Lost in the noise is the fact that Obama and other Dems have given NO REASON for abandoning the PO

[Vinnie From Indy]

It is rather astounding that in regard to the PO in the health care debate that the Obama people and some Democrats never give a reason for NOT including the PO in a final bill. It is repeated ad nauseum that there cannot be a PO solely because the votes are not there to pass it. The question that should repeatedly shouted out is WHY NOT? Why can't Americans have what 70+% are clamoring for in this bill?

The reason there is no direct, reality based answer to this question is because the real answer is that the insurance companies do not want it and they have more power to sway elections than we the people.

I cannot remember a time when so many Americans have expressed a desire for something in legislation and being told not only no, but hell no by Congress.

[Donnachaidh]

1. you really expect them to ADMIT in public it was due to a backroom deal?

Come on :rofl: :rofl:

[theFrankFactor]

34. Plain as the Nose on Your Face - COLLUSION! No Ifs, Ands or Buts!

If Americans can't see it now they never will!

[marshall]

65. Reasons that obvious don't need explaining

Everybody knows it, but you have to be careful where you speak about it.

[emilyg]

47. +100

[ihavenobias]

58. Exactly. Reported by the NY Times several months ago...

and discussed here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x438987

[Major Hogwash]

104. The NY Times also said there were WMD's in Iraq.

Not exactly a credible source anymore.

[ihavenobias]

115. Provide a link refuting the NY Times reporting on the WH deal.

And the bottom line is, we don't have a public option. So even if you think the NY Times is wrong the end result is (pathetically) the same.

[defendandprotect]

84. These deals were made a long, long time ago . . . the basis for Obama's meteoric rise!!

[pecwae]

102. Bingo!

I also seem to remember the refrain from fall '08: "Anything to win!"

[KharmaTrain]

2. The Beltway Operates Outside Reality

It's been that way for a long time, we're just seeing it in its most blatant form these days. Let me say that I'm "polled" out on this topic as there are so many out there and it's hard to tell the independent ones (the few) with the ones bought and paid for or slanted to come up with a predetermined answer. And it doesn't matter anyway as the beltway dances to its own beat...and its usually to the money thrown by the special interests. Watch Blanche Lincoln...she's definitely dancing for them so they'll throw the millions she'll need to save her political career. The people don't mean a thing cause if you don't have the big bucks these days, you don't stand a chance at election time.

The will of the people is constantly ignored in the beltway. 70% of those polled didn't think Bill Clinton should have been impeached, yet DeLay went dead on to do it cause he could. The people...or should I say, the voters only matter one day every two years, the lobbyists matter the other 364.

[Echo In Light]

3. Because a politician can't come right out & espouse Profit$ Over People

... even if anyone with any wherewithal realizes that as the reality of our brainwashed empire

[Nikki Stone1]

21. +1

.

[KamaAina]

31. At least not a Democratic politician

:P

[Enthusiast]

54. Them there's some purty words,

Echo In Light. And I agree with 'em.

[Raster]

107. Good ol' U-S-of-A...truth and justice for all...blah, blah, blah...

It's the money, honey. And it's ALL about profit$ over people. There is no greater motivating factor in American politics. None.

[DisgustedInMN]

4. The real reason is quite clear ...

.. to anyone interested in looking at the truth, the Obama Administration, with the complicit assistance of Congress, sold We the People out, early on. All but a few are liars and scam artists.

[defendandprotect]

85. Agree . . .

What's Plan B?

[pundaint]

98. Vote Congress out, hire some folks who will use the Peoples power in the interests of the People

[defendandprotect]

108. I think that's what people finally decide to do -- dump the lot of them and keep

going until you get rid of the millionaires and religious fanatics?

Meanwhile, this bill sucks!!

[OHdem10]

5. The PO would make it a Democratic Bill and the appeasers are

giving the country a Rightie Bill.

The fear of being called Left Leaning is too much for
Present Democrats to swallow.

[defendandprotect]

109. I think the "fear" is more about betraying those who have bought him . . .

and that certainly happened a long, long time ago --

THEY have leverage over him -- voters don't --

[mmonk]

6. It's hard to admit you are not on the side of the public

when you are a Democrat.

[Javaman]

7. There never ever was going to be a PO or a single payer system...

we were all treated to the, "beat-them-down-to-the-point-they-don't-give-a-shit-anymore-and-will-take-anything-that-has-the-word-reform-attached-to-it", kabuki theater on crack.

Or as I like to call it, "BTDTTPTDGASAAWTATHTWRATI". lol

[MessiahRp]

22. LOL that acronym is probably not going to catch on...

:rofl:

Rp

[Jackpine Radical]

26. Damn. I wish I had read your post

before I just spent a half hour trying to memorize that acronym.

[followthemoney]

80. You got that right. nt

[Winterblues]

8. They give a reason, its the same reason they give for most everything.

"The Votes Aren't There" We have a supermajority in both Houses and yet they have the gall to tell us time after time, "The Votes Aren't There"..Apparently no matter how many "Democrats" we elect "The Votes Aren't There"..

[FunMe]

46. When they lose ...

tell them it's because "the votes weren't there".

[Missy Vixen]

50. We could have an entire Democratic House and 100 Democratic Senators

and the votes STILL "would not be there".

Why are we voting for these people, anyway? They serve their corporate contributors, NOT us.

-MV
wondering why I bothered voting since, oh, 1979

[stillwaiting]

67. I think we'll have the votes when we have 120 elected Democratic Senators.

Surely then, no?

[sulphurdunn]

61. Maybe we should elect Tony Sopranao?

I'd prefer FDR, but he's retired.

[defendandprotect]

83. Corporatism is organized crime . . .

[HughMoran]

9. I guess 'not having the votes' is just not relevant to you.

Can't help ya then, bud.

[Romulox]

11. More importantly, it's not logical, given that the whole shmear is being put through reconciliation

Which, as the President himself has reminded us countless times, requires only 51 votes in the Senate.

[w4rma]

12. And when they support the DLCers who wouldn't supply the votes better than the progressives who are

we have a huge problem.

[HughMoran]

13. I dunno - why support them?

Good question.

[kenfrequed]

17. But why?

Why arent the votes there?

This deformation of healthcare will inevitably be more expensive than a public option.

The mandates are less popular than a public option.

By ignoring the public option you are doing what will damage the democratic majority by pissing off the base.

By passing a mandate with corporate wealthfare and no controls you will not really win one republican vote by being 'bipartisan.'

What is the benefit?

Just saying 'the votes aren't there' is dodging the point I think.

[leftstreet]

39. They had plenty of OUR votes WHEN WE PUT THEM IN OFFICE!

Now, they don't give a shit

[Lorien]

42. You missed the entire point of the OP. nt

[tomp]

97. he does that a lot. nt

[Junkdrawer]

100. Well, that explains it.....

They're voting against it because they don't have the votes. :silly:

And in a sense. that's true. It's the money that bought them that has the votes.

[Romulox]

10. Don't need to think back far--remember the bankster bailouts? Public was massively against them

too.

We're in a post-democratic America, now.

[havocmom]

14. Your reply would make a great sig line

:thumbsup:

[inna]

18. +1.

Good point.

[Vinca]

15. It's actually very perplexing. The one part of reform that gets

overwhelming support is abandoned. I think they would be able to pass it with reconciliation in the Senate. It's got to be the back room deals and that really sucks.

[RainDog]

16. because the democrats refuse to represent those who voted for them

yet insist we vote for them anyway.

let Eli Lilly vote for them. that's who they're representing.

[saracat]

19. I have repeatedly asked this question and all I get is "we don't have the votes" but that

is obviously not the case, so what is the real reason.Obama doesn't want the PO. WHY?

[Mari333]

20. yep

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7923167

[Desertrose]

23. Be nice if someone came out and asked this question, wouldn't it?

I mean really...why no PO?

[liberation]

24. Why do you ask questions like that? Do you want people to die? Why do you hate the sick?

*sarcasm*

[Deep13]

25. We know the reason.

:mad:

[bobbolink]

27. Nothing astounding. You can't rationalize corporate greed.

[juno jones]

28. So many recs and so few replies.

I think you struck a nerve.

[The Hope Mobile]

29. Don't forget he said he wouldn't sign unless it had a PO

Around 4:25-4:40 in this video

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/07/obama-demands-the-bill-i-sign-must-include-public-option.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+tpmelectioncentral+%28TPM+Election+Central%29

[Edweird]

30. The lack of the public option is the reason for the noise.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

32. they can't....because it's all about the pension plans across the

US that are invested in health care stocks. The PO will most likely make hc stocks tank - and thus the values of pensions will tank.

[Ignis]

33. Short, sweet, and succinct, Vinny. K&R.

:patriot:

[deaniac21]

35. Most of the debates are in smoke filled rooms where the deals

are being made. Lot of buying goning on. All done in secret.

[xchrom]

36. Recommend

[Spheric]

37. K&R /nt

[leftstreet]

38. K&R

[Cleita]

40. They would have to put up the wedding pictures of the Congressional Senators

and Representatives with their brides, Aetna, Cigna, Anthem Blue Cross, Glaxo, US Chamber of Commerce, the AMA et al.

[Generator]

41. Chip Kahn is the name

It's like bad science fiction.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/13/health/policy/13health.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1

Several hospital lobbyists involved in the White House deals said it was understood as a condition of their support that the final legislation would not include a government-run health plan paying Medicare rates — generally 80 percent of private sector rates — or controlled by the secretary of health and human services.

“We have an agreement with the White House that I’m very confident will be seen all the way through conference,” one of the industry lobbyists, Chip Kahn, director of the Federation of American Hospitals, told a Capitol Hill newsletter.

~
Look that dude up. He was around in 1994 too. I feel I've been HAD by the Democratic party for my whole life. It is all some big story being played.

[NorthCarolina]

43. It would be political suicide to be honest on the issue of a public option.

Would anyone vote for Obama again if he came out and said his goal was to cement the role of Private Insurance in America's health care, as a preemptive strike against future generations trying to implement a single payer system? Better to simply pretend you would prefer it, but that the votes aren't there for it. The will of the people, overwhelmingly with a single payer or at least a public option be damned. Apparently our elected representatives are no longer held to the principles of voting the will of their constituents, but rather simply guided by that which most benefits their own pocketbooks. That is the DLC way.

[tekisui]

44. knr! We get nothing but defections and excuses.

They fucked it up last year and are now just trying to save political face.

[emilyg]

48. At first I thought you wrote

"defecation" - would be appropriate.

[FunMe]

45. The Democrats are CORPORATE WHORES too!

That is the reason they are not going for the public option. That is the reality of the current crop of Democrat, FAKE DEMOCRATS, that are in DC right now.

No Public Option = No Reelection. Period!

[Missy Vixen]

49. Proud to be rec #100

To quote Roger Daltrey: Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.

If President Obama thinks there will be no repercussions as a result of his refusal to fight for the public option, he's lost his mind.

[merkins]

51. They Think We Are Dupes

and judging from recent events they may well be right in their conclusion...

[Enthusiast]

52. There ya go.

And that is why I support Dennis Kucinich.

I wrote President Obama clear back in August to let him know the public option was my line in the sand, that and regulating Wall Street.

I stand by what I said, me and Dennis.

I will not vote for Obama if there is no public option in that bill.

[TrollBuster9090]

53. Obviously you answered your own question.

The majority of Americans want a public option, and are not getting it.

The superficial official reason it's not in the bill: "There aren't enough votes to pass it."

The slightly deeper official reason it's not in the bill: "It was removed BEFORE Republicans got 41 votes in the Senate. Therefore, when they say 'there aren't enough votes to pass it' they mean 'there aren't enough DEMOCRATIC votes to pass it."

Thus, the real reason: "The HMO lobby LOVES the idea of forcing everybody to buy insurance (as does the GOP, although they have the luxury of not having to prove it at the moment), but hates the idea of having to compete with a non-profit HMO, and therefore BRIBED and THREATENED enough Democratic Senators to not support it."

It's as simple as that. While free market competition is a good thing overall, the truth is that business' HATE competition, and will do anything legal, illegal, fair or unfair to avoid having to face it. The USA would still be in the Gilded Age if not for the anti-monopoly, anti-trust laws that were passed at the turn of the century that essentially FORCED businesses to compete against one another. Without those market place restrictions that FORCED competition, giant monopolies would still be controling entire states the way they did in the 19th century.


BUT HERE IS SOME GOOD NEWS FOR YOU!
The bill contains a rule which forces HMOs to spend 85% of the premium money they collect on delivery of healthcare. That means after this bill is passed, they will no longer be able to spend HALF A BILLION DOLLARS trying to lobby Congress to derail reforms the way they did last year. They will no longer be able to funnel hundreds of millions through the Chamber of Commerce to spend on attack ads, disinformation, think-tank propaganda, or astro-turfed tea party protests. That's it! After this bill is signed, they will no longer be able to spend BILLIONS of premium dollars bribing Congress to do what they want. In future, if they want to do that badly enough, they'll have to take the money out of their PROFIT MARGIN. They'll no longer be able to write it off as "overhead."

Every wonder why private HMOs have an overhead of 30% compared to an overhead of 4% for Medicare? It's because Medicare doesn't spend billions of dollars BRIBING CONGRESS! Nor does Medicare pay it's CEO 1.4 BILLION DOLLARS the way UNH did for William McGwire.

Therefore, expect a flood of anti-reform ads in the next week. The HMO lobby is going to shoot their LAST DOLLAR on trying to kill health insurance reform, because after the bill becomes law, they won't be able to anymore. There will NOT be a GOP campaign to repeal health insurance reform, because there will no longer be a fountain of lobby money coming from the HMO lobby. The poor little things will just have to spend all that premium money on HEALTH CARE. How sad.

[sulphurdunn]

64. I take strong exception to this comment!

"Ever wonder why private HMOs have an overhead of 30% compared to an overhead of 4% for Medicare?"

Nonsense! Medicare has an overhead of about 3%. :rofl:

And instead of a bill with more than 2000 pages, we could have had a bill with fewer than the three page "give us your money or your economy" bank bailout. HCR should have had a single page that read: "Everyone who wants it gets Medicare, since they already pay for it."

However, the pragmatists run the show in Washington, and being pragmatic means that the health insurance industry gets the 30% overhead condom and the public gets to bend over and grab its double digit annual rate increase, maybe we'll pay and maybe we won't, ankles. Suckers! :smoke:

[datasuspect]

55. shilling the rubes

destabilization always makes corruption easier.

[naaman fletcher]

56. It's because they sold out to the health insurance companies, in case you didn't know. nt.

[Unvanguard]

57. It is pretty incredible that the public option doesn't have the votes.

There has yet to be anything close to a reasonable argument made against it.

[laughingliberal]

59. k & r

I still say we flood the Capitol with calls this week. I don't think it is likely to change the outcome but it can't hurt and it will let them know there are some people watching. If someone's going to screw me they're going to need to look me in the eye while doing so.

[Canuckistanian]

60. I've noticed that, too

It's almost like the Administration is saying "Well, gosh darn it, we'd LOVE to pass a public option, but just darn the luck, well, the votes are not there".

Excuse Me? "Votes aren't there"?

Then where the fuck do votes come from?

[suffragette]

116. During the campaign, it was all about what is possible.

Now, all we hear is how impossible everything is.
And how a majority doesn't mean they can actually muster a majority of votes.
All in the frame of darn the luck and we really, really want to, but can't possibly because of (ever-shifting) a,b,c or d.

[midnight]

62. I wish they would remind us of why that is- no public option.

[scentopine]

63. They broke their promises to us, and kept their promises to pharma - follow the money -nt

[SlingBlade]

66. There's Plenty of their shills here, Ask them !

[johnaries]

68. You need to clarify: Obama HAS given a very strong reason why.

It's because it doesn't have the votes.

Now, WHY doesn't it have the votes? THAT's what you need to focus on.

It's not Obama. He's working very hard to get the best possible bill passed. If you don't like the bill, then go after the people who are obstructing it. First of all, the Republicans. Then, the DINO's.

But to lump Obama in with them is being dishonest. Target your angst where it belongs.

[laughingliberal]

74. I think it's dishonest to ignore the deals the President made with PhRMA

and the AHIP and the Hospital lobby. I don't know if the votes would have been there or not without those deals but I don't think he worked for the best possible bill. To lay it all at the feet of Congress is disingenuous. I am more inclined to believe they are all in it together.

Denying this took place seems dishonest to me.

[KeepItReal]

93. NYT in 2009 says that Obama and Sen. Baucus PROMISED hospitals no Public Option

This flew under the radar.

Obama and the Senate promised PHARMA and the Hospitals no competition/regulation to keep them on the sidelines, politically.

"Hospital industry lobbyists, speaking on condition of anonymity for fear of alienating the White House, say they negotiated their $155 billion in concessions with Mr. Baucus and the administration in tandem. House staff members were present, including for at least one White House meeting, but their role was peripheral, the lobbyists said.

Several hospital lobbyists involved in the White House deals said it was understood as a condition of their support that the final legislation would not include a government-run health plan paying Medicare rates — generally 80 percent of private sector rates — or controlled by the secretary of health and human services.

“We have an agreement with the White House that I’m very confident will be seen all the way through conference,” one of the industry lobbyists, Chip Kahn, director of the Federation of American Hospitals, told a Capitol Hill newsletter. "


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/13/health/policy/13health.html?pagewanted=2

[freddie mertz]

105. This is the smoking gun that explains everything.

Obama NEVER "worked hard" for the public option. If anything, he advertised his willingness to give it away at the first opportunity ("sliver" anyone?).

This was a done deal many months ago, and any and all effort to revive the PO has come, not from the White House, but from representatives in Congress who felt the pressure from that "nonexistent" liberal base.

"Don't Follow Leaders, and Watch Your Pawking Metaws"

[Skinner]

106. That's not what it says.

Here's the exact wording: "final legislation would not include a government-run health plan paying Medicare rates — generally 80 percent of private sector rates — or controlled by the secretary of health and human services."

That does not rule out a public option. It only rules out a public option that pays Medicare rates or is controlled by the secretary of HHS. It still leaves open the possibility of a public option that pays prevailing rates.

I don't think Obama is above criticism for his handling of the public option. But it's simply not true to say that Obama promised hospitals no public option.

[KeepItReal]

110. Why make a deal to keep Health and Human Services Dept out of the picture?

Different Senate (HELP Committee) and House versions of the Public Option have HHS and its Secretary managing it.

If HHS (which runs Medicare) does not have oversight of the Public Option per this deal with Hospitals, then who will set the plans non-Medicare-based rates? A new bureaucracy? Congress? The White House? Why reinvent the wheel?

[laughingliberal]

111. Correct. The promise was to make sure there was not a public option tied to Medicare rates

which was how the House wanted to fashion the public option. The Hospital lobby was most concerned about that and it was the reason Kent Conrad gave for opposing a public option.

I'm not convinced, however, that his promise to AHIP was not for no public option. There were reports back in August of Karen Ignagni being asked about a public option and her response was, essentially, she was not worried and had no doubt the White House would keep their word. Which, at the time, I did not want to believe and hoped it was Ignagni being played and not us. I thought, until sometime in September, the President would stand up forcefully for a public option. The absence of that kind of support has led me to believe the reports of Ignagni's response were correct.

On edit: Just a word here about hospitals and Medicare rates. There are parts of the country where the Medicare rates for hospitals are woefully inadequate and they are below the rates paid by private insurance companies in all markets. However, before anyone's heart starts bleeding for the poor hospitals we need to think about the amount of money they will be saving in a severely reduced amount of uncompensated care. Think about that. One of the big reasons we are given for the high cost of hospital care which, in turn, raises everyone's insurance premiums is the number of people they have to treat through emergency services who have no pay source. If the bill passes they are facing a time when almost every patient would have some pay source. Even if some of these patients have a pay source tied to Medicare rates,they are still standing to profit a lot more from this bill. An argument for a different day: we talk a lot about what private for profit insurance has done to our health care system and there is no denying the damage. But we seldom talk about the fact that for profit hospital corporations were ground zero for the stratospheric rise in costs which, in turn, led to the massive increases in insurance rates. I had a front row seat at that show as an RN working in the days when the for profits were busy buying up every hospital in their path. We did very little to address this problem in the HCR bill.

[slipslidingaway]

69. knr nt

[neuvocat]

70. Kucininch voted against the Public Option.

Now he won't vote for anything with it.

[EFerrari]

88. Dennis has been trying to hold the bar up instead of rationalizing

every time it gets lowered.

[McCamy Taylor]

71. Prohibition?

[emald]

72. every single one of these corporate conspirators needs to go

vote them all out.

[harun]

73. Oh if we only had real reporters and a real media. They don't think they have to give

the masses reasons for what they do. It's arrogance.

[Cali_Democrat]

75. Reason:

Not enough votes in the Senate.

Health Insurance lobby too influential over numerous Senators.

[glowing]

76. Yeah, and yet the wars which Americans do not support, is continued year after year.

This is the evidence everyone can see. The lies are apparent.. and it is evident who the politicians really work for.

[defendandprotect]

87. Pelosi/Reid/Democrats refunding these wars for three years now!!!

[Oerdin]

77. We're being played for fools.

The Democratic leadership has caved to corporate lobbyist money and they've killed the public option behind closed doors. They just want to try to blame Republicans for it but the truth is Democrats who claimed to support the public option buried it. The White House and both Pelosi and Reid have blood all over their hands.

[defendandprotect]

89. The "cave" was a very long time ago . . .

they're all "pre-bribed" and "pre-owned" by corporations . . .

What do we really expect from a system of BRIBERY?

Meanwhile, what's Plan B?

[earcandle]

78. NO one is asking Obama if this plan has a Public Option and the way he is talking against the

insurance companies insinuates that this bill has a public
option and will not let the insurance companies rob us.

BUt that is clearly a lie.  They are getting 30 million more
customers, and can still up their premiums. 

This really sucks. 

[defendandprotect]

90. Obama sounds like Nixon with his "secret plan" to end the war in VN . ..

only this is an allegedly "secret plan" to add a public option . . . L A T E R ... !!!

What really sucks about this legislation is that it is the opposite of treating

everyone EQUALLY . . . it weighs INCOME ... a good old GOP gimmick to create a "welfare class."

It's a class based system -- rather than universal health care for everyone --

everyone in, no one out --

Every citizen treated equally!!

[misanthrope]

79. What about the Wall Street bailouts of '08 and '09?...

...Americans flooded the Congressional offices with demands not to give the money to Wall Street. Congress went through the kabuki of refusing it, then left town except for the small group of Congressional leaders that remained and committed to the bailout anyway, citizenry and legislative process be damned.

Mere months later, after witnessing how unpopular the first bailouts were, the new administration checked off on yet more.

[defendandprotect]

91. As long as corporations are running our government, that's what we're going to get!!!

When are we going to call campaign funds what they are -- BRIBERY?

The Supremes might say it's legal -- but I'd suggest we continue to

demonize corporations, capitalism, DLC -- and this BRIBERY!!

Take a cue from the GOP on demonizing!!

[misanthrope]

112. I was specifically referring to the OP statement...

..."I cannot remember a time when so many Americans have expressed a desire for something in legislation and being told not only no, but hell no by Congress."

While the electorate in my example wasn't asking FOR legislation, they were overwhelming in demanding a specific result from legislators and were denied via a roundabout, back room route.

[defendandprotect]

118. Again, it's because corporations are running our government...they own it and our

elected officials !!!

[anAustralianobserver]

81. Yep, and in a manner comparable to the IWR, all those responsible are hoping the true reasons for

their capitulation, silence and obfuscation are somehow justifiable or at least forgivable.

I don't just think they're worried about losing their jobs and influence though; I believe they're also worried about having their individual public reputations destroyed by corruption smears, sexual conduct smears etc (the usual stuff).

[defendandprotect]

82. It's corporate arrogance behind them . . . they can't explain that away --

This is a deal of, for and by corporations --

and if the GOP come back in majority they'll sweeten the pot!!

And do further damage to those who are already being savaged by insurance companies

and prescription costs!!

We need a health care system which treats everyone EQUALLY . . . this is a class system

which weighs INCOME!!! A good ole GOP trick to create tiered systems and eventually

tiered benefits!!

UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE, EVERYONE IN, NO ONE OUT!!

[democracy1st]

86. K & R

[anAustralianobserver]

92. Weiner: Senate is saying to Pelosi "Please let us off the hook"

For anyone who didn't see it; In this Countdown interview last Friday, Weiner said that the Senate are primarily responsible for undermining the PO, but he also effectively admitted (imo) that Nancy Pelosi is poised to let the Senate "off the hook", even as the Senate declares fresh support for it:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/ns/msnbc_tv-countdown_with_keith_olbermann/#35845591

[truedelphi]

94. Simplest Answer:

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

[depakid]

95. Here's what they said to Americans

You're second class citizens of the world- and in your own country.

You neither deserve nor will you get so long as we're in power responsible and effective health policy if it threatens "popular" health insurer's interests.

Hell- we'll PAY THEM for their troubles is that's what it takes.

[Richard Steele]

96. The audacity of getting our hopes up. K&R

[treestar]

99. There are not enough votes in the Senate

The Senate does not represent the people directly, giving more power to states with less population.

The U.S. is a republic and so the majority will not always get what it wants.

The system is set up to make it difficult to do anything that will create more federal government involvement in anything but the few exceptions given it in the Constitution.

This basic fact leads to these situations.

[orbitalman]

101. +187

[Captain Hilts]

103. 80% of Dems and 60% of Reps want a PO. A chance to show how 'sold at highest bidder' DC is is lost.

[branders seine]

113. we've been screwed

by our own

[Myrina]

114. Too late for a Rec, but here's a kick ...

:kick:

[gleaner]

117. Thank you ....

You have said this beautifully. I think a lot of the politicians are financially beholden to the health insurance companies. It is the only thing I would add to your post. I'm going to K&R.:kick:

People should read this.