Blanche Lincoln says a Public Option is too expensive

http://arkansasnews.com/2009/09/01/lincoln-public-option-too-expensive/

wow just wow. These are your Democrats??

Nevermind the Public Option is going to drive down costs. How can you get anything done with Democrats out there saying things just as dumb as Republicans. sad

That's what she means.

I'd like to as well...

sorry

it yet? At lease I haven't heard any results?

Yesterday I heard that in Mexico, every worker pays $275 per year, and that covers everything...glasses, dentist, drugs, Drs, hosp, etc. Mexico is starting to get worried because quite a few American retirees are moving there and taking advantage of that program. It works fine for the Mexicans because they pay that amount for the many healthy years which helps maintain the fund, but the Americans are apparently eligible, even if they move there at age 65 or +. They said there are about 80,000 American retirees living under the Mexican program right now.

people don't go to the doctor routinely; they go to the pharmacy, where they can buy most prescription drugs over the counter at prices *way* below those in the US. That's because down there, they negotiate with pharmaceutical companies.

the very people who pay her to say shit like this.

I guess the rest of us "peasants" might as well be standing on a street corner with a tin cup if we want anything else (i.e. affordable health insurance, quality schools, working levees).
*ugh* How do these "regressives" call themselves Democrats? It seriously mystifies me.
:puke:

There are two choices here: Public option or the status quo. It's easy to make it deficit neutral with a tax increase.

Which clearly states healthcare reform needs to include a "public option"?

I'm on a roll now...I finally said, hey, what did I vote for? And went to the web site to find out. And, gee, there's public option on page 10 of the Party Platform document.

http://www.democrats.org/a/party/platform.html

I was laid off last March. My COBRA payments are about $950 a month, before ARRA help. That is the exact cost my employer paid to keep me in good health insurance. I assume that my fellow employees cost about the same, but I don't really know?

With the Single Payer Plan, would my former employer's costs to keep employee's covered in health insurance then be $000.00, for employees that chose the Public Option?

In other words, wouldn't the Public Option be a literal GODSEND for all Companies that provide employees with good health insurance?

And if so, why aren't all small businesses going around promoting Public option (or single payer) like their businesses depended on it? Or like Rep. Anthony D. Weiner from Queens has been doing the last month. That guy has been everywhere really fighting for all this, unlike so many others in Congress that should be doing the same.

-90% Jimmy

Off this afternoon to Rep. Larson's Town Hall in W. Hartford, CT

...in a state that's less Democratic each election than the election before.

She's throwing babies off the sled to try and outrun the wolves.

How hard would that have been?

Of course, back when Medicare was passed, these Blue Dogs would have been pro-segregationist Southern Democrats.

Blanche should be voted out of office as soon as possible.

and INVESTIGATED.

I just did.

http://lincoln.senate.gov/contact/email.cfm

and will do so on his show today. Apparently, she gets more money (hundreds of thousands of dollars) from the lobbyists than Baucus. I am so despising these Dems right now.

Democrats like her, if the cost is the real concern, should be reachable if respectable estimates indicate that the public option is what will make the costs LOWER, not higher.

Read the first article that Prosense includes here - http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=8619711

This may be what Kerry was speaking of as getting the truth on these issues out. Lincoln is on the Finance committee. If this article is right and it matches what everyone I trust has said, these facts are what may move her position - not attacks.

“I’m not going to vote for a bill that’s not deficit-neutral, and I’m not going to vote for a bill that doesn’t do something about curbing the cost in the out years, because it would be pointless … I would not support a solely government-funded public option.


Except that the public option wouldn't be solely government funding and even Obama has said it has to be deficit neutral. I wonder if this was just a front to give her room to vote for the public option as in "see I voted for a public that was deficit neutral and not solely government funded".

And never correct the misconception because they don't read very well, isolate themselves philosophically, and are intellectually lazy?

Good riddance...

It's getting to the point where I feel like its going to take a million folks with pitchforks and torches to make our damn point...