Quote:

---

WASHINGTON — Democratic senators say they have a tentative deal to drop a government-run insurance option from health care legislation. No further details were immediately available.
But liberals and moderates have been discussing an alternative, including a private insurance arrangement to be supervised by the federal agency that oversees the system through which lawmakers purchase coverage. Additionally, talks centered on opening up Medicare to uninsured Americans beginning at age 55, a significant expansion of the large government health care program that currently serves the over-65 population.
Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa told reporters he didn't like the agreement but would support it to the hilt in an attempt to pass health care legislation.
THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.
WASHINGTON (AP) — Abortion opponents failed to inject tougher restrictions into sweeping Senate health care legislation Tuesday, and Democratic leaders labored to make sure fallout from the controversy wouldn't hinder the drive to pass President Barack Obama's top domestic priority.
The 54-45 vote over abortion took place as Democrats, in daylong private talks in the Capitol, appeared ready to scuttle plans for a government-run insurance option that liberals have long sought.
A potential alternative was taking shape, several officials said, including a private insurance arrangement to be supervised by the federal agency that oversees the system through which lawmakers purchase coverage. Additionally, Medicare would be opened up to uninsured Americans beginning at age 55, a significant expansion of the large government health care program that currently serves the over-65 population.
Taken together, the day's developments underscored the complexity that confronts the administration and Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., as they seek the 60 votes needed to overcome Republican opposition and pass a bill by Christmas.
Yet another controversy quickly followed, when Sen. Byron Dorgan., D-N.D, proposed legalizing the importation of prescription drugs from Canada and several other countries as a way of holding down consumer costs. The idea enjoys widespread support but is opposed by the pharmaceutical industry, which has worked closely with the administration on health care and has spent millions of dollars on television advertisements in support of legislation.
The Food and Drug Administration issued a letter saying it would be "logistically challenging" to assure the safety of imported drugs, raising concerns without stating outright opposition.
Reid — the chief architect of the health care bill as well as an abortion opponent — played a prominent role in the debate over attempts by conservatives to toughen restrictions in the Senate measure. "No one should use the health care bill to expand or restrict abortion," he said, arguing that abortion foes were attempting to do just that. "And no one should use the issue of abortion to rob millions of the opportunity to get good health care."
The current legislation would ban the use of federal funds to pay for abortion services under insurance plans expected to be offered in a new health care system, except in cases of rape, incest or when the life of the mother was in jeopardy.
Individuals who receive federal subsidies to purchase insurance under the plans would be permitted to use personal funds to pay for abortion services — the point on which the two sides in the dispute part company.
"Segregation of funds is an accounting gimmick," said Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., the chief Democratic supporter of tightened restrictions. "The reality is federal funds would help buy coverage that includes abortion."
Abortion rights supporters, Senate Democratic women most prominently, countered heatedly.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said abortion opponents were driven by ideology, and Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., called the proposed changes "a very far-reaching intrusion into the lives of women."
The amendment that Nelson, Sen. Robert Casey, D-Pa, Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and numerous Republicans proposed would also have barred insurance plans from covering abortions except in the three categories if any of their policyholders received federal subsidies. It also would have required insurance companies that offer no-abortion plans to make available a policy that offers such services.
In all, 50 Democrats, two Republicans and two independents voted to kill the abortion proposal. Thirty-eight Republicans and seven Democrats favored it.
It was not clear whether the vote would mark the end of efforts by abortion opponents to change the health care bill before any final compromise talks with the House.
Nor was it clear how Nelson would respond to the defeat. He told reporters the result "makes it harder to be supportive" of the final legislation. But he wouldn't flatly rule out his support, adding, "We'll have to see if they can make it easier."
Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the second-ranking Democrat, told reporters, "Now we hope that we can work with him to get a provision in this bill that he can accept."
Barring a change of heart by one of the Senate's Republicans, Democrats cannot afford any defections if they are to pass their bill. Nelson has also been one of the most outspoken Democrats in opposition to a government insurance option and was involved in the closed-door talks taking place in recent days.
The Nebraska Democrat already has won a major concession from Reid, who agreed earlier that the legislation would allow the insurance industry to retain its exemption from antitrust laws. Several Democrats favor ending the exemption — the Houses-passed version of the bill does so — and would presumably be emboldened to try to remove it if Nelson decides to oppose the bill.
Abandonment of a government-run insurance option would mark a significant defeat for Senate liberals, who have long demanded its inclusion in the legislation as a way to force private insurers to hold down costs. It also would set up a final struggle with the House, which passed a health care bill earlier this year that gives millions of consumers the option of buying government-run coverage.
In place of the public insurance option that Reid inserted into the bill earlier, Democrats are considering a plan for the Office of Personnel Management to oversee private insurance, much as it does for federal employees and lawmakers.
Details were sketchy, but it appeared to win support from moderates as well as a positive response from Sen. Joe Lieberman, the Connecticut independent who has vowed to oppose any government-run health care plan.
There were few details available of the proposed Medicare expansion, which would open the program to the uninsured beginning at age 55.
An attempt by liberals to expand Medicaid drew objections from Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., and other Democratic moderates, and seemed unlikely to survive. Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, whom Democrats are courting to support the bill, also criticized the idea.
In general, the legislation is designed to expand insurance coverage to millions who lack it, while banning insurance industry practices such as denying coverage on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions and reining in the relentless growth of medical costs in general.
Most Americans would be required to carry insurance for the first time, and face penalties if they refused. At the same time, the bill includes hundreds of billions of dollars in subsidies to help defray the cost of coverage for lower and middle income families.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Well, that was quick, so the 10 folk on the commitee have indeed agreed to trade the Public Option for extending Medicare to folks 55 to 64. Well, fuck it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I dub myself a conservative

---

Quote:

---

Supporting an individual mandate, Obama said, "I've been persuaded that there are enough young, uninsured people who are cheap to cover, but are opting out. To make sure that those folks are part of the overall pool is the best way to make sure that all of our premiums go down." ~ wikpedia

---

Quote:

---

Young adults (18-to-24 years old) remained the least likely of any age group to have health insurance in 2001. Nearly 72 percent of this age group had coverage.

---

Quote:

---

More than two-thirds (67.4 percent) of full-year un-insured young adults had no ambulatory doctor visits in 2006.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:
As if we didn't already know. The whole point is to catch 'em young for the enslavement process. Let's see how much money we can make these little bastards owe the system, so we can put them in corporate cubicles and make them work their whole lives to pay it off. Oh, let's raise taxes too, and have ourselves a nice war so we can throw the REALLY poor ones into a meatgrinder.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:
And yes, of COURSE it's an insurance-company giveaway without the public option, OR with the "public options" proposed by the right and the damned blue dogs. Anyone with half a brain knows that.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SergeantX:
Yet another controversy quickly followed, when Sen. Byron Dorgan., D-N.D, proposed legalizing the importation of prescription drugs from Canada and several other countries as a way of holding down consumer costs. The idea enjoys widespread support but is opposed by the pharmaceutical industry, which has worked closely with the administration on health care and has spent millions of dollars on television advertisements in support of legislation.
The Food and Drug Administration issued a letter saying it would be "logistically challenging" to assure the safety of imported drugs, raising concerns without stating outright opposition.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
It feels better than watching the charade.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:
I agree with Cavalier...I've stopped watching entirely lately. It's such a back-and-forth ping-pong game, why bother? What will be, will be in the end.

And yes, of COURSE it's an insurance-company giveaway without the public option, OR with the "public options" proposed by the right and the damned blue dogs. Anyone with half a brain knows that.

What frustrates me is that, despite all the fuss about public option or no public option, NOBODY talks about the individual mandate and how without a public option alongside it, it's nothing but a giveaway to the insurance companies. Repubs say "let people buy across state lines"...how does that help if the few ins. co.s around already have a lock nationwide??

I don't even want to think about it, it's all a fucking joke.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
The "let people buy across state lines" bit is a ruse to hamstring any kind of regulation...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SergeantX:
DT,

The plan is thus:

Socialized medicine won't sell, whether we call it 'public option' or 'state-run healthcare'.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
... the American people are far more likely to accept a private shafting than a public service.

---

Quote:

---

And for the "poor." They have ways to reduce their rates for buying into a nationwide plan. "Buying in." What don't they get about P-O-O-R?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
Pretty much everyone posting in this thread seems to want the government running anything from a good-sized chunk to pretty much all health-care, and having lots of regulatory control over the rest.

Disconnect?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
Okay.

Pretty much everyone posting in this thread seems to hate or distrust the government - or at least think they aren't very efficient, and are in bed with business to the benefit of both, and not the people.

Yet...

Pretty much everyone posting in this thread seems to want the government running anything from a good-sized chunk to pretty much all health-care, and having lots of regulatory control over the rest.

Disconnect?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:
No disconnect; Medicare WORKS.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:
Mmm... That's not quite.

I used to be for a government health care, but I'm fairly well convinced at this point that in America it wouldn't work because our system is just so goddamn screwed up. We can't trust our government at all, it's either incompetent, corrupt, or actively malicious.

But in the sense of your example with medicare and medicare, no, it wouldn't be the entire Federal budget, because not everyone needs healthcare every day of the year. You're talking about the 13% of the population that probably needs health care the most, which is why you're seeing that 1:1 ratio.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SergeantX:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Abortion opponents failed to inject tougher restrictions into sweeping Senate health care legislation Tuesday, and Democratic leaders labored to make sure fallout from the controversy wouldn't hinder the drive to pass President Barack Obama's top domestic priority.
The 54-45 vote over abortion took place as Democrats, in daylong private talks in the Capitol, appeared ready to scuttle plans for a government-run insurance option that liberals have long sought.

---

Quote:

---

"It seems to me from my experience in North Carolina, Georgia, Tennessee, and Texas, that while the colored Negroes have great respect for white doctors, they can get closer to their own members and more or less lay their cards on the table. They do not do this with the white people, and if we can train the Negro doctor at the clinic, he can go among them with enthusiasm and with knowledge, which, I believe, will have far-reaching results. His work, in my opinion, should be entirely with the Negro profession and the nurses, hospital, social workers, as well as the County's white doctors. His success will depend upon his personality and his training by us. The minister's work is also important, and also he should be trained, perhaps by the Federation, as to our ideals and the goal that we hope to reach. We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population , and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs."
—Margaret Sanger (1883-1966), founder of Planned Parenthood and editor of The Birth Control Review from 1917 to 1938, letter to Clarence J. Gamble, M.D., Planned Parenthood ® Federation of America, "Margaret Sanger - Sanger and Eugenics", 1939
www.plannedparenthood.org/about/thisispp/sanger.html

"Eugenics is the science of improving hereditary qualities by socially controlling human reproduction. In 1927, the eugenics movement reached the height of its popularity when the U.S. Supreme Court, in Buck v. Bell, held that it was constitutional to involuntarily sterilize the developmentally disabled, the insane, or the uncontrollably epileptic. Oliver Wendell Holmes, supported by Louis Brandeis and six other justices, wrote the opinion."
—Planned Parenthood ® Federation of America, "Margaret Sanger - Sanger and Eugenics"
www.plannedparenthood.org/about/thisispp/sanger.html

"The most stunning statistic, however, is that the total number of deaths caused by conventional medicine is an astounding 783,936 per year. It is now evident that the American medical system is the leading cause of death and injury in the US. Using Leape's 1997 medical and drug error rate would add another 216,000 deaths, for a total of 999,936 deaths annually. Our estimated 10-year total of 7.8 million iatrogenic* deaths is more than all the casualties from all the wars fought by the US throughout its entire history. Our considerably higher figure is equivalent to six jumbo jets are falling out of the sky each day."
—Gary Null, PhD; Carolyn Dean MD, ND; Martin Feldman, MD; Debora Rasio, MD; Dorothy Smith, PhD, "Death by Medicine", March 2004 (plus 1-Million annual aborticides in USA)
www.lef.org/magazine/mag2004/mar2004_awsi_death_01.htm

---

Quote:

---

You're talking about the 13% of the population that probably needs health care the most

---

Quote:

---

So if everyone was covered under Medicare, would it cost the entire Federal budget every year?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:

You could probably calculate a decent estimate from a similar graph to the one above (there would be a much smaller, decaying exponential at the other end of the graph for health costs in infanthood).

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by piratenews:
Congressman Ron Paul MD mentioned "medical saving accounts" that are tax-free, but of course are illegal right now. That's his "public option", though if the sheeple were smart enough to elect him president he'd have already banned the IRS and ended all fed taxes (income tax, national sales tax), and eliminated the federal debt by nationalizing the private "Federal" Reserve Bank.

---

Quote:

---

Obviously, most people have less to zero need for health care early on, one would think that (if we as a society are healthier now

---

Quote:

---

"Currently, about 12% of the population is 65 years or older. By the year 2030, that figure is expected to reach 21%. The fastest growing age group is the population aged 80 and over -- the very segment of the population that tends to require expensive and intensive medical care. The projected demands from a growing elderly population on a health care system that is already taxed to the breaking point, together with continual advances and availability of expensive life-extending technology, have led to troubling questions about society's ability to meet future health care demands, and to the increased tolerance of proposals for rationing."

---

Quote:

---

So... my big idea... based on this "balance" I'd like to propose that we have a Gov run HSA program for everyone starting from birth. Everyone regardless of any extenuating circumstance gets $x deposited into their own HSA every month. Stay healthy and your account grows. Adjust deposits annually for inflation - the Gov can use the extra interest to cover more expensive care.
You pick the care you want - your Dr, or a less expensive National Health Care system.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:
Yes, I love how much power people give to "if Ron Paul..." To me it's a delusion; he's become the recipient ...

---