BTW...Chuck Grassley's main contributions:

I wasn't talking about interfering - i was talking about offering up compromises or negotiations or ways they'd go about it. because that's how the legislative process works - it's a whole truckload of compromises and negotiations. Always has been - regardless of which party has the majority.

Right...the good senator from Georgia has never had a bill make it out of committee (fairly certain).

I overgeneralized. I'll be sure to pull out the social studies book and type out the full process next time. :)

Does that occur? Yes. Is it required? No.

I think this is where the Democrats have made a horrible misstep. They're tossing stuff out there in the hopes that the Republicans will work with them and provide some sort of political cover. The Republicans are playing hardball and letting the Democrats walk out on a political limb that they're not all too interesting in walking. There's a lot of Democrats that aren't terribly interested in voting for this bill in any form at this point.

Of course the rest of that story is that Grassley has received a lifetime total of $422k from insurance companies & HMO's ... less than the amount given to Obama, Dodd, Clinton, Kerry, Rangel, and Bayh ... as well 13 others.
http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/notepad/...lains-mon.html

That's my point though MBBF. You just made it for me.

It occurs all the time. It's the cornerstone of the legislative process no matter which party has the majority. Happened in Republican-controlled Congresses also. It's how you build coalitions and get bills passed that might be more along regional lines, or industry-lines or anything like that.

The fact that in this case the Republicans have failed to engage in this process means that (as I said in my initial post), the Democrats should have said "okay...they're not behaving in a constructive fashion at all" to the American people and passed the bill along straight party-lines and made the Republicans look like the petulant child who said "i'm taking my ball and going home." The fact that they were so disorganized that they couldn't is (yes I agree with you) pathetic, and a huge blunder. A more politically astute triumvirate of Obama/Reid/Pelosi would have ensured BEFORE ANY BILL EVEN MADE IT'S WAY ONTO THE FLOOR that they would be able to pass it, in it's existing form, along straight party lines. Whether by making concessions ahead of time, or by twisting arms. The fact that they didn't is frankly...amateurish.

Never said others were on the take, but it's hard to take a guy seriously when he says he'd vote against his own bill if his party wanted to, all while advocating change in the drug company/academia regulations, while his top contributors are mostly drug companies, insurance, HMOs, etc. Makes you wonder what a tool like that stands for, other than getting elected.

From page 4:


Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm quickly getting the impression that Obma/Reid/Pelosi are all happy to have the majority numbers, but at the same time, none of them want to share the credit for the victory per se. All three individually want to be seen as the primary one pushing the buttons. Pelosi would love to be seen as the Queen Bee, Obama would love to be seen as the great communicator who brought everyone together to pass idealist laws that work for everyone, and Reid, well, I think he wants to be seen as a great leader, but I really think the Democrats would be better off with someone else in the Senate leadership position.

So is it fair to say that Obama has failed to bring "CHANGE" to Washington?

"failed in his largest test to date" would be fair...sure. Although as stated, I'm not sure how much of it is him and how much is Pelosi/Reid...as the titular leader of the party with the majority I suppose you could say that he (or his administration) bears ultimate responsibility.

they could still turn it around, and there have been some more minor changes, but in a large sense...yeah.

Nope. We no longer have a President that believes tax cuts are the solution for every economic problem, standardized tests and budget cuts are the solution for every education problem, torture and warrantless wiretapping is the solution for every intelligence problem and invasion is the solution for every non-proliferation (real or imagined) problem.

Oh, and that Harriet Miers would be a good Supreme Court Justice.

Seriously, what were you expecting me to say?

:D

Seriously, though, we can pick out specific examples and counter-examples until our fingers fall off, but here's the crux of the matter for me: George W. Bush practiced a "simplest solution, fastest" approach to governance, which plays well in electoral politics but generally fails to get anything substantial done (or at least anything intended done). Obama's the exact opposite, taking a nuanced and intellectual approach to the sophisticated problems presented to him, and asking his staff to do the same. Although this approach is traditionally not electorally successful in America, it's the approach I prefer, so I hold out hope.

/cue "bleeding heart liberal pussy" posts

If you have to carry around an assault rifle in a nice part of Phoenix to protect yourself, you're a raging pussy. I mean petite women can get by with a little pepper spray and this guy needs an assault rifle to feel safe. I would just feel like such an embarassment having to carry something around like that for protection.

And lets drop the tyranny from government. This isn't the 1700's. Having a townhall on health care isn't tyranny. And if it was, some lone dipshit with a gun isn't stopping anything.

I thought he meant something a little more than change from the last president. That was definitely the rhetoric. I mean, that's how he beat Clinton, right?

Reading comprehension once again. I said they have access to quality health care. Whether or not they choose to pay for it is another issue.

I haven't seen any plans yet, so I'm not sure what the RNC is rejecting. But, based on the terms I've heard so far, I don't see a big issue with the plan. My big concern is giving more options to people while controlling costs. If this does that, I don't give a rat's behind what the RNC says.

It's the liberal mantra once again: If you can't fix it for everyone, don't even try! Chipping away at uninsured, giving more options to people without good options and starting the ball on lowering cost is a solid first step.

If people keep your logic, nothing will get passed and we'll be in the same spot we are now in the next election.

2/3rds of adults? I think the percentage has to be in the high 20s as there are only 6 states above 30%

Obesity and Overweight for Professionals: Data and Statistics: U.S. Obesity Trends | DNPAO | CDC

BTW- watching that animated map is scary. It's only taken 20 eyars and we've doubled our obesity rate. Damn we're fat

SI

So true :deadhorse:

(Just pretend the horse is a donkey...)

SI

Commentary: Frightening future if health reform fails - CNN.com

Milliman Inc., an employee benefits consulting firm, publishes annually its Milliman Medical Index on the total health spending by or for a typical American family of four with private health insurance. The index totals the family's out-of-pocket spending for health care plus the contribution employers and employees make to that family's job-related health insurance coverage.



The Milliman Medical Index stood at $8,414 in 2001. It had risen to $16,700 by 2009. It is likely to rise to $18,000 by next year. That is more than a doubling of costs in the span of a decade!

Sorry about that. 8 of 10 adult Americans are overweight, while only 27% are obese. I had the overweight numbers by accident.

Herein lies the problem. The writer presents that costs will continue to go up if nothing is done. He doesn't present one shread of evidence from ANY of the multiple bills that demonstrates how that will improve under the plan. He also does not take into account the increased taxes on health benefits and/or payroll that will occur in the middle class with the increase in spending if any of the bills do pass. So while the rise of benefit costs may come to a halt, the actual amount that those middle class people spend may continue to rise to fund the health care for those who can't afford it. It's a very short-sighted and narrow analysis of the situation. You have to consider everything involved. He didn't do that.

to be fair - he may have considered them they just may not be in this article. i find it hard to believe that an academic economist would fail to consider those factors.

valid point that they weren't presented though.

was linking it more so people could see where the quote came from...wasn't necessarily endorsing the article.

Damn, that's crazy. 8 in 10! Still paints an ugly picture

SI

Misleading though in a way. I mean we are a fat country, but the weight is actually a crappy way to judge. Should be done by body fat %.

If you look at the current charts, just about everyone falls under the fat category. That includes every NBA player out there when in fact they are probably the healthiest people on the planet.

You know (and I started thinking this about Sunday night when I was trying to find a silver lining)- and I could be very wrong on this but I'm starting to feel a little better over the past 24-36 hours.

Could this whole "putting the public option on the back burner" rumor over the weekend be a way to bring the actual health care issues back to the debate rather than stupid stuff like "death panels" and gun toting, mouth breathing astroturfers? People have now started talking about public option vs non public option as a side story to the Democratic infighting.

Now, it's way too early to say this is what was going on but could this have been a sneaky way to get the real health care debate back to the forefront and steal the headlines from the doofus squad?

SI

FWIW CNN is fuckin' unwatchable.

The Daily Show just mentioned this again (Just Sayin') ;)

SI

I don't know. Obama could sign a resolution congratulating a sports team on their accomplishments and there would be people screaming about socialism, tyranny, and other words they don't know what they really mean.

I really think it comes down to one of two things:

1) The President testing public opinion.
2) A leak from a disgruntled staffer.

I tend to lead toward #1, as it seems similar to the earlier issue with the middle class tax increase that was later disavowed.

What the...?

Yeah thats what my comment was based upon. It truly is unbearable and honestly, I have no idea wtf theyre trying to accomplish, other than to totally sully their reputation.

POW,

R Jim Demint says on CNBC today that the GOP does not need to compromise and any gov't plan, co-op or not, will not get a 'real' Republicans support.

"Im quickly beginning to think that..." The GOP are going to begin to 'vastly' look like a party unwilling to compromise for the good of the USA and this could swing the pendulum the other way.

Their unwillingness to compromise and work together to craft a bill on this could really hurt them with independents and centrist voters (cue Jon saying "YOU CAN KEEP THOSE VOTERS WE DON'T WANT THEIR VOTES IF IT INVOLVES ANY COMPROMISE. THEY'RE NOT PART OF THE REAL GOP ANYWAYS"), and while I can see it riling up their base in a positive way it's not like there's some magical +30% that they get if they get their current base massively energized. The GOP base is going to continue to turn out and vote for them whether there's compromise and working-together on this or not, so the fact that they're pulling this move...from a "macro" political standpoint...is very curious. It doesn't help them win any voters in the future.

Then again I'm probably giving the American people too much credit in saying that this will be remembered for anything more than another month after it's all over.

This doesn't hurt the Republicans one iota. The Republicans have already got their medicine in the form of a large majority in both houses of Congress for the Democrats. Nothing is expected of a party that holds no power. Much is expected of a party that holds a large majority in both houses and holds the White House. Any attempt to spin this as a blow to the Republicans holds little weight. The Democrats are the ones that have to make something happen if they expect their majority to continue over a longer period of time. The American people handed the Democrats the power to do what they feel is right. Those same voters are a fickle bunch and will swing in a hurry if the Democrats don't use that power to make something happen.

I love how, when it looks like he might succeed, Obama is a radial socialist who's far to the left of a center-right nation, but when he struggles he's unable to deliver the change Americans demand.

like i said - i'm probably giving the vast swath of the electorate too much intellectual credit, but i can see how this could be used to further hammer home the "the GOP doesn't care about GROUP X" type messages.

cue hypothetical ad in battleground state/district:

(images of smiling happy members of GROUP X - hispanics, laid off workers, seniors, whoever)

"President Obama's healthcare proposal would have resulted in X thousand more GROUP X having affordable, easy healthcare. And healthcare would have been at a lower cost to you, thanks to the public option."

(cue images of sick kids and old people dying in bad conditions)

"CONGRESSMAN Y voted against Obama's bill, and said this (INSERT SOUNDBITE)."

or

"CANDIDATE Y said they agreed with FIGURE Z about the public option. FIGURE Z said (INSERT SOUNDBITE)."

etc.

I love it when people mischaracterize the opinions of a few nutjobs (i.e. "radical socialist") as the opinion of an entire movement or party. Very few play that card, though you'd like people to believe otherwise, but there are a lot of swing voters both independent and conservative who bought into the 'change' mantra and do expect some form of change from the status quo.

Followed by a Republican ad noting that the Democrats didn't need any Republican votes to save all those innocent lives, yet they chose to play politics instead of vote for the supposedly helpful reform. The onus is not on the Republicans in any way to make things happen.

I don't get why Republicans are against the co-op model. Does some big company have to make a massive profit for them to like an idea? Doesn't seem to be about health care but about Obama.

The internent would work a lot better for you if there wasn't a search function.


vs.


But at least you acknowledged that you're a nutjob.

Hint: They aren't interested in any healthcare bill if it means a win for Obama. Kyl and Grassley basically said as much yesterday.

See, now you've hit the nail on the head.

There's a BIG difference between calling a person a radical socialist and calling two of his policies socialist in nature. But don't let that get in the way of you avoiding the topic at hand. It's what you do and you do it well.

I think I heard this on CNN this morning with Gupta but there is talk of reducing the age for Medicare to 55. I think this would be a real nice solution. I really think that 55-65 age group has the most trouble getting insurance and dealing with the costs. It's an age where it can become tougher to get and keep a job. It's also an age where it's near impossible to pay for your own health insurance (if you can get it).

I know that our politicians are bought and paid for so any kind of real reform is probably not going to happen. Not to mention those arguing against their own self preservation. But I'd settle for something that helps older Americans get good health coverage.

While Obama's numbers are sinking, so are the GOP's as a whole, so I don't think you can, with certainty, make the argument that this health care debate is really helping them either. If the Republican side would present some alternatives, rather than just blanketly disagreeing with whatever Obama and the Dems present, I think they have a great opportunity to gain some traction with swing voters. As it is right now, their leaders have made it pretty clear that seeing Obama take one on the chin is their current priority and they are hoping to gain support by simply being the opposing party.

That strategy works relatively often (although usually after the other party has been in power for a longer period of time), but I think the GOP is probably choosing a bad time to use it because the economy is in such bad condition. Rather than present any new ideas, they seem to be (for lack of better terms) burning the clock, but that could pretty easily backfire for them if/when the economy rebounds (on its own or with the aid of gov't programs). If/when the economy improves, the Dems and Obama will, at least, have some "accomplishments" to point to (deservedly or not).

That would at least be somewhat of a better option. At least in that case you're working with an existing system rather than creating a whole new level of bureacracy and large costs to set up those new levels that may not even work.

I actually think that is a very good idea. If they scaled it back a few "age" years at a time, it likely would not put too much stress on the current system and would be a little easier to implement.

It's a semi-socialist country. I'm baffled that so many people can't figure out what this word actually means.

Do we start picketing new roads being built as it's a "socialist policy"?

but is it going to provide any cost savings or would it just accelerate the Medicare-crisis that we're going to face?

It would make Reagan the most socialist President in the last 50 years.

Here we go again.

YOU, MBBF, stated a few pages back that the insinuation was that the Dems were cancelling town halls under a faux-fear of threat and violence. Thus you insinuated that that wasnt the truth. Since then, death threats have been rampant and people have been showing up to these events with weapons. You generalized for your own gain and were patently wrong. You were shown to be wrong and instead of saying, "you know what? I was wrong," so that you could salvage a sliver of credibility you threw up your 'strawman' card and then moved on to other spin of the day.

Please go back and re-address your comment about the canceling of town halls in the face of faux threat.

There were a lot of Medicare reforms in the health care bill but Republicans didn't want to cut back on costs associated with it.

Yeah, it really is time to go hand every obstructionist like Grassley a ball so they can go play in a corner while the adults negotiate a real bill.

SI

Here's where I disagree with your point. The economy is not as bad in the Heartland, where the major conservative voting base is located. There are houses being sold in the midwest for the same price they bought them for 4-5 years ago. Granted, it's no market gain, but it's certainly not a loss. The unemployment rates are lower than the national average.

Contrast this to the coastal cities where Democrat and independent voting blocks are large. They're getting hammered with large unemployment rates and property value losses of 50% or more in some cases. If that continues through summer/fall 2010, there's going to be a lot of questioning of 'what have you done for me lately?'. You can only blame Bush for so long.

Adding millions more to Medicare without tackling costs is a terrible idea, IMO. The big problem is cost containment, not extending coverage. Without serious new tax increases, in the next couple of decades Medicare faces two options, significantly reduce the growth of payouts to Pharma, hospitals, manufacturers and providers or significantly reduce coverage. We're already not focusing on tat reality clearly enough.

But that's part of the problem. It's easy to negotiate with the Republicans and then point the finger when said negotiations falter. It's much tougher to point the finger when you turn to factions of your own party to negotiate out a bill and find that they're not willing to play ball either.

Well, yeah- that poll really hasn't moved. It's only gone 3% and that's with all the stupid going on. You get Obama out there with a clear message and a bill that people can get behind and suddenly that number goes up. A move from 46/44 to 43/47 isn't going to change a lot of Congressional votes.

SI

You can't trust the change from the last poll because the changed the wording of the question. From Washington Monthly:


There's still a lot of good info in the poll, but the big "news" of declining support really can't be measured when the question changes.

You going to be the one to assist Mr. Obama in trying to sell a significant tax increase? I'm not even sure that the rich would be able to cover that tab. We're all perfectly aware of the situation at hand regarding costs. The problem is that it's a good idea to fund those things until the government comes to ask you for a check to cover it yourself. And you've got a president who is strapped down with a promise to not raise taxes for the bottom 95%.

Agreed. I just don't get the universal acceptance of lowering the Medicare age. Want to see the single largest contributor to the national debt over the next 50 years?

I guess this is why people are working so hard to get something done here. If it's already in place, it's harder to remove the plan.

SI

It's pretty equal. Red states haven't been hit as hard because they were not real prosperous before the election.

Here's a chart that really doesn't show me any trends between Red & Blue states. Seems a mix of who's being hurt.

State Unemployment, an Interactive Guide - Real Time Economics - WSJ

We may all be aware of the situation, but hardly anybody wants to do anything to contain costs. Medicare, as it stands right now, is unsustainable over the next two or three decades. What's the plan to control costs?

I disagree. Now maybe these couple of months are a side story. But the big picture of health care reform will be much more significant.

However, if he gets it done, it's a big paragraph looking back just as Medicare is big when you talk about LBJ. Similarly, if he doesn't get it done- it becomes a footnote but it does dog his presidency and substantially lessens what he can do moving forward in both an influence and electoral sense- think Clinton and the 1994 Congressional elections.

SI

so essentially the majority of the electorate polled here is stupid?

If we're going to start denying healthcare to anyone I say we start with the percentage who apparently are unable to comprehend that shit stinks. (tongue-in-cheek).

Nice roundup - thanks Steve.

You don't want to talk to me about that. I'm the heartless bastard that would start making hard decisions in the current system to the point where people would finally bitch enough to make realistic reform a possibility. I agree that the current system has some flaws. But we're focusing on increasing coverage, not decreasing overall costs. When you see health care company stocks skyrocket after the public option is removed from the playing field, it's not hard to figure out who would win out. Fix the current issues before you propose new messes.

Agreed. This isn't nearly as much about Obama as it is about what could happen in the 2010 elections.

And my point is that increasing coverage is relatively easy to do, but containing costs is the more important and difficult problem.

edit: And without containing costs, expanding coverage only adds to the problem.

Isn't it your party who is running ads about how the government wants to ration health care and cut Medicare to scare old people? Seems hypocritical to talk about decreasing costs when actual proposals to do so have been met with massive resistance on the right side of the aisle.

increasing coverage is one part of decreasing overall costs (economies of scale, better bargining power, etc).

And I agree with you. Perhaps your hang-up is my comment regarding Medicare. I think it's a better option than what is being proposed, but it's still a lousy option and I think that's the point you're making.

You're a very naive individual if you believe that will be the result. It's all about more profits. Pure and simple.

Eh, I'd say stupid.

As I've heard numerous commentators say on many programs "don't you think if there were death panels out there in the bill to try to kill old people the media members who are old, or those of us with parents, would be out there in front leading the charge against it?"

It's really pretty simple when it comes to some of the more "radical" claims - does it past the "common sense" test? And the mainstream media is starting to do a better job now of highlighting when these crazy claims don't.

profits for who? the government isn't going to make a profit on it.

as you said in your last post - with the public option removed, drug company stocks went WAYYYY up. That indicates that drug companies fear the public option because their profits would be LOWER if/when that comes about.

LOL, which party is mine? I'm not running any ads and I certainly don't agree with any of those assertions.

MBBF Credibility Measure:

12 / 100

Reason for the drop in score, is that he called another individual naive eventhough DT's statement is a guess as to the future thus MBBF is saying he knows the future and the outcome. This is exacerbated negatively by the fact that MBBF has almost exclusively been wrong since the campaign season and events thereafter even in the face of empirical data.

And the above comment about "which party is mine?" may not be topped in ridiculousness for post of the day.

Actually, that means that the investors fear the public option for those companies. Drug companies have little say in what the investors do.

Sure, the government doesn't run a profit. But there are a lot of hands on the various pieces of those payouts/coverage. There's still a ton of money to be had. It just changes the method to get ahold of that money. Even in a public option, the private sector plays a major part in it. And we're not even factoring in the increased tag that the large majority of Americans would have to pay to fund it.

Oh you don't have a party. Just post the daily talking points for one every morning by pure coincidence. The health care proposal you've been railing against has massive reforms for Medicare in it.

And my crack isn't about 2A either. I believe in it and wish I was allowed to own a handgun in my city.

Living here though, you hear on the news all the time about pointless deaths from gang shootings. These gangs literally drive through neighborhoods and just fire away to scare residents and rival gangs. They don't care if they hit someone innocent. They also never seem to actually get in physical fights with one another. It all has to be settled driving by in a car with a gun.

I guess I always just looked at it as a pussy way of fighting. Firing a gun at someone and driving away seems like a cowardly way to fight. Stepping up in front of someones face with nothing but your fists seems like a more honorable way.

So my gripe isn't with guns, it's with the glorification of them. I don't consider someone who carries a gun around to be tough. I consider the guy who can flatten someone with their fists to be tough. Brock Lesnar = tough, skinnny gangbanger with gun = pussy.

:lol: :lol: :lol:
Really? You're really going to try to spin that?
The investors are better informed than you or I. Particularly to move the needle so much on companies with such large market caps - we're talking very large sums of money. If the sophisticated investors fear the public option for those companies then you can be sure the companies do as well, because that much $$ doesn't move until multiple people have talked to multiple CFO's and CEO's.


valid, if obvious point.


completely irrelevent to the discussion we were having, but way to throw it in there.

So if I'm for a particular policy and a party favors my stance, that means I'm part of that party? Interesting take. I'll play your game.

I'm against:

Current health care bill
Increased spending
Anything using 'global warming' as a basis

I'm for:

Pro-choice
Legalization of drugs
Pro-gay marriage
Stem-cell research

With those stances, I'm more likely to get invited to run as a Democrat than a Republican. But I'd probably not be accepted by either in the end.

62% (New NBC Poll as quoted on CNBC) of Congressional Republicans ALSO are getting a disapproval on how theyre handling healthcare reform. Obama's numbers arent good either but it, AGAIN, lets all know that MBBF is wrong in what he says about how this is effecting all involved.

Full poll:

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archi...9/2036015.aspx

I don't disagree with your first point. Just clarifying that the company technically does not make that money move.

It's not irrelevant. It's actually very important. I'm going to be footing the bill for other people under that system. I'm not very happy about it.

you already do.

you're already footing the bill for countless government programs. If the cost savings accomplished by doing this keep your bill the same or simply result in a reallocation of where the money collected from you is going, what's the problem?

lol i was quick but not quick enough.

sometimes i think if people don't want to live in a shared society we should just cut off their access to police/fire department/schools/public roads/etc and just let them live as hermits off in the woods

That poll wasn't about death panels, it was about the public option in general.

It's interesting to see the decreasing support. Do you think Democrats can change people's minds by calling them stupid? Good luck with that. It's stilll why I think Dems haven't even been more successful, and I especially think it cost them the election in '04. "We smarter than you, you're morons, hey come vote with us!".

There's obviously a big difference between things like fire, police, roads, etc. and what we're discussing here. I realize I'm already footing the bill for some uninsured. I know exactly where it's going, probably far more than most people. The abuse of that setup is frightening.

The largest majorities since the Great Society isn't enough for you?

pretty sure he meant he was familiar with where the $$ was going...not the country

What's the logic there - if you foot the bill for one thing you have to want to foot it for anything else that anyone comes up with?

A serious question: why? In the nineteenth century most areas had private fire companies, but they were phased out in favor of a public setup. There are a number of private security firms that theoretically could take over all policing. Roads have privatized all over the country under toll models. Other than we're used to largely public roads, fire/police protection, what's the difference?

you forgot to add in your example "total cost TO TAXPAYERS"

What is the difference? I mean doesn't the police and health care have a lot in common? Both essentially are there to protect you. Don't see why one is treated so differently than the other. You do appear to be against socialism, so clearly you must feel that private law enforcement companies being paid on a retainer by citizens is a more ample solution.

Correct.

Geez, anyone can come up with one fictional anecdotal example to support their point.

You're making a lot of assumptions here.

-The guy is going to be able to see a public option doctor immediately for a "cough"? I can't even get into a private doctor that fast.
-What's his income level? If he's not poor and his premiums have to subdizide the poor for this thing to be "self-sufficient", how do you know he's only paying $30?
-Is he using the public option because his company dropped health care? Is he paying more out-of-pocket than he did previously?
-Will nobody in the U.S. ever put off going to the doctor anymore?

In an ideal situation, I would be for private law enforcement. I think my personal interests would be better served. But unlike Mr. Obama, I'm also fully aware that my ideal situation would never be realized. There's far too many opportunities for corruption that arise. It's not an option.

sounds like you're talking about private healthcare

Holy Smokes

10:38am on CNBC Mark Haines eviscerated a bill opponent and bear in mind that I think Haines isn't a big fan of the reform bills.

He got the guy to admit that even with reform people with money will be able to afford whatever care they want because rationing already occurs by the bureaucrats at the insurance companies and that the opponent basically is making an argument that is easy...if you have money.

A brutal and awesome segment that, sadly, very few people saw :(

How many times do I need to say it? I'm not crazy about the current setup, but the alternative being provided does not give a better option to the status quo.