If you have "no place to go," come here!

Other than that, Mr. Ackroyd, how was the farce?

And you thought pinning the bogometer on public option was no longer possible. Jay Ackroyd:

The only argument in opposition to a public option is that it will lower executive compensation and shareholder value in the health care industry.

Well, except that [a|the][strong|robust]? public [health insurance?] [option|plan] won't lower costs, the health exchanges it's based on -- however they turn out to work -- can't be shown to work on a national scale, and the friggin thing is only going to cover ~9 million people after "progressive" access bloggers like Ackroyd helped sell the American people that it would be like Medicare and cover 130 million. So there's that.

And then there's bailing out the insurance companies at our expense.

[pounds head on desk]

It's a bad bill and it should die. The parts that will help people right away should be passed, and all the Rube Goldberg cruft, like the exchanges and the public option, which don't even kick in 'til 2014, should be ripped out. Pass a clean bill, declare victory, and then start over with an open and transparent process where everybody's at the table. I don't know how the insiders and the access bloggers will be able to do that and save face (and their business models), but I'm sure they'll find a way.

NOTE Single payer is, of course, best for women.

No votes yet


Submitted by Anne on

mentally pulling one’s hair out contributes to actual hair loss.

Yes, the bill as it exists should die, but unfortunately, the powers-that-be have not finished weakening it; as soon as that point is reached, Harry Reid will finally be convinced that reconciliation is the only way to get a “victory,” and that’s when it will pass.

Which is why, for the life of me, I cannot understand why there is such a groundswell among certain bloggers for reconciliation – but then, I never figured out the point of whipping a public option that had no form or shape, either.