No Public Option Debate Until Tuesday

I guess Baccus just told Chuckles Schumer and Rockefella who REALLY is Chairman of this committee. Who is REALLY in charge of the one and only bill which will come out of the Senate for HCR.
.
I love it. Simply love it!!!

Kate:
.
Do you think while Schumy and Rocky were busy like little beavers writing up their joint "Public Option" admendment, Conrad was "grinning" because he already knew Baccus was going to do this today? Adjorn at 12 Noon?

He said intends to close the hearing around noon today and won't reconvene the markup until Tuesday.

Any idea what the reason for this was?

Thanks, Kate. Now this is the traditional Senate I've grown to know and loathe. No growing a spine / pair / etc. here. But could this corporate footdragging backfire since now there's extra time to apply more public pressure?

They must have wanted to give the media one more weekend to bash the public option before bringing it up?

I've reposted from the previous PO thread; can you let us know who might be a no vote?
No public option is included in Chairman Max Baucus's current health care reform bill and none is expected one to be added, simply because there are not enough supportive votes on the committee to pass such an amendment.
Who is not supportive? You should help us out and name names.
From what I can tell, no Democrat on the committee has out and out declared they oppose the public option (and if you look at support circa 2008, a number of these senators like Baucus supported a PO). Rather, they say weaselly things like "the votes aren't there", and "there is not the support for the public option".
When a Kent Conrad says "the votes aren't there", is he saying he is a NO vote, or is he saying he heard a lot of Senators talking about it in the bathroom and that is his opinion? And why can't we ever get journalists to ask follow ups when the weasel statements like this get bandied about?

There are no adjectives to describe seeing Bacaus, Conrad and Grassley defend the age ratio for seniors to benefit the Insurance Companies.

I was glad to see Nelson ask what happens when you spread the risk on a larger pool and was told it then the risk shrinks.

My take is that not only the Insurance Companies do not want a Public Option they do not want National Exchange to help lower costs.

Isn't the slowness of this mark-up making it nigh difficult to meet the Oct 15 deadline for passing something via reconciliation? Or am I missing something about legislative process?

These are real questions and I'd very much appreciate a response from Kate or others. Thanks in advance.

[...] public option was supposed to come up for a debate today in the Senate Finance Committee, but was pushed back to Tuesday. Many argue that [...]

[...] The Senate Finance Committee will vote on a government-run health insurance option Tuesday. [...]

If you think the insurance companies are going to voluntarily lower our costs and their profits and their million dollar wages while having a monopoly over the process – well I've got a bridge to sell you …and I think Wall Street should be completely unregulated I trust strangers with my money, and pollution is good and airbags should be removed from all our cars.

Our market systems depend and thrive on competition; unregulated markets are a vicious roller coaster ride of boom, bubble and bust. The winner takes all mentality doesn't take into account the whole system that's what governments are for. The pure free market system is a myth. It doesn't exist and as an economic model is anarchy.

At the end of the day vote your pocket book. Don't take up millionaire strangers causes as if they were your own. They have plenty of paid voices lobbying for them. Keep your eye on what is best for you and your family and the Country will be fine.

Paul Burke
Author-Journey Home