Corrente

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

Obama starts making shit up

Obama: "I didn't campaign on the public option". You lie! And we know, because -- wait for it --

We checked the website! [PDF; search on "the new public plan."]

I'm shocked.

0
No votes yet

Comments

deniseb's picture
Submitted by deniseb on

See? It says 'PLAN' not 'Option'. See? See? Subject of heated argument over at the Orange Place.

But lets not forget that he also ran against "government-run health care":

September 2008 Obama commercial

The Flexible Candidate.

basement angel's picture
Submitted by basement angel on

I rarely give anything more than LOL, but that was good. It's been a long time coming.

beowulf's picture
Submitted by beowulf on

Well at least Max Baucus insisted on a Medicare for All* provision.

*subject to the limitation that we all live in Libby, MT.

^SEN. MAX BAUCUS, D-MONT., chairman of the Finance Committee and a key architect of the legislation, put in a provision to help the 2,900 residents of Libby, Mont., many of whom have asbestos-related illnesses from a now-defunct mineral mine. Under Baucus' provision, which never mentions Libby by name, sickened residents could sign up for Medicare benefits.
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/12/...

Starting on page 194 of the Manager's Amendment
SEC. 10323. MEDICARE COVERAGE FOR INDIVIDUALS EXPOSED TO ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH HAZARDS.
http://www.politico.com/static/PPM145_ch...

And yes, it starts immediately with no buy-in costs other than the standard Part B premiums retirees pay. If the House Democrats really cared about expanding health coverage (or winning elections) before 2014, they'd walk into Conference with the opening position that they're fine with accepting the Senate bill in its entirety--- as long as the Montanacare clause is edited (literally. No words have to be added) to cover everybody: 1. define "public health emergency" without specifying CERCLA, the entire country is currently under a swine flu public health emergency and 2. drop the medical diagnosis requirements. Since this section specifically exempts itself from the revenue-neutral requirements, there's none of that paygo business (or CBO scoring) to worry about.

Submitted by lambert on

Headline: In reversal, Baucus Supports Medicare for all (as long as you live in Libby, MT)....

Though, to be fair, I can't tell if it's a buyin or not, the Times doesn't say, and the Politico link won't load for me.

beowulf's picture
Submitted by beowulf on

Yup, its Medicare, not a buy-in... This is now my single-payer plan of choice--- Baucus just up and legislatively declared these folks 65. :o)

Here's current law--

ENTITLEMENT TO HOSPITAL INSURANCE BENEFITS
Sec. 226. [42 U.S.C. 426]
(a)
Every individual who—
(1) has attained age 65, and
(2)(A) is entitled to monthly insurance benefits under section 202, would be entitled to those benefits except that he has not filed an application therefor (or application has not been made for a benefit the entitlement to which for any individual is a condition of entitlement therefor), or would be entitled to such benefits but for the failure of another individual, who meets all the criteria of entitlement to monthly insurance benefits, to meet such criteria throughout a month, and, in conformity with regulations of the Secretary, files an application for hospital insurance benefits under part A of title XVIII,
(B) is a qualified railroad retirement beneficiary, or
(C)(i) would meet the requirements of subparagraph (A) upon filing application for the monthly insurance benefits involved if medicare qualified government employment (as defined in section 210(p)) were treated as employment (as defined in section 210(a)) for purposes of this title, and (ii) files an application, in conformity with regulations of the Secretary, for hospital insurance benefits under part A of title XVIII,
shall be entitled to hospital insurance benefits under part A of title XVIII for each month for which he meets the condition specified in paragraph (2), beginning with the first month after June 1966 for which he meets the conditions specified in paragraphs (1) and (2).

And here's what Baucus's Montanacare says about that---

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—For purposes of eligibility for benefits under this title, an individual determined under subsection (c) to be an environmental exposure affected individual described in subsection (e)(2) shall be deemed to meet the conditions specified in section 226(a).

Valley Girl's picture
Submitted by Valley Girl on

Yes, I read the whole thing. It's full of lies, some of them way more significant than whether or not Obama campaigned on a "public option". Actually, reading the document, I don't find irrefutable evidence that he did.

Providers who see patients enrolled in the new public plan, the National Health Insurance Exchange, Medicare and FEHB will be rewarded for achieving performance thresholds on physician-validated outcome measures.

Apart from anything else, and I agree with deniseb 1) it's a "new public plan" not a public option but also 2) goes back to the "report card" days of managed care 1.0

This issue of a "public option" (or whatever) is really a small fib compared to some other stuff in the .pdf.

Oh, wait, is this the topic heading you mean?
AFFORDABLE, ACCESSIBLE COVERAGE OPTIONS FOR ALL

But, "exchanges" figure a lot more prominently than "options" through the text.

As for the outright lies, e.g. in no particular order, and hardly a complete list:

Allow consumers to import safe drug from other countries. The second-fastest growing type of health expenses is prescription drugs.29 Pharmaceutical companies should profit when their research and development results in a groundbreaking new drug. But some companies are exploiting Americans by dramatically overcharging U.S. consumers. These companies are selling the exact same drugs in Europe and Canada but charging Americans a 67 percent premium.30 Barack Obama and Joe Biden will allow Americans to buy their medicines from other developed countries if the drugs are safe and prices are
lower outside the U.S.

Prevent drug companies from blocking generic drugs from consumers. Some drug manufacturers are explicitly paying generic drug makers not to enter the market so they can preserve their monopolies and keep charging Americans exorbitant prices for brand name products.31 The Obama-Biden plan will work to ensure that market power does not lead to higher prices for consumers. Their plan will work to increase use of generic drugs in the new public plan, Medicare, Medicaid, FEHBP and prohibit large drug companies from keeping generics out of markets.

LOWER COSTS BY TAKING ON ANTICOMPETITIVE ACTIONS IN THE DRUG AND INSURANCE COMPANIES. It
is not right that Americans families are paying skyrocketing premiums while drug and insurance industries are enjoying record profits. These companies benefit most from the status quo and in many cases are the greatest obstacles to reform. The Obama-Biden plan will tackle needless waste and spiraling costs by increasing competition in the insurance and drug markets.

S Brennan's picture
Submitted by S Brennan on

Love ya but,

This post could have been much more important had you wrote more...yes links are good, but NOT a substitute for meaningful verbiage.

This is not hate, it is meant to help.

Submitted by lambert on

... here (for the second time).

Second, if you're perfectly free to write your own posts. Unless you feel that allocating the time of others is a good plan?

Submitted by hipparchia on

rule 9 3/4: senior fellows are not required to post meaningful verbiage, but all others must do so.