Fox and other media conservatives still in denial about cost and popularity of public option
Fox News personalities and other conservative media figures have recently claimed or suggested either that a public health insurance option is unpopular among the American public, that it is costly, or both. But they ignored that numerous major public opinion polls contradict their claims; that both the House and Senate health care reform bills require the public plan to be self-sustaining; that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) concluded that a public option did "not have a substantial effect on the cost" of the Senate health committee bill; and that numerous experts agree that a public plan is important to help control the cost of health care.
Conservative media figures falsely suggest public option is unpopular, costly
Clyne: Public option is "wildly expensive and unpopular with doctors and the general public." In an October 13 New York Post op-ed, former Bush speechwriter Meghan Clyne wrote that "the 'public option' is wildly expensive and unpopular with doctors and the general public. So the Baucus bill -- which for now seems like the White House's favorite version of reform -- ditches it." Clyne provided no evidence to support these claims. [New York Post, 10/13/09]
O'Reilly, Rove mock notion that people want public option included in reform. After Bill O'Reilly aired a clip of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi stating that the American people "like universal quality health insurance and reform if it has a public option," O'Reilly stated, "[T]hat's not what the polls show," and, "I haven't seen one tea party demanding that the government run" health care." Fox News contributor Karl Rove said that "[b]y a better than two-to-one margin, people want to get their health insurance from a private company as opposed to the government. Where she comes up with that people are out there protesting in the streets and going, please ... I want the post office to be in charge of health care." [Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, 10/13/09]
Dobbs: "[T]here is the matter as to whether or not the money will be there" for public option. CNN correspondent Ed Henry stated that congressional Democrats are "going to have to probably face reality that the votes are probably not there for a public option, and it's likely that a final bill is going to have to have something less aggressive." Without providing evidence supporting his concern, CNN host Lou Dobbs stated, "And also there is the matter as to whether or not the money will be there as well." [CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight, 10/13/09]
Recent polls find continued support for public option
CBS News: 62 percent favor government offering "a government administered health insurance plan." When respondents were asked in an October 5-8 CBS News poll whether they would "favor or oppose the government offering everyone a government administered health insurance plan -- something like the Medicare coverage that people 65 and older get -- that would compete with private health insurance plans," 62 percent said they would support the plan.
Ipsos/McClatchy: 53 percent said "public health insurance plan" is necessary to ensure access to health care. In an October 1-5 Ipsos/McClatchy poll, 53 percent of respondents said that the statement, "It is necessary to create a public health insurance plan to make sure that all Americans have access to quality healthcare" was "closest to your opinion," rather than the statement that "[a]ccess to quality healthcare for all Americans can be achieved without having to create a public health insurance plan."
Rasmussen Reports: 46 percent favor creation of "government-sponsored non-profit health insurance option." When respondents were asked in an October 2-3 Rasmussen poll whether they would "favor or oppose the creation of a government-sponsored non-profit health insurance option that people could choose instead of a private health insurance plan," 46 percent said they would favor the plan, and 37 percent were opposed.
Quinnipiac University: 61 percent support option of "government health insurance plan." When asked in a September 29-October 5 Quinnipiac University poll, "Do you support or oppose giving people the option of being covered by a government health insurance plan that would compete with private plans," 61 percent said they would support the plan.
Pew Research Center: 55 percent favor "government health insurance plan." When respondents were asked in a September 30-October 4 Pew Research Center poll if they would favor or oppose "[a] government health insurance plan to compete with private health insurance plans," 55 percent said they would favor the plan.
Survey finds majority support for public option among doctors
Mount Sinai School of Medicine poll: 63 percent favor option of public or private insurance. A survey conducted by Dr. Salomeh Keyhani and Dr. Alex Federman of the Mount Sinai School of Medicine found that 63 percent of the 2,130 physicians surveyed randomly said they "support a health reform proposal that includes both a public option and traditional private insurance. An additional 10 percent of doctors support an entirely public health system."
Evidence undermines claim that a public option would be costly
CBO: Senate bill's public plan does "not have a substantial effect on the cost or enrollment projections." In its July 2 preliminary analysis of the Senate HELP Committee's bill, CBO found that, in the words of CBO director Douglas Elmendorf, the public option "did not have a substantial effect on the cost or enrollment projections largely because the public plan would pay providers of health care at rates comparable to privately negotiated rates -- and thus was not projected to have premiums lower than those charged by private insurance plans in the exchanges."
House, Senate bills require premiums to cover costs of public plan. Both the House tri-committee bill and the Senate HELP Committee's bill require the public plan to charge premiums sufficient to cover administrative costs as well as the cost of enrollees' benefits.
From the America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009, as introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives:
SEC. 222. PREMIUMS AND FINANCING.
(a) ESTABLISHMENT OF PREMIUMS. --
(1) IN GENERAL. -- The Secretary shall establish geographically-adjusted premium rates for the public health insurance option in a manner --
(A) that complies with the premium rules established by the Commissioner under section 113 for Exchange-participating health benefit plans; and
(B) at a level sufficient to fully finance the costs of --
(i) health benefits provided by the public health insurance option; and
(ii) administrative costs related to operating the public health insurance option.
From the Affordable Health Choices Act as passed by the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee:
''(5) PREMIUMS. --
''(A) PREMIUMS SUFFICIENT TO COVER COSTS. -- The Secretary shall set premium rates in an amount sufficient to cover expected costs (including claims and administrative costs) using methods in general use by qualified health plans.
CBO reportedly found original House public plan saves $110 billion. Congress Daily reported that House leaders "released CBO estimates for liberals' preferred version of the public option that show $85 billion more in savings than for the version the Blue Dogs prefer." Congress Daily further reported:
The original House bill required the public plan to pay providers 5 percent more than Medicare reimbursement rates. But as part of a package of concessions to Blue Dogs, the House Energy and Commerce Committee accepted an amendment that requires the HHS Secretary to negotiate rates with providers. That version of the plan will save only $25 billion.
In total, a public plan based on Medicare rates would save $110 billion over 10 years. That is $20 billion more than earlier estimates, a spokesman for House Speaker Pelosi said.
The numbers are based on oral communications between CBO staff and Pelosi's office, a Pelosi spokesman said. They do not represent an official CBO estimate.
House leaders are pushing the Blue Dogs to accept the additional savings from the Medicare-tied public plan. But Herseth Sandlin said Blue Dogs see it as a "false choice," and said House leaders recognize that Blue Dogs continue to have some concerns about that.
The public plan saves money because it pushes down premium prices. Lower premium prices across the country would mean the government would have to pay less in subsidies to low-income people who buy insurance through the exchange, according to CBO. Medicare rates are typically lower than those paid by private insurers, so using that formula would allow the public plan to charge considerably lower premiums to stay solvent. If the government has to negotiate the same way insurance companies do, public plan premiums likely won't be as low -- hence less savings. [Congress Daily, 9/25/09]
Experts stress importance of public option for cost control
Urban Institute: A public plan could save $224 billion over 10 years. Urban Institute economists John Holahan and Linda Blumberg estimated that a public plan paying Medicare rates plus 20 percent could save the government $224 billion over 10 years. The report stated that "[t]he public plan would have lower administrative costs than private plans and could establish or negotiate provider payment rates at lower levels than private payers are able or willing to do today." [Urban Institute, 6/26/09]
Krugman: Public plan would "probably provide the only real competition in many markets." In a September 8 blog post, Nobel laureate Paul Krugman wrote that "even a public plan with limited bargaining power" could "help hold down overall costs," citing "the huge overhead of the private insurers, much of which involves marketing and attempts to cherry-pick clients." Krugman further wrote that "a public plan would probably provide the only real competition in many markets." [The New York Times, 9/8/09]
Reich: "[T]here's no way to get overall healthcare costs down without a public option." Former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich wrote: "Without a public, Medicare-like option, healthcare reform is a bandaid for a system in critical condition. There's no way to push private insurers to become more efficient and provide better value to Americans without being forced to compete with a public option. And there's no way to get overall healthcare costs down without a public option that has the authority and scale to negotiate lower costs with pharmaceutical companies, doctors, hospitals, and other providers -- thereby opening the way for private insurers to do the same." [Salon.com, 8/17/09]
Jacob Hacker: Public plan would be "one of the levers for bringing down costs over time." In an interview with NewsHour correspondent Jeffrey Brown, Hacker, a Yale political scientist, stated that a public option is "going to be a cost-controlled backstop. That means that it's going to be able to be one of the levers for bringing down costs over time, both by creating a check on private insurers and by innovating in the delivery of and -- and payment for care." Hacker added, "When the Congressional Budget Office first looked at a public health insurance plan, when it was estimating the cost of the competing proposals in the House, it estimated that the public health insurance plan could save on the order of $150 billion over 10 years, relative to not having that public health insurance plan in the mix." [NewsHour, 9/1/09]
Johnson and Kwak: Reform without public option provides no pressure on insurers to reduce cost. Writing in The Washington Post, economists Simon Johnson and James Kwak stated, "Imagine health-care reform without a public option: Insurers have to charge the same price regardless of customers' medical history; everyone has to buy insurance; and poor people get subsidies to help them afford it. From the insurers' perspective, they get more than 40 million new customers, they subsidize the old and sick by overcharging the young and healthy (who have to overpay because of the mandate), and the government even pays people to buy their product. There are no new competitors (additional choices for customers), and there is no pressure to reduce costs. What could be better?" [The Washington Post, 8/25/09]
Transcript
From the October 13 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: Now, as you mentioned, this is not going to be the bill, because they're going to sort it out, and they have to reconcile with the House. Nancy Pelosi is still fighting for the public option. Roll the tape.
PELOSI [video clip]: We in Congress are saying to the American people, you are mandated to have health insurance. But unless we have a public option, we are putting them at the mercy of the health insurance industry, and they know it. So they like universal quality health insurance and reform if it has a public option.
O'REILLY: Well, that's not what the polls show, but Ms. Pelosi is --
ROVE: Yeah. No, no, look, nearly nine, you know, nine out of 10 Americans think they have health care coverage. It's actually 83 percent have health care coverage, but nine out of 10 they think do. And they're overwhelmingly happy with what they got. By a better than two-to-one margin, people want to get their health insurance from a private company as opposed to the government. Where she comes up with that people are out there protesting in the streets and going, please --
O'REILLY: Right, I haven't seen one tea party demanding --
ROVE: Exactly.
O'REILLY: -- that the government run --
ROVE: I want the post office to be in charge of health care.
O'REILLY: I would like Nancy Pelosi to organize a tea party that we demand that the government run the health care, because it would be mess.
But look, the -- I can't get real excited about this, what happened today. You're not opposed to this. You know that the health care costs have got to come down. They got to get it under control. You know that. We would prefer to have it in competition.
ROVE: Right.
O'REILLY: You know, with all the insurance companies competing across state lines. I think that would -- savings plans for individual Americans. I would prefer to have the private sector do it.
ROVE: Right, be able to save taxes --
O'REILLY: Right.
ROVE: -- for your out-of-pocket medical expenses.
From the October 13 edition of CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight:
HENRY: Now, as [CNN correspondent] Candy [Crowley] was pointing out, for the first time now, the White House will be getting their hands a bit dirtier in this process than they had before, leaving most of the work to members of Congress, letting the process play out. The president's faced criticism from some fellow Democrats for not being more assertive in this debate, and starting tomorrow the White House chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, will be among the negotiators on the Hill, meeting with Senate leaders to merge all these various bills. But I can tell you, I'm already picking up from some Democrats on Capitol Hill more frustration.
They think that in the last five, six hours in the reaction to the Baucus bill passing that the White House has been, in the words of one top Democratic aide, sort of tepid, that the president is still not stepping out there and clearly defining whether he's going to push hard for a public option, for example. So we'll see how long they're able to celebrate here at the White House, Lou.
DOBBS: Well, if the president is not doing that and there's any confusion on the part of the Democratic leadership, why is it then that both the House and Senate leadership are saying there will be a public option in conference?
HENRY: Well, they continue to say that in part because a lot of their constituency groups are demanding it. I mean, the labor unions, for example -- very important to the Democratic Party -- are now saying that starting tomorrow, they're going to be running newspaper ads across the country coming out against the Baucus bill.
They're partly doing that because the public option is not in the Baucus bill, and they're frustrated by that. And so, as Candy was suggesting, they're going to try to pressure these negotiators to include it in there. So in part, the Democratic leaders on the Hill want to sort of fight the good fight for some of their constituent groups.
But whether this really has the votes -- I have talked to some top Democrats on the Hill, insist the votes are not there for a public option. They're kind of going through the motions on that, but at some point, they're going to have to probably face reality that the votes are probably not there for a public option, and it's likely that a final bill is going to have to have something less aggressive, Lou.
DOBBS: And also there is the matter as to whether or not the money will be there as well. Ed, thank you very much.
HENRY: Big question.
DOBBS: Ed Henry from the White House.
Why can't we have this:
"CBS News: 62 percent favor government offering "a government administered health insurance plan."
For the folks that need/want it, and then you massively reform (in a pro-competition and pro-choice way) how existing private insurers are regulated, so that I have more choice & competition available to me if I want to keep it private?
We could also, instead of requiring companies to carry x,y,z, require private-insurance seekers to carry a certain minimum set of coverages.
It's my understanding that the creation of insurance exchanges will require companies to provide a minimum level of coverage to be part of the Exchange. This way, companies will no longer be able to sell crappy, substandard, junk insurance.
Do you really think we should leave it to "insurance seekers," who are totally ill-equipped, to have to try to figure out if they are receiving a "minimum set of coverages"? Would be a complete disaster.
I also giggled at you calling anything a "beaurOcratic mess".
Are you asking me in regards to my own health care plan?
We could. It would probably be the best compromise that's politically feasible. Mine would still be cheaper however. Mine has the broadest possibel pooling of risk, the highest number of people paying into it, REAL compoetition, in a way that might actually keep costs down, and it doesn't allow for the kinds of inefficient, uneducated choices that people make (like lower premiums for less coverage) which the rest of us end up paying for in the long run.
There a huge flaw in your reasoning: "so that I have more choice & competition available to me if I want to keep it private."
YOU (or at least almost all of us) don't have ANY choice AT ALL, and likely still won't even with these refomrs. 95% of people get their insurance through their employer. Their empoloyer chooses 1, maybe 2 plans (but usualy just 1 for families and 1 for individuals) and pays for 75-80% of the cost. You do not now, and will not have in the future ANY real choice in health insurance. My plan merely accept that reality, but gives you the BEST plan and guarentees you choices where it matters: TREATMENT. Who cares what your plan is, or who administers it, if EVERYTHING is COMPLETELY COVERED?! (I'll tell you who: Gamblers who cost the rest of us money!)
Also, in my plan, any needed increase in taxes is offset by not having to pay premiums. It's paycheck-neutral for most people and deficit-netural overall. The current slate of reforms is neither.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In short: My plan's just better. ;)
Look, I'll make this simple: I make [a decent living.] Enough to support a single-income family with two kids. I pay ~ $215 dollars per month for coverage. (Coverage that has left me with ~$2000 in out of pocket expense so far this past year, mind you!) So I'm paying just under $2600 dollars a year to cover my familiy. But that's NOT the cost of coverage! My employer offers that plan, and pays an 80/20 split. Meaning the ACTUAL plan costs around $13,000 dollars per year. Well, I don't know about you, but I'm pretty strapped as it is and there's just no way I could ever pay that!
And THAT'S why you have and I have no choice: WE are not the CUSTOMERS. Our EMPLOYERS are. They choose, and we're stuck with it. Period. And no one who's employer offers care would ever go out on their own, because they'll never find a deal that evel close - seeing as how they're only paying 20-30% of the cost when they tale what they're employer offers. (Assuming they're lucky enough to be offered coverage!) And if you think that we'll all get a $13,000 a year raise to buy our own health insurance then I've got an Amway franchise to sell you!
Where do get the idea that the GOVERNMENT is limiting your choices? HOW, exactly? (Other than continuing to prop up the mostly privatized, for profit, patchwork of crap that is our current system?)
---------------------------------------------------------------
I'll stand by my plan, and I'll accept ONLY reform with a strong public option as a compromise to it. If they let that die, the Dem's have lost my mid-term vote. Screw 'em.
What if I want to:
Purchase catastrophic-only coverage
Purchase coverage rated for me as my race/gender age/med history
Purchase as part of a group other than my employer? (now mostly illegal (which may be the insurance lobby, I don't know, but gov can do something about it) For instance, if I wanted to purchase health insurance through a pool that I organized called "The healthy-being-and-living 22-30 year old Virginia male organization", I can't.
Again - you're fooling yourself with this 20-30 and healthy nonsense. The insurance comapnies know the odds. They study the data on levels you cannot possibly imagine. They know ALL the angles. And, on average, you're NOT getting a deal.
Also - this "overregulation" garbage is just that. Without those regulations, even fewer things would be covered, and patients would have even fewer rights. Would health insurance be cheaper? Perhaps, but who cares? At that point it would be next to useless! You get what you p[ay for! And w/o those reg's, Health Insurance would be a REAL waste of money.
If the insurance companies wanted to avoid gov't control, they had their chance to show they could handle it. Instead they acted just as free-market principles predicted they would: like greedy little thieves. Anyone who thinks they'd act in their own LONG TERM interests (by taking CARE of their customers) is completely ignorant of how large companies have operated in this country for the past 30 some years or so. (Also, you don;t know how these thieves operate: They'll take your money for YEARS while you're 'healthy' and then drop you as soon as you're sick, or screw over the Doctors who treat you anyway. Someone gets screwed either way, and it AIN'T the insurance company!)
They can't be trusted. They've demonstrated this 1000's of times over. And people generally don't make rational decision when it comes to their health. THAT'S been demonstrated 1000's of times over.
----------------------------------------------------------
I'll stand by my proposal.
You can cite all the polling data and experts that you want...the fact is that most Americans do not want more govt. intrusion in their lives and they don't support massive new spending proposals.
The proof? With control of both houses of congress and the white house...there are not enough democrats with the courage of their convictions to sign their names to this healthcare proposal for fear of voter backlash at the mid-term elections.
They know...you know...and I know it.
Your post is so riduculous, and filled with so many mistakes of basic logic, there's no point in even responding to it.
It is his gut feeling that counts. It is his belief that everyone agrees with him that matters.
wes: I do believe in conservatives! I do! I do!
The tough part is turning a concept into a workable solution and most of the public doesn't read what's on paper on capital hill.
It's taken awhile but the Great Society and its War on Poverty may have finally achieved something...turning half the population into wards of the federal govt.
I sincerely respect your opinion.
what is the 'intrusion', 'nanny business' you guys are talking about, as it relates to 'public option'?
Please, educate me.
As far as I know and believe, there is no 'they', or 'nanny govt.' today than 2 years (or 20 years prior).
We are 'all' in this together.
This will hardly be comprehensive but a couple of thoughts.
The creeping nanny state is not unique to the Obama administration. Its roots are in the democrat party and Pres.Johnson's Great Society...birthed in the 1960's. The public option simply stomps on the gas pedal to accelerate the agenda.
On the surface the public option may look like a cornucopia of goodness. But in reality it is just the foundation for single payer govt. run healthcare. There are many supporters of a single payer health system...including Pres.Obama...but I'm not one of them. That is the real argument that is not being debated concerning this bill.
Olympia Snowe...a republican but hardly conservative...she votes about as often with the democrats as republicans...says it concisely when she says the public option would give the govt. "a disproportionate advantage" over private insurers.
This advantage will ultimately limit our choices rather than increase them...as the rolls of public insured swell and private insurers are driven out of business.
I support reforming the healthcare industry...with things concerning tort reform, pre-existing conditions, insurance companies being able to drop your coverage or increase rates at will, helping those who cannot afford insurance, and allowing interstate competition of private insurance companies.
I am not in favor of more nanny business...like the single payer option.
That's not a "nanny state". That's called taking care of the citizenry like all other industrialized countries do.
Tort reform? That'll save a few pennies. Interstate competition? That'll save nothing.
In socialized medicine, the government IS the healthcare system. This would be where the doctors and nurses work for the government. This would be the VA - or the best healthcare system in the country.
Of course, most American have very little understanding of these concepts. Most American clearly have NO understanding of a simple term like socialism. If you don't believe me, read Wesleys posts above. He actually thinks we have options in the healthcare system NOW. Severely misinformed.
Then have the courage of your convictions. Come out against Medicare and the VA and Social Security. I mean if the government is so poor at running things, then shouldn't we put our elderly and soldiers into the hands of the private insurance industry.
I also love the fact that you think the public option is going to take away your healthcare options. Please tell me how many insurance companies offers you considered before choosing the one that covers you now.
You want a flat tax? You got it. Just add the current taxes together.
It is the excess FICA contributions relative to Social Security withdrawals that masked the $5.2 trillion deficits during the Dubya administration.
When one makes over about $100,000 one no longer pays into FICA and gets a 7.8% reduction in total tax (15.3% for self-employed).
The simple minds making this argument also always forget to mention that any money I make over a certain amount ($102,000?) I no longer even pay Social Security tax on. Why is that? Why should poor, working class people have to pay a higher percentage of their income to Social Security tax than I do? Because the people (like Oscar and wesley, etc.) that make these arguments will never let any facts get in the way of the narrative they have created and constantly reinforce in their own mind. It is always those damn poor people keeping us down.
If the right was actually afraid of the government becoming a "nanny state" they would have shut down Social Security and Medicare when they were in charge. Why didn't they? They surely fought against them before they were instituted, just like they are now fighting against the public option. They didn't shut them down because they are highly effective and successful programs that have gained HUGE support from all Americans. Until someone tells me they are voting to shut down Medicare and the VA and Social Security their nonsensical claims against the "nanny state" are not for real, they are just a character they are playing in their own minds.
Losing your own health insurance trumps the government (public) option by 63%. Obama is on record as saying he wants EVERY ONE on the government plan.
The bigger hill to climb is 75% of people are happy with their own coverage. That's the mountain the left must scale.
Private vs Government option
If you're self-employed, then nobody's forcing you on the public option.
The left-right paradigm is used to divide and conquer. But if you want central social and economic planning, like we have had since Hoover, get out of America. This country was not established for the competent and willing to have their private property confiscated by the federal government and given to people who don't care to be productive in society.
This is a battle to regain American ideals of self reliance and responsibility, for only the weak suckle at the teat of government slavery.
Look... throughout history democracies fail. FACT. That is why our founding fathers gave us a REPUBLIC. The "Santa Clause" mentality, pushed by the "progressive's" since the early part of the 20th century, has doomed this country. Including a Communist must, the central bank I.e... The Federal "Lets print money out of thin air" Reserve.
Fight or flee?
I think... I'll fight.
Awesome. Here's a deeper insight: every government that is not currently standing has fallen.
http://finance.senate.gov/healthreform2009/finalwhitepaper.pdf
Page 19
"Available to all, the Exchange would
also allow individuals to enroll in health care plans in various convenient locations,including physicians’ offices, local hospitals or schools, Departments of Motor Vehicles,
and local Social Security Offices.
Some other comments from todays show:
-Glen Beck-a little boy bully, telling his "zombies",(HIS words NOT mine), that HE "knows you're not dumb-BUT, ALL those other media outlets and Politicians? THEY all think you're a bunch of dumb Americans who want Health Reform and don't care about your Country". Can this guy get ANY more transparent??
-Awww,...Beck has an "EXPERT" on about the "Community Reinvestment Act"..lol-It's the Queen Bachmann HERSELF, letting EVERYONE know that ACORN will be causing another horrible Depression by giving loans to ppl that don't qualify for large Housing loans..LOL!! Beck: "Michelle Bachmann, one of the VERY few truth-tellers in Congress" BECK/Bachmann 2012!!!!!!
-oh geez...King Beck: "I thought David Letterman was going to take David Letterman up to the bedroom above the stage"???!!!!
-oh no..NOW--he just insinuated that he has a mole in the "White "Car/house"...let's just try and tear up the Progressive, aka to Beck, Commie, party from inside, right Beck??!!
Guess he is looking in the wrong place. Any poll favoring the Public Option, that comes to the attention of Fox News apparently isn't worth the paper it is written on.
My prediction if no public option is passed:
The insurance companies, seeing an influx in new customers, will raise their rates, claiming increased risk, but will see record profits, causing a political backlash against conservatives, as well as liberals. Conservatives will get hurt for shutting down the public option in debates, and the liberals will get hurt by not doing enough, allowing for the insurance companies to abuse the new insurance mandate. There will be a cry from the people for the government to do something, which would probably equate to more government regulation of the private market, which will hurt the Republicans more with their base, allowing for the Democrats to gain some seats, and potentially go at the public option again.
In the meantime, buy up insurance company stock, cause they will probably see a bit of a boost, but be sure to sell before all those previously excluded for pre-existing conditions get sick...
---------------------------
O'Reilly stated, "[T]hat's not what the polls show," and, "I haven't seen one tea party demanding that the government run" health care."