The Conference Report, that both Chambers will debate and vote on. Does anyone actually expect a glowing-good bill to come out of the combined efforts of our nation's best?

this is an insurance lobby bill that has nothing whatsoever to do with the Nation's best interests.

do I need to re-post the story posted yesterday that reported that Obama specifically killed the Public Option?

plucked from the friendliest lobbyists asses.

the Dem leadership will be too busy counting promised future contributions.

just as bad as SS was in 1936... or possibly worst.

The work just begun... and the fight I fear is more difficult.

n/t

they'll remove most of whatever grease we hoped thy might use.

Then they'll turn over the real pipe laying to the insurance companies.

...be some lame "face saving" provision bone tossed in so they can say they got tough for the water carriers to cite. But the actual substance of the bill will get even lamer if that were possible.

But history will prove us right.

Suuuuuure.

to this administration.

I was told she will fold at the first hint of controversy. I held out more hope than that, but lately who knows?

I do not expecty puppets to make any serious effort to reform the marionettes.

1) Does any variation of public option come forth?

One can imagine some effort at the very least to leave some window dressing on the public option, even if it is "cooperatives" that kick in after some "triggers".

2) Softening of the abortion restrictions.

Basically just trying to maintain some "status quo" where plans can have reproductive health features.

3) Relief on the "required to buy" position.

Again, mostly "cover" for the lack of public option or other features. One can somehow "opt out" of having to have health insurance if they are willing to accept some form of additional risk. (i.e. some huge retro active cost the first time they show up at an emergency room. Medicare part D has similar impacts for folks who delay enrolling).

I might agree that it will take 3 rounds to get the language right, but basically it will ultimately stand. We are functionally, if not technically, required to buy all manner of items and services to conform to law. Try being homeless for a while and you'll find that it is very difficult to be "legal" and not either rent or own property. The flip side is most of those laws are rarely enforced. I think in the end that's how this "requirement" will be handled. If you pay taxes (not just file but pay) you'll get hassled. But if you don't pay taxes, and don't go to the emergency room, you'll skate by just fine.

Worse, I can see that there will be a small industry in "qualifying plans" that do little except ensure that you are in compliance with the law, even if you don't get any real benefit from them. A very simple product the insurance companies could create is a plan in which you have an up front payment and then no payments at all until "first claim". As such, one will be highly incentivized to not make a claim, even paying out of pocket, even though the law specifies that they must "cover" all manner of procedures.

Kill the bill.

Forcing people to buy insurance is no more the answer to a failed health care system than forcing people to buy houses is the solution to homelessness.

:dem:

-Laelth