David Axelrod was stunned when Bill O'Reilly tells him the Feds should override states rights on health care
By John Amato Friday Sep 11, 2009 5:00am
After Wednesday night's speech, Bill O was running with McCain's original idea to "fix" health care by opening up all insurance companies to compete in all states. The problem with that is that each state has its own laws governing health care and it would cause incredible conflicts that could not be resolved. BillO is actually stumping for the federal government to destroy states' rights and their laws. Wow.
BillO: Why wouldn't the president say, let's let everybody compete. Let's let all the insurance companies compete nation wide and that will drive the price down...
Axelrod: Well first of all we have a system of state regulation, you know that of the insurance industry that makes that difficult. What we want is these individual market places. Some markets have competition, other markets don't.
BillO: The Feds can override the states...
Axelrod: Excuse me?
BillO: The Feds can override the states, you know that. You can make it so that all health insurance companies compete nationwide.
Axelrod: This is a historic moment with you calling for the feds overriding the states. I didn't realize you had that...
O'Reilly: Federal jurisdiction, you know federal jurisdiction takes precedence in almost every legislative area...
Axelrod was so shocked that he had to ask BillO to repeat himself. O'Reilly is a socialist now.
This is another example of how disingenuous conservatives are. If they want something---everything goes....Now he can't complain about anything the federal government does from now on because what he's saying is far more radical than anything that has been put forth by the Obama administration. Can you imagine the uproar that would take place if the president said he was going to override the states?
Login or Register to post comments.
Now he can't complain about anything the federal government does from now on because what he's saying is far more radical than anything that has been put forth by the Obama administration.>
Just watch him!
...has let it slip that he is an agent-provocateur for the Marxist-Socialist agenda. David Axelrod must have laughed his ass off after that interview segment.
also...bor is a moran
I can't stand O'Reilly but I think John is misunderstanding Angry Bill here. I don't see him deviating from his typical message, he's simply talking about leveling the playing field for private the sector to compete in. That is still a typical conservative position. As much as it pains me to suggest Bill might have a good idea, it actually is, that's not to say I think it's the end all solution or a public option shouldn't be explored as well. Lord knows both private and public sectors are in serious trouble. Private is insanely expensive and the public sector is broke and in debt.
This is about avoiding state health insurance benefit mandates.
Folks shouldn't confuse this with mandated coverage for individuals.
Example: Without state mandates, no insurance company would provide diabetics with the supplies they need to manage their chronic disease. The insurance company would simply base their operations in North Dakota (where this mandate doesn't exist), and will be able to sell their insurance policy into other states at a much cheaper rate. And here, economics say that the more expensive policy that covers state mandates will eventually only be left with, say, diabetics - making it prohibitively expensive as the health risk isn't shared with non-diabetics.
You may recall that this was exactly what the Enzi bill was going to do in 2006 (S. 1955) - known to progressives as the "junk insurance bill".
I'm embarrassed and saddened that more participants in the discussion here at C&L are unaware of the real motivations behind "leveling the playing field"
I'd encourage everyone to look any of these health care reform proposals with an eye towards how they deal with chronic illnesses - cancer, diabetes, etc.
of "leveling the playing field." I always get a hoot when corporate lackeys NOW talk about "leveling the playing field" when they have spent the past few decades making it uphill for everyone else, and putting the barriers of entry so high... that no-one from outside the patrician circle of business can enter the game.
Also, I love how people talk about how indebted the public institutions are, while neglecting that most of that debt comes from trying to prop up those "solvent" private corporations.
In any case, as I said... I am getting a chuckle when I hear the people whose idea of socioeconomic theory is "f*ck you I got mine, and yours" to now be bitching about "leveling the playing field." Cry me a river, and they can start to show us how they pull themselves by their own bootstraps, I always heard them talk about that... but they never gave me a demo of how that works. Maybe this is their golden chance to awe all of us.... ;-)
September 11-13, 2009
Civility is in the Eye of the Beholder
Disgraceful Democrats
By RUSSELL MOKHIBER
“…President Obama and the Democrats turn their backs on single payer — the only health care reform that covers everyone and control costs. By so doing, they are condemning at least 60 Americans a day to death (Institute of Medicine report) due to lack of health insurance. That’s disgraceful. Eighty-six Democrats in the House are signed on to Congressman John Conyer’s (D-Michigan) single payer bill (HR 676). But not one has said they will vote against the break the bank, leave tens of millions of Americans uninsured Obamacare. Not one. Not even Conyers has said he will vote against it. None of the so called “progressive caucus” has said they will vote against it. HR 676 is being used a way to placate the Democrat’s progressive base. Sure, we believe in single payer. But no way we’re going out on a limb to fight for it. That’s disgraceful…..Obama throws the weak “public option” under the health insurance industry bus.And Katrina vanden Heuvel, the editor of The Nation magazine, says that Obama shows “progressive spine.””
Read the entire article @:
http://www.counterpunch.org/mokhiber09112009....
REPORT BRIEF • FEBRUARY 2009
America’s Uninsured Crisis: Consequences for Health and Health Care
Excerpts:
The states and the federal government have increased substantially health insurance coverage among low-income children and, to a lesser degree, among adults in the last decade. While these coverage expansions have mitigated the overall numbers of uninsured, many states are now under extreme economic pressures to cut their recent expansions of public programs. Americans without access to employer-sponsored health coverage, other sources of group health insurance, or public insurance must turn to the nongroup health insurance market if they want to obtain coverage. For many people, nongroup coverage is prohibitively expensive or altogether unavailable. In most states, insurers may deny applicants for nongroup coverage completely; impose either a permanent or temporary preexisting condition limitation on coverage; or charge a higher premium based on health status, occupation, and other personal characteristics.
A robust body of well-designed, high-quality research provides compelling findings about the harms of being uninsured and the benefits of gaining health insurance for both children and adults. Despite the availability of some safety net services, there is a chasm between the health care needs of people without health insurance and access to effective health care services. This gap results in needless illness, suffering, and even death.....The available research suggests that when community-level rates of uninsurance are relatively high, insured adults in those communities are more likely to have difficulties obtaining needed health care and to be less satisfied with the care they receive.
http://www.rwjf.org/files/research/20090224io...
any other name is a fucking hypocrite in this case!
who wants to put a buger on a girls dress and laugh. consistent sane argument is irrelevant to him. he is just there to distract.
lets see if he is consistent with the states rights issue, on lets say, marjuanna.
Another day another carnival of irrelevant pundits.
I think Axelrod didn't hear O'Reilly and when D.A. said "Excuse me?" he was asking BO to repeat himself because he didn't hear him, not because he was shocked(!) at what BO said. Let's not add more drama than is already there.....
If the president even HINTED at such a thing the RWNJ's would come unglued.
Such a load of complete malarkey.
One more "off button" award for Billo the hypocrite.
than what these guys say about drug law enforcement. Or, illegal immigration, or a host of other subjects. This isn't the first time that "conservatives" have taken this stand. It makes for good teevee or reading material, but it isn't a watershed moment.
The so-called conservatives, who claim to value federalism, aren't really federalists at all; rather, they're hypocrites without any governing philosophy who choose arguments based on convenience. And anyone who believes O'Reilly will ever let anyone confront him with his hypocrisy is ignoring the obvious. He and his producers won't let it happen.
Personally, I think allowing insurance companies to sell across state lines without a stringent set of federal standards (which, of course, "conservatives" will oppose, citing the mantra of states' rights and federal intrusion) will simply create a scenario akin to our personal credit morass. Virtually all credit card companies incorporate in South Dakota because S.D. has no usury laws, and there's no national usury restrictions; consequently, the creditors can charge whatever they want. If you permit insurers to sell across state lines without strong federal regulation, they'll simply run to the state with the least regulation, and set up shop at that location.
Accept another states insurance. This is an excerpt out of the website:
www.masshealthlawtruth.org
"Jack & Darlene's story:
I got out of state insurance so that my husband and I would be covered and not be fined.
We are insured with a company that is backed by retired Supreme Court Judges and Congressmen, who are out there for affordable insurance. It is called NAPA- National Association for Political Advocacy and Preferred Care Health Insurance out of Maryland.
Our insurance company just got a letter from the State of Mass. telling them that they do not meet the criteria for insurance under the laws in this State. They were never told what that criteria was, but they are legal in every other State in the union to sell insurance. We will be dropped on December 31 of this year.
With this company we have drugs, eye and dental and we are covered 80%. I could not find out when I called the Connector why I can't have this insurance and really no one will talk to me.
It seems to me that the State does not care HOW MUCH our health insurance will cost us--and that we have to play the game with the companies who they have allowed to sell insurance in this STATE--which I cannot afford.
All of this is Bullshit.
I have no idea what we will do. I will have to pay more a month for health insurance then my mortgage. Friends of ours are retired and they are spending $1,000.00 for the two of them for Health Insurance. What an injustice."
It looks to me as if what transpired above with Jack and Darlene IS Bullshit.
The Mass Plan is despotic with mandates and fines, people are shoved into Medicaid which includes estate seizures as payment and it is damn near impossible to even FIND a doctor in Massachusetts who will accept Medicaid or the States Commonwealth Care! Even if you DO find a doctor who accepts either plan they are by and large substandard doctors who cannot even speak proper English!
H.R. 3200, which according to Sen. Kerry IS the Mass Plan (mandated coverage with penalties etc.) is a proven failure in Massachusetts.
And now we have the problem, as stated above, of the states protecting themselves financially from having citizens going to other states to purchase more affordable plans.
In order to avoid all the blatant discrimination that appears to be coming down the pike, we MUST adopt H.R. 676, "Medicare for All" so Americans will find that ALL doctors will accept Medicare patients, there will be true "choice" and there won't be all the draconian states laws FORBIDDING an individual from purchasing a private policy from another state.
Something is seriously wrong here with what is being proposed (H.R. 3200) to solve our health care crisis.
We don't need a crazy, discriminatory patchwork system of coops, subsidized plans, rules about "where" you can go to purchase insurance, people deciding to just pay the "fine" and go WITHOUT insurance because they still cannot afford the premiums or they realize the insurance is substandard coverage.
Obama's plan is the WRONG plan for scores of reasons.
The American people deserve better.... what other industrial democracies enjoy: Single Payer, Medicare for Everyone. Plain and simple.
You're right. HR676 is the solution to the problem we're facing with healthcare.
The problem is that there's a multi-BILLION dollar industry that doesn't want its crackers and punch taken away. There's no other reasonable argument to the contrary side of HR676... It was set to pay for itself with a tax on stock transactions (which is another reason our financial sector is against it). Absolute bull that we can't be an adult nation and accept that we take care of each other -- it's what a society does.
... the powers-that-be didn't like the 'take care of one another' message when Jesus Christ was preaching it, and they still don't.
You now have Christian sects that have managed to completely invert Christ's message and who believe that a civil society that provides health care for all its citizens is somehow anti-Christian.
altruism=Fascism is the day this country is through
The Massachusetts plan is not a failure. Why do you conclude that? By a lot of criteria it has been a success. Read this:
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=a...
"In 2006, before the law was enacted, the uninsured rate in the state was 13%. In 2007, after the law was enacted, the uninsured rate was 7%, a drop of fifty percent. These numbers demonstrate promise in the nation's only universally mandated health care system.
Numbers also released by the Massachusetts Department of Revenue show that 95% of the state's taxpayers are insured, which is impressive indeed. The numbers of low-income people who had access to care also increased, from 79.5 percent in 2006 to 83.1 percent in 2007. Another important benchmark, people who said they didn't receive adequate health care due to cost, dropped from 27.3 percent in 2006 to 16.9 percent in 2007, a significant drop."
http://www.online-health-insurance.com/articl...
"Pundits and politicians who oppose universal healthcare for the nation have a new straw man to kick around - the Massachusetts reform plan that covers more than 97 percent of the state’s residents. In the myth that these critics have manufactured, this state’s plan is bleeding taxpayers dry, creating nothing less than a medical Big Dig.
The facts - according to the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation - are quite different. Its report this spring put the cost to the state taxpayer at about $88 million a year, less than four-tenths of 1 percent of the state budget of $27 billion. Yes, the state recently had to cut benefits for legal immigrants, and safety-net hospital Boston Medical Center has sued for higher state aid. But that is because the recession has cut state revenues, not because universal healthcare is a boondoggle. The main reason costs to the state have been well within expectations? More than half of all the previously uninsured got coverage by buying into their employers’ plans, not by opting for one of the state-subsidized plans.
This should be exciting news for those fiscal conservatives, including both Republicans and “blue dog’’ Democrats, who claim to support the goal of universal coverage while despairing over its budget impact. But that’s not what you hear from the Massachusetts bashers."
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2...
And what is being proposed is not exactly the Massachusetts plan. The Adminstration has learned from the faults of that plan, primarily to find a way to pay for it first.
I can't find a website for NAPA- National Association for Political Advocacy and Preferred Care Health Insurance out of Maryland.
I know there's NAPA Auto parts and that it also sells auto insurance, but something rather stinks about this story.
The astro turfers are sending out many of these fake viral emails/posts. They are just being cut and pasted all over the net to spread lies. This could be one of them. Sounds a little too off topic to be genuine.
They only have insurance in New York State.
NAPA website
So the whole claim about Maryland is bogus...I live in Maryland and they don't cover here.
There is no NAPA-affiliated coverage here in Maryland.
None of what I have posted is B.S.
I will do the necessary research on the "Jack and Darlene" story, as my co-worker knows them PERSONALLY.
As to the post above stating that The Mass Plan is a success I will give you this article that appeared about a week ago in The Berkshire Eagle out of Pittsfield, Massachusetts:
http://www.berkshireeagle.com/clarencefanto/c...
I am a Progressive Democrat and NOT an "astroturfer".
And I will do more research and by tonights "Open Thread" I will respond back.
If I am wrong, I will admit it.
Abbybwood, R.N.
P.S. To Philip1, My post is NOT "off-topic" at all, since the subject of this thread is "states rights" etc.
Regarding the "Darlene and Jack" story and resultant comments afterwards:
Here is the website for NAPA:
http://www.napahome.org/
At the right there is a link for "health insurance" which will take you here:
http://www.getfchcn.com/
First Choice Health Care does enrollment for NAPA.
And Preferred Care Inc. is the claims processor for First Choice Health Care. There address is:
PO Box 1235
Frederick MD 21702-0235
Phone: 1-888-264-1512
Jack and Darlene live in Massachusetts and they joined NAPA and signed up for First Choice Health Care.
Jack had surgery at Berkshire Medical Center and his claims and those of Cooley Dickenson Visiting Nurse Assoc., the surgeon, the anesthesiologist and others were paid by Preferred Care, Inc.
So, sorry Navy Vet, Thunder Monkey and Philip 1, there IS NAPA affiliated coverage in Maryland, although I personally called First Choice, and as Darlene and Jack said on the masslawtruth.org website, Massachusetts residents have since been dropped from being covered/the State of Massachusetts Connector authority.
Massachusetts law insists that all residents ONLY have insurance purchased IN MASSACHUSETTS.
I'll repost this tonight when the Open Thread appears.
Abbybwood, R.N.
So what is your point if all you say is true.
Given the entirely different healthcare rules and regulations in every state, it is not surprising that healthcare has to be purchased in the state you are in. Agreed, not the best system, but would be extremely difficult to change.
By the way that website you point to "masslawtruth.org" does not exist and if it is the one I think you are trying to refer to it is complete bullshit. They define success in massachusetts very very narrowly. A heck of a lot more people are now covered and also covered better in Massachusetts. And two, the healthcare system is not breaking the bank in Mass. See my comments and links above.
That's not NAPA's insurance plan, it's First Choice (which I had when I worked in Hagerstown) which is PARTNERED with NAPA. If you go to that same homepage and click the link at the lower left (under the picture of the pharmacist), you can see if NAPA's own group health care rate is available in your area. And it isn't, only in New York.
So whatever "Jack and Darlene" got, it wasn't NAPA insurance. It was simply First Choice, and it was First Choice that caused them problems. And, it proves that the Republican "solution" to allow unfettered commerce of policies across state lines is the wrong way to reform the industry.
So, if you want to push a meme, at least get the facts straight.
Great I read your Berkshire article. It really says nothing about healthcare reform on a national basis or even in a Mass context.
Here read this from the Boston Globe about how successful the Mass reform has been. A very positive view.
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_o...
All the Berkshire article is saying is that healthcare companies are being hurt by the economy because of budget cuts, as tax revenues dry up from the recession. Nobody forsaw how deep this recession would be. Sure they need to fix the reimbursements system to take into account big recessions, likely emergency aid would be needed, but that in no way means that the entire MASS system is broken. Especially when coverage is now so good in MASS.
.. and I DO mean BUTT. BillO doesn't have anymore of a handle on how things should be run than any of us. His ideas are just more offensive to most of us. We are all trying to make this place better, just for different reasons. BillO's ideas are rooted in the same MUCK that Ann Coulter's or Rush, or Hannity's ideas are rooted in... SHOCK that produces listeners that in turn produces MONEY for the network. Why do you think they keep him on even after all the PROVEN LIES he has spewed? It's all a money game and has NOTHING to do with responsible propagation of ideas that would enhance the moral fortitude of this nation.
"BillO doesn't have anymore of a handle on how things should be run than any of us."
To the extent you're implying that O'Reilly has as much a handle on how things should be run, or that others' ideas are no better, I categorically reject your assertion.
... why we're wasting time even pretending that there's the possibility of civil discourse with idiots like Bill-O.
he is there to distract. we shouldn't fall for it.
Aren't Beck and his tea baggers against "big government"? Will they take Bill to task for what he is suggesting here?
against it until they're for it. If it's something that works for them and plays into their ever evolving rationalization then it's o.k.
...Totalitarian on the states. Well, if Obama is looking for a way to bring all the Republicans in line behind health care reform, it's hard to imagine a more unifying idea than having the Feds trump the states.
Important Note: No matter what Obama proposes the Republicans will oppose it as a totalitarian nightmare. Assert federal primacy? Totalitarian night mare. Leave decisions to the states? Totalitarian nightmare. Decide to have pork chops on Thursday? Totalitarian nightmare.
It's obvious that o'reilly doesn't think before speaking. He simply spews whatever comes into his head - and usually he talks out of his ass.
How can one tell the difference?
He has an ass face so . . .
... Donald O'Connor isn't around, this clearly isn't a remake of Francis the Talking Mule.
Therefore, when one sees Bill-O on the screen, it's a good bet it's just a braying ass, and not the remake of a classic comedy film.
It's OK If You're A Republican Paid Hack
The RW has corrupted their original concept of "Limited Government" into "smaller government".
Limited government meant limiting the power of government not the size. Any knucklehead knows as the population grows so must the government grow to service the same function.
"Smaller government" is a reduction of services and is not sustainable.
... means limiting things like labor laws and regulation, not because the laws make no sense, but because they interfere with other interests, like personal profit.
Another example of so-called "right-wingers" or conservatives really have no message or ideology. They continue to contradict themselves. They really have no real firm belief system. It is really only about politics with these guys.
Whether it is Bush running up the biggest deficits in U.S. history or bullshit family values, these people really have no message. They are lost.
That's the thing about these right wing hypocrites. I wonder what Hannity and Beck are going to say about the socialist O'Reilly.
go on FOX to begin with, the way they treat Obama?
I think this whole deal about insurance companies crossing state lines to compete is a red herring anyway. People in a state where health care is more expensive for whatever reason the insurance is going to be more expensive than where they do better with health and it is cheaper. It is a zip code by zip code pricing policy. Isn't it?
(I didn't explain that very well but I hope you get the idea)
And it is almost certainly sure to play out that way.
When will O'lielly admit he's a ignorant asshole and doesn't know what the HELL he lying about. Now he loves the Federal government?????
I think he does it when even he opens his mouth.
http://www.metatube.com/videos/11457/Have-you...
It shows Billo has no concept of how commerce works. Just like he has no knowledge of history, science, or any other subject, he just spouts whatever idiot idea crosses his mind.
lowest state reg's to apply. it's a mantra (a la scam ridding 'redtape' and getting 'open' market). like credit card companies.
a plan that would destroy states' consumer rights / protections... recipe for predatory insurance practices
this is another example of how the right/conserv are able to control the talking points.
instead of speaking to the dem plan--the narrative becomes rightwing...
too bad, the dem message prep is so shallow or so it appears. (this is not the first instance, and this pattern seems to be endless...yet solvable if the will is there) imho.
All those supposed 'State's Rights' people, when they got into power, realized that to stick to their 'principles' would force them to dismantle the very power structure they now sat on top of. They proved how reluctant they were to do that with Raich vs. Gonzales.
So...here comes the backtracking, the dissembling and outright lies that they didn't mean it. Twisty worms, all of 'em...
these guys a good slap to wake them up.
Billious's response is totally predictable, they are only in favor of states' rights when it furthers their agenda. When the states stand in their way they are more than happy to have the feds steamroll them (as with California's emissions standards).
It's not like his viewers are going to realize the hypocrisy and ridiculousness of it.
Bill like states rights being overruled.
*drool*
Me Like states rights being overruled.
*drools some more*
Bill Like states rights meaning nothing... I like states rights meaning nothing.
*entire front of shirt and pants are soaked*
...maybe I'm getting a little rusty or maybe I'm using an outdated ideological score card here but aren't Republicans classically all about enforcing states rights so the federal gov't is smaller and less intrusive?
Exactly....but I think they want it both ways, as usual. The government 'interfering' is BAD when it comes to helping with health care and stuff...but NOT bad when taking over for more 'competition'...or helping those after hurricanes, fires, and earthquakes...and sticking it's nose in private family matters. As long as it's not THEIR family. (Jeebus...no wonder I have headaches all the time lately...)
Just wait till Limbaugh finds out what BO said ...
Letting the insurance companies act like that seems to violate the "full faith and credit" clause of Article 4.
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
Since it seems like a company based in, say Delaware can operate by Delaware laws in California. Or am I missing something?
My opinion, is that power should be reserved to the federal government, no private company should be able to do that.
(Comments are acting up, this wasn't supposed to be a reply)
"insurance"
We need to learn to distinguish between providing health care, and paying for it. The reason why the insurance model does not work in this case, it is because unlike... let's say accidents. Healthcare should not be based on the hedge of if you get sick. We are humans, so it is not a question of IF but WHEN you are going to get sick.
Trying to turn our healthcare into a hedge proposition, for private companies to profit when you are healthy, and then drop you like a used condom when you get sick and you need to get the money you paid to them back... it is under any circumstance an inhumane and f*cking twisted system.
Tackling health care as a for profit proposition does not work, period. Axelrod, O'reilly, etc are completely missing that point, either by ignorance or selfish economic motivations.
after a memo from Roger/Rupert.
Why does any sane person -- be it a politician, an author, an activist, a scholar, what have you -- go on Faux Noise? It isn't a news station. It isn't a journalistic enterprise. It's a reich-wing propaganda organ, part of the mighty GOP wurlitzer. I wish reality-based people would just ignore it.
BID
Firstly the Fed would have to craft a law allowing them to regulate the industry solely to override the states, for the Federal Supremacy Clause to kick in.
A decision of the Supreme Court can have the same affect of a federal statute. But generally after a decision a statute follows.
Secondly Conservatives are against the Federal Supremacy Clause as it relates to States right and the "right" to own and keep on you hidden or the most powerful guns available.
Thirdly the States have a valid claim to regulating industries within the borders as part of their Constitutional Police Powers.
Fourthly Congress has the ability to regulate interstate commerce not intrastate (a line that's getting murkier and murkier).
I thought Bill-O was a staunch conservative who was rallying against "government takeover" of health care and whatnot. Now he's talking about the federal government overriding the states in regulating the health insurance industry? Isn't that "socialism" according to the brown shirts?
.
I smell something fishy. They say stuff all the time, and then lie with a straight face, denying they said it. O'Reilly would do it with this, even when there's tape. Cheney repeatedly lied about Al Qaeda and Sadaam, and when called on it, he said, "I never said that."
Democrats aren't even remotely suggesting a level playing field across the nation for insurance companies. The president is talking about a public option but isn't saying that it will compete fairly per the rules of each individual state. Presumably a public option would be exempt from state laws.
What's disingenuous about both Republicans and Democrats in Congress is that they don't really want competition. That's why they aren't intervening in state regulation of insurance companies and health care. They LIKE it that way because it makes a small number of insurance companies powerful. And that power, and therefore their campaign coffer, would get a lot smaller through the destruction of state regulation.
Insurance companies like these regulations too, they wrote most of them. They use them to prevent competition, and they act as barriers to entry for startup insurance companies also acting as competitors.
A level playing field would be all the rules are the same: for the public option, for the insurance companies, across all the states. But none of our politicians actually wants that. And the reason they don't want it, is because their daddy doesn't want it. Their daddy insurance companies.
We will either get no plan or we will get a shitty plan from this Congress because they're all bought and paid for (Kucinich isn't, Paul isn't, Kennedy wasn't - not many are on our side, not nearly enough). So until we get control of our government, away from corporate interests, this whole insurance debate is mental masturbation.
Login or Register to post comments.