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

Talking points on HR3962 and the Senate Bill

Via PNHP. Yes, there is a list of the good points.

It's just that nothing the "progressive" access bloggers are pushing -- including [a|the] [strong|robust]? public [health insurance]? [option|plan] -- is on the list. Quelle surprise.

NOTE Oh, and guess what: Obama's favorite panacea, the only thing about health insurance reform that really floats his boat, electronic medical records: They don't save any money. Quelle surprise.

No votes yet


Submitted by gob on

The talking points include the anti-abortion provision (though the discussion seems thin), but not the exclusion of "well woman" gynecological exams from the essential benefits package. Am I confused? (I usually am.) Is this exclusion still in the bill? Why aren't we screaming about it just as loudly as about abortion? It's a huge slap in the face to women, and a glaring example of false economy.

Submitted by lambert on

Well said!

S Brennan's picture
Submitted by S Brennan on

And it seems like a poorly organized article that bends over backwards to "be fair" to a manifestly unjust bill. The article buries the meat and is overly cautious in it's criticism of a bill that will cripple millions of American individuals and businesses. This bill will enshrine a system that literally kills tens of thousands of people every year for decades to come. Milquetoast opposition does not obey the injunction, "first do not harm".

I post a lot of their stuff on my Facebook to relate to friends, but I'll pass on this one. As a scientifically trained person, I find consistently using the best case scenarios [far better than CBO], minimizing the potential impact to the point of fantasy is highly unprofessional and not worthy of this organization.