Otherwise, why sign the letter with these 5 clowns?
]]>I guess it's a matter of interpretation. I agree this maybe a bit of "mountains out of mole hills".
He's put on a couple of months, at most. Hopefully, a couple of months to smack the "gang of six" around.
]]>Generally, I trust Wyden- but this doesn't look good at all.
]]>http://www.familiesusa.org/issues/uninsured/publications/dying-for-coverage.html
]]>I'm using my savings money to pay for my insurance- soon it will run out.
This situation is untenable and people are dying every single day because of these delays- this should be the message.
]]>http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/07/16/elmendorf-cost/
"In testimony before the House Ways and Means Committee, Elmendorf walked back his comments, saying that in some ways federal spending will increase and in some ways it will decrease. When pressured by the Republicans on the committee, Elmendorf did not directly confirm his accusations."
I agree, though. Single-payer would be best. I'd love to see the CBO's projection for that.
]]>Nelson needs to explain himself and what he wants. Otherwise, this is sabotage, pure and simple.
]]>From Ezra:
"a) Support, as the CBO says you should, the eradication of the tax exclusion that protects employer-based health-care insurance;
b) Support, as Lewin and Commonwealth say you should, a public insurance option that can bargain at Medicare's rates;
c) Support, as the Office of Management and Budget and every health-care wonk in town says you should, one of the various policies floating around to give MedPAC authority to continually reform and modernize Medicare;
d) Support some form of aggressive cost-sharing that would make people extremely angry because it will save money by reducing their access to health-care services;
e) Support comparative effectiveness review that can judge not only the effectiveness but also the cost-effectiveness of various treatments, and give the federal government authority to use that data when deciding reimbursement rates.
I would also like to propose a related rule: any reporters who receive a quote from a politician referencing this CBO score should be required to ask the politician which of these policies -- or which alternative cost-saving policies -- they support."
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/07/rules_for_commenting_on_the_cb.html
To simply use the CBO chairman's words yesterday as gospel, especially since he has walked that statement back, is disingenuous in the very least.
Explain yourselves and why you are entitled to gold-plated coverage, Senators, and we are not!!!
I am so sick of these same characters holding up every single bill that can actually improve our lives.
And Wyden? WTF? When did he become such a d-bag?
]]>On second thought, you may be right. Caution may be wise.
]]>"Yes, we can!!!"
]]>