is all it takes, not 60. Does anyone think that the rethugs wouldn't pass one of their bills with 51 if they could? We were promised a solid and strong Public Option by candidate Obama... this promise must be kept.

[TorchTheWitch]

45. The public option won't provide meaningful competition!

Even the best public option still doesn't come anywhere in the same universe as competition to the health insurance industry. With workers that have insurance through their job not being permitted to use the public option there IS no competition. How does approximately 5% of citizens in the PO pool provide even the slightest bit of competition?

This "reform" is not only not meaningful it's a flat out screwing of the people and the biggest corporate welfare this country has ever seen.

And the fact that this travesty of epic proportions is being done by DEMS is revolting.

[badgervan]

46. I See Your Point, But.....

... the real value of a Public Option is what it represents... an actual option, which will expand eventually to cover more and more of us as it out-capitalizes ( new word ) the capitalistic insurance and drug companies. What if I told you that I get all of my meds through Medicare and the VA.... not one of 13 costs me over 4.50 a month; the VA ones are completely free. The Free Market: the best rise to the top, the worst go out of business... sounds pretty good to me. And it used to be a republican rule.

[ArcticFox]

33. The sold the real people up the river for the corporate "persons"

Public option in four years simply means Obama wants four years to figure out how to tell us we're not going to get it. It's a reverse trigger. I'm sure the insurance companies will play nice for a few years and politicians will say: "I guess we don't need a public option." Then, when we've all forgotten how close we came, four years will pass with nothing and nobody will say a word.

IF the democrats are ACTUALLY serious, then does anyone REALLY THINK that the insurance companies won't just throw billions of dollars to the republicans in order to change the law before those four years are up?

The alternatives are therefore:

EITHER Obama and Pelosi, et al. sold out

OR Obama and Pelosa, et al. have ensured a republican rout in 2012.

This could have been used to energize the democratic base. Instead, the dems have lost all the momentum they had after the election. I do believe it will end in utter failure. For the democratic party and, even worse, for the country.

[Joe Bacon]

34. I told you so

They're going to push the Baucus Bill. No public option. Watered down co-ops. And watch the Supreme Court strip out provisions that would guarantee coverage and force insurance companies to pay claims. You'll still be forced to buy your coverage or pay the Max Tax.

THen watch Fox News whip up the Teabaggers to repeat the demonstrations that repealed Medicare Catastrophic Care in 1990. They will whip up the masses to put the Republicans in power to repeal it and gut Medicare and Social Security even more!

Get ready for more screwing because it's coming your way!

[New Dawn]

42. Forcing people to buy a product from a private company is fascist economics.

[joeycola]

43. More and more Dems are following Obama's weak lead.

[Old Hob]

47. Here's your change fuckers. Now start believing it.

:mad: