« Ten Books | Main | Building a Better Mousetrap »

March 23, 2010

Comments

And Karoli doesn't even mention the Death Panel registration and processing, or the socialist revolution.

Or the free Soylent Green for everyone.

Sorry - didn't mean to step on your post, Eric.

"And Karoli doesn't even mention the Death Panel registration and processing, or the socialist revolution."

Here is the socialist part:

4.Free preventative [sic] care for all

8.Requirement that all insurers must post their balance sheets on the Internet and fully disclose administrative costs, executive compensation packages, and benefit payments.

9.Authorizes early funding of community health centers in all 50 states (Bernie Sanders’ amendment). Community health centers provide primary, dental and vision services to people in the community, based on a sliding scale for payment according to ability to pay.

Here is the part that isn't true:

3.No more lifetime or annual caps on coverage

Ezra Klein said

""A loophole in the Senate health care bill would let insurers place annual dollar limits on medical care for people struggling with costly illnesses such as cancer," reports the AP. The Senate Finance Committee barred annual caps altogether. The merged Senate bill only erases "unreasonable" annual caps. What's "unreasonable?" Hard to say.

Hill sources explain that this was inserted because CBO said premiums would "go through the roof" if insurers couldn't cap benefits"

And I haven't seen anything that changed that. If I am wrong (it has happened) then the CBO must be pretty uncomfortable about rates at this point.


10.AND no more rescissions. Effective immediately, you can't lose your insurance because you get sick.

Well, because, well, um, you never could, and it's not clear that the bill adds any clout to what already existed.

With this much spin you would think they lost.

This much spin? One item you say has a loophole (unconfirmed), and another item that is jumping the gun - rescission.

With that much exaggeration, one is pretty certain that you lost.

This:

Here is the socialist part:

4.Free preventative [sic] care for all
8.Requirement that all insurers must post their balance sheets on the Internet and fully disclose administrative costs, executive compensation packages, and benefit payments.

9.Authorizes early funding of community health centers in all 50 states (Bernie Sanders’ amendment). Community health centers provide primary, dental and vision services to people in the community, based on a sliding scale for payment according to ability to pay.

and this:

With this much spin you would think they lost.

in the same comment. Marty's in his own No Spin Zone. Spin? Gadzooks, man...

Von: no worries ever. These toes were meant for stepping.

"in the same comment. Marty's in his own No Spin Zone. Spin? Gadzooks, man..."

Or Note to Obama(or in this case Eric):

Every time you put something "not quite true" out to help you "sell it", Me, or someone like me, will use that as the opportunity to remind people that selling is what you are doing.

You might want to move on to the next issue.

Marty, a blogger (not me or Obama) listed 10 items. You challenged 1.5 out of ten, and then said "with this much spin..."

But it wasn't a lot of spin. It was 1.5 items out of 10, and due to the obscure nature of the nit you pick (even you're not sure it hasn't been changed), it seems like honest mistake is more likely than spin.

By all means, correct the record when you see a mistake. But you might want to settle down on the "this much spin" statements when it likely wasn't spin, and even if it was, there wasn't much of it.

When is the secession of Iowa triggered? FY12? Before or after Obama personally controls one sixth of the US economy with his dictatorial hands?

I actually challenged both of your comments which was half the list.

Both are challenges for Obama going forward. I was half kidding about some of that, but I think moving on is good advice.

Continuing to try to sell this will not get them much, moving on to jobs bills is better.

Here's some spin: I heard a Republican Member of Congress, on my way to work this morning, state on the radio that the bill, yet to be signed into law, would expand the government from 20% to 25% of GDP. I was alone, yet compelled to speak out loud. Spin, indeed.

It's not really spin or an attempt to sell the bill to try to clarify what's actually in it and what it will actually do. Even people who've been following fairly closely aren't necessarily familiar with the exact details of what the final bill does, or don't have an exact list of what takes effect now and what takes effect later.

In any case there's nothing wrong with getting out accurate information about the bill given the media's complete abdication of their role to inform and the industrial lie-factory in operation on the right. I listened to an NPR new story on the signing which basically ran "Obama signed the bill against much opposition, Republicans say it will be a disaster, some AGs are going to challenge the bill's constitutionality, the end." No information on what the bill actually does, no clue as to whether those challenges stand the slighest chance of succeeding, nothing. So in this brave new world where the media don't bother to tell you about anything except the horse race, I appreciate a little real information being put out there. By all means dispute things you don't think are true but you can hardly expect to have something so momentous pass - both sides at least claimed to think it was momentous, right? - without some comment as to what it was going to do. Last week it was going to wreck the economy and restructure 1/6th of American life. This week it's too boring to talk about?

I actually challenged both of your comments which was half the list.

Both are challenges for Obama going forward. I was half kidding about some of that, but I think moving on is good advice.

Um, what? You challenged death panels and socialism?

Marty, come on man, you're better than this....I think. You challenged death panels? Where?

As to socialism, really? Your list was made up of things that are either not socialism, or are the types of socialism that we've had in this country for over a century - such that the term is devoid of meaning.

Come to think of it Marty, none on your list are actually socialism.

Certainly not requiring insurance companies to disclose documents.

Nor the other items.

Government funding of community centers and preventive care is not socialism.

Socialism is government/worker ownership of the means of production.

"As to socialism, really? Your list was made up of things that are either not socialism, or are the types of socialism that we've had in this country for over a century - such that the term is devoid of meaning."

Eric,

You can cry foul all you want. Every FREE thing in this bill is going to be considered a step toward socialism, whether you think it is or not. There were two things wrong with the list:

Two things weren't true and three things were simply not things most people would see as anything except government interventism(if you like that better than socialism).

You can keep selling it if you want, I am telling you it would be better to let sleeping dogs lie.

And JD,

Such is the nature of American politics and life, if you can't stop it then move on to the next thing. Should we spend another year arguing over it? It's done. The proof of the pudding is in the eating and that takes time.

You can cry foul all you want. Every FREE thing in this bill is going to be considered a step toward socialism, whether you think it is or not

Yeah, well, I'm less interested in what I "think" is socialism, and more interested in what "is" socialism. Especially in a discussion with you in which you claim to have refuted my post re: socialism.

Two things weren't true

Possibly. One we don't have confirmation on.

and three things were simply not things most people would see as anything except government interventism(if you like that better than socialism).

But you said they were socialism, and that since they were socialism, you rebutted my claim that they weren't. Regardless, large majorities of the American people actually LIKE government intervention when it's forcing insurance companies to disclose practices and providing funding for preventive care and community health centers.

So, yeah, spin away Obama!

You can keep selling it if you want, I am telling you it would be better to let sleeping dogs lie.

Thank you for the advice, but I will definitely continue touting the good things in this bill. Sorry Marty, but the majority of Americans are not going to be outraged by funds for community health centers and actions to force insurance companies to stop screwing over the people.

Hell, the CNN poll indicated that the majority of people either like this bill, or want it to be MORE liberal (more of the things you think I should stop using to sell the bill).

Come to think of it Marty, none on your list are actually socialism.

Correct. Thank you, Eric.

First, "free" preventive care is a misnomer. The correct statement is that insurers cannot require a co-pay for preventive care. Somebody is still paying the premium on the policy, and unless you're really poor it's not Uncle.

Requiring public disclosure of overhead, compensation, and payments from insurers is called "regulation". You will find the justification for "regulation" in Article I, section 8 of the US Constitution.

And community health centers are not "free" unless you are very, very poor indeed. A significant number of people who use them have private insurance. Many others pay a fee out of pocket. They're just cheaper than most private practices, because they are not-for-profit, because they operate on a sliding scale based on ability to pay, and because the caregivers are willing to be paid less than they could make otherwise.

You do well to back off of the "socialism" claim because it's bogus.

And I personally don't give a flying whatever what "people think". People think all kinds of crazy crap. We ought to live our lives and run our public policy based on what actually is so, rather than what "people think".

People should wise the hell up.

You're likely correct about the caps.

You're literally correct about recission, but you strain at a gnat and swallow a camel. It's correct that you won't lose your insurance "because you're sick". What actually is true is that insurers will no longer be able to look for other excuses to drop you because you're sick.

You don't like the bill, because you don't like government regulation and/or other interference in private commerce and consumer choice.

Noted.

Unfortunately, in the absence of government interference in private commerce and consumer choice, lots and lots of people are uninsured, underinsured, or driven to bankruptcy regardless of whether they're insured or not.

By "lots and lots" I mean millions and millions.

If the private sector doesn't get something important done, it's reasonable for the government to intervene.

You don't like the bill, because you don't like government regulation and/or other interference in private commerce and consumer choice.

The irony is that Marty supports significantly expanding Medicare as an alternative.

See, the problem is that Marty is a fundamentally decent guy, and the thought of tens of millions of people withtou insurance (not to mention rescission and denial for pre-existing conditions) seem to bother Marty.

Marty: If I am wrong about that, forgive the presumption.

The problem arises, however, when a solution is sought. For someone that views government intervention as a problem as a rule, there are no viable solutions.

So we spin round and round between condemning government intervention, and advocating for an expansion of Medicare/outlawing of rescission/pre-existing bans (bans that won't work unless there are mandates expanding the pools for private insurers).

The thing is: when you begin looking at the problem objectively, and you really want to solve the crisis of so many uninsured and insurance company abuses, you realize that the private sector is the source of the problem in this one instance (of health insurance provision).

It's much easier to adhere to a philosophy of pragmatism: when the private sector does something better, leave it to the private sector. When the market fails, and public options are more efficient, go with the public options.

Being doctrinnaire is a drag.

Marty: Well, because, well, um, you never could

...says Marty from his own personal fact-free zone.

I believe you're not actually lying when you come out with this kind of stuff totally orthogonal to reality, even though you could fact-check your assertions in minutes: I believe you simply make these statements because somehow, in your head, you've got the notion that because you want it to be true it is true - whatever it is.

Like your "feeling" that the UK has lower levels of home ownership than the US. Or this "feeling" that people just don't lose their insurance because they get sick. That these feelings are untrue, and you could check them in minutes and discover them to be untrue before you asserted them in an argument, does not mean - I suppose - that you are in any way obliged actually to fact-check your feelings.

But if you ever get the "feeling" that 2+2=5, I do recommend you use a calculator, or even your fingers, if you feel you can't trust anything on that liberal device, the Internet...

It seems to me the fair question is, how much will this cost. It won't be free, after all. Presumably it will cause premiums to rise. It is fair to ask how much. Because, make no mistake, the Fox crowd will trumpet every premium increase and do its best to whip up anger over it.

when the private sector does something better, leave it to the private sector. When the market fails, and public options are more efficient, go with the public options.

Words to live by.

The more this discussion goes on and on and on, the more I am convinced that there just isn't enough money to be made in health insurance for the private sector to want to actually do it.

Too many people are sick, and it costs too much to take care of them. The only way they can make the amount of money they want to make is by excluding the costly folks.

I suppose we, the public, could throw them a bone and take all of the really sick people off of their hands, the way we have already taken the elderly and the really poor off their hands, but IMO we've thrown them enough bones.

The CEO of Aetna made about $24 million bucks in 2008. That's something like $450K a week. Like, a pretty nice house in most real estate markets in this country, per week.

Mazel tov, says I, except when that income is achieved by not actually making health insurance available to people who need it.

It's just too important a service to leave to the vagaries of the market.

If you need to buy a house a week, get in some other line of business, and let the folks whose priority is actually making health insurance available to people who need it get the freaking job done.

I see absolutely no need, whatsoever, to tailor public policy around the requirements of anyone to make twenty four million dollars on one god-damned year.

If you can't make the money you feel like you need to make without keeping people from going to the doctor, go find something else to do for a living.

Make a useful contribution, or get the hell out of the way.

End of rant.

Because, make no mistake, the Fox crowd will trumpet every premium increase and do its best to whip up anger over it.

Seriously, who cares? What have they ever done for anyone? Are they doing anything whatsoever to make it easier for folks to go to the doctor?

Fox News doesn't give a rat's @ss about you, me, or anything other than their ratings. So, I don't give a rat's @ss about them or their opinion.

Screw them.

Continuing to try to sell this will not get them much, moving on to jobs bills is better.

You do realize that people who have fundamental objections to the bill aren't exactly the target of selling it, right? Bush went through a ton of trouble selling the Iraq War- I never bought it, but he wasn't selling it to me, and I never made the mistake of thinking that he was.
This stuff will sell *great* as an antidote to the GOP's proclaimed push to repeal the bill. The Dems can hardly afford to only work on policy and cede the political maneuvering on this issue to the GOP.

It seems to me the fair question is, how much will this cost. It won't be free, after all. Presumably it will cause premiums to rise.

Not sure about that; adding people to the pool should dilute risk. Hopefully some of the other measures (eg preventative care, less use of ERs for primary care, lower overhead when insurance companies don't eg waste money trying to rescind coverage, no more dumping costs from free care onto private plans) will also save money.
Not sure how it'll all balance out, but I wouldn't assume that rates will go up.

I think it's pretty much inevitable that the existing system of employer-based coverage was going to fall apart, the only question was at what stage the government was going to step in and build an alternative. Cost inflation has already triggered adverse-selection death spirals in the individual market and is well on the way to doing so in the small-business market, and that is inevitably going to put a lot of pressure on larger employers.

The employer-based system worked okay when more workers were unionized and when more jobs were lifelong - the first gives you horizontal solidarity for risk spreading ("I don't mind helping out my unlucky brothers & sisters") and the second gives a vertical expectation of lifelong cost-averaging ("I'll still be working here when I'm 60 and I'll need healthcare then").

It works a lot less well when people change jobs all the time and negotiate their compensation individually. And still less well when the cost rises from being 5% of compensation to 20%. Then it's more like, "Get these freeloading old people off my back!" Why negotiate a compensation package that helps out the older workers at your firm when you're going to be working somewhere else in 20 years anyway? Screw those guys!

So you really need to bring back the wide risk-spreading and lifelong cost-averaging aspects, but reconfigured for today's employment world. But in order to do that, you need everyone to pay in at roughly the same rates (i.e. the mandate), then you need subsidies because not everyone can afford it, and then you need regulation to make sure the insurance you're required to buy isn't a complete rip-off.

This is all really inevitable. It's either this or the complete meltdown of healthcare in this country, a process which was already commencing at the margins. That's what I don't get about the bitter opposition - this is just about the most free-market-friendly way that the meltdown could be averted, and the worse it got before it was addressed, the less market-friendly it was going to get. I still think that in a decade or two even this patch is going to look pretty thin, but that's why the exchanges are in there - we're pretty much headed to everyone being required to buy their own insurance out of pocket, with community rating and regulated coverage levels as the levers to ensure risk-spreading and lifelong cost-averaging.

There really isn't an alternative. You can't have the employer-based system fall apart and just expect people to buy insurance on the private market without community rating - you'd immediately obliterate lifelong cost-averaging through adverse selection (young people: no insurance; old people: rilly expensive insurance) and risk-spreading through pre-existing condition exclusions, rescission, and coverage packages tailored to turn off exactly the people who need coverage. There is no free-market solution to this problem, and that shouldn't really be a surprise, since it was collective & government action that created the employer-provided system in the first place, not some pure act of free-market creativity.

"That's what I don't get about the bitter opposition - this is just about the most free-market-friendly way that the meltdown could be averted, and the worse it got before it was addressed, the less market-friendly it was going to get."

The bitter opposition is about Republicans wanting to be in power again. It has absolutely nothing to do with principle or health care. Isn't it Turbulence who talks about tribalism all the time? It's only that theory that makes sense why anyone would be against a reform of the horrible current system.

...says Marty from his own personal fact-free zone...I believe you simply make these statements because somehow, in your head, you've got the notion that because you want it to be true it is true - whatever it is.

Many years ago a counselor pointed out to me that my head was not the world.

There followed some significant readjustments of my sense of reality, readjustments which, coincidentally, Obsidian Wings has reinforced all these years later with lines like, "Cite, please?"

ObWi apparently doesn't have that effect on everyone. ;)

"The irony is that Marty supports significantly expanding Medicare as an alternative."

It is ironic, I suppose, that I favored the simplist solution, which provided the actual goal of universal coverage.

The cost is not so much what I object to as the very pragmatism that Eric refers to later. If universal coverage was the goal, Medicare was the way.

It would have been called the public option, pleasing many.

It wouldn't have involved a whole new bureaucracy and would have only covered about 30M people at a time, so another 10% of the population.

I have no cite on cost but I suspect it would have been cheaper, with no need to expand it any faster than the ups and downs of the economy.

And if JD turns out to be right and employer based insurance fails, it would have provided the path to single payer with the least pain.

Instead we have this POS. I doubt if I could find a lot of Republicans who agree with me anymore than I could find a lot of Democrats.

And as far as this, from jes:

"Marty: Well, because, well, um, you never could

...says Marty from his own personal fact-free zone."

russell, concurs: "You're literally correct about recission,"

And I was wrong about the home ownership rates, my bad, but had recently read about the drop in ownership rates in the UK. The numbers I read were not consistent with the ones you found and I validated.

Sometimes I am wrong.


I'm trying to teach myself to answer accusations of socialism with a simple "thank you".

And if Medicare had been expanded into universal health insurance for all Americans, with a commensurate increase in the Medicare tax to over-fund the program, I would thank Marty for socialism, too.

And I hope he would say "you're welcome" back. I'm sure he would, knowing a compliment when he hears one.

And I hope that ex-patriot Rush Limbaugh is thanking his socialist Costa Rican hosts for tending to his sputtering gnarled black fistula of a heart at their expense and, of course changing his dirty diapers before he can fling them across their national discourse, too.

Marty,

You want a Medicare buy-in. I salute you for that. What I want to know is this: do you think a Medicare buy-in would have been more likely, or less likely, if there were fewer Republicans in Congress?

--TP

TP, I think it could not have received any less Republican votes.

Eric, I wanted to point out one more distinction. The Medicare fix I wanted addressed the problem and, pretty specifically, just the problem. The bill that passed touched every person in the US, financially and from an insurance standpoint. That level of interventionism is government takeover as opposed to government providing a safety net.

So my objection to one is not as ironic or inconsistent as you think it is. One is limited government and the other is not.

"I'm trying to teach myself to answer accusations of socialism with a simple "thank you"."

John,

I think "thank you" is a perfectly reasonable response, you're welcome. In that vein (I never do this), my thoughts on socialism as a reasonable democratic choice are reflected here.

I am actually surprised that it continues to get such a negative response among progressives who, in most countries, would be Social Democrats. I think we should begin to use the term more to lessen it's historic negative connotation in the US.

I would just point out that just because CBO perceived a theoretical problem and demanded a loophole that would address it if and when doesn't automatically mean that insurance companies will be able to exploit it. Once the bill passes it is largely free from the tyranny of CBO scoring and can be enforced as well (or as badly) as the Secretary of HHS and the new Health Choices Administrator want it to be. I have yet to read the full text of the bill as enacted (but have the links to it up on our blog: http://www.angrybearblog.com/2010/03/have-you-read-health-care-law.html ) but suspect that even if their is some sort of limit on annual care, it will run up against the cost-sharing caps. And I don't see a Democratic Congress and Administration resolving that discrepancy against that cancer victim's family, medical bankruptcy doing no one any favors, ultimately it just pits health care provider against insurer.

And to switch gears, while I see a lot of people advocating a open Medicare fix, few people want to attach price tages. I am not sure how many people really understand that Medicare monthly premiums only cover around 12% of the cost, I am not seeing a lot of discussion about how new enrollees would really be able to pay 100%, this is not the panacea people want to believe it is.

"I am not sure how many people really understand that Medicare monthly premiums only cover around 12% of the cost, I am not seeing a lot of discussion about how new enrollees would really be able to pay 100%, this is not the panacea people want to believe it is."

Based on a somple need based payment system would the cost be more or less than 940 billion. I can't cost it but is it logical to expect it would cost more?

It is ironic, I suppose, that I favored the simplist solution, which provided the actual goal of universal coverage.

The cost is not so much what I object to as the very pragmatism that Eric refers to later. If universal coverage was the goal, Medicare was the way.

It would have been called the public option, pleasing many.

Marty, I'm with you. 100%.

In the end, a lot more than 30 million would have hopped on the Medicare option, but yeah, I agree.

We got this POS bill because this was the best bill that could get past a GOP that would filibuster anything (certainly, anything resembling our preferred Medicare buy-in) and a coterie of "centrist" Dems/Independents (Lieberman, Lincoln, Landrieu and Nelson - almost alliterative).

That's all.

The vast majority of Dem voters (and a majority of the American people in general) wanted the public option you prefer.

The problem is, the insurance industry has enough clout that it could sew up the support of every single Republican, and enough Democrats, to queer the deal.

Sad state of affairs.

To paraphrase Churchill, the only thing worse than this bill is not having this bill.

"it is largely free from the tyranny of CBO scoring and can be enforced as well (or as badly) as the Secretary of HHS and the new Health Choices Administrator want it to be"

Somehow, btw, this level of discretion doesn't really instill anymore confidence.

I can't seem to find the passage in Marx or Lenin where "socialism" is defined as "placing reporting requirements on health insurance providers that are about half as stringent as those imposed on labor unions." It's not exactly worker control of the means of production, is it?

Somehow, btw, this level of discretion doesn't really instill anymore confidence.

You know, the VA gets extremely high marks from the patients it serves, and it does so at far lower costs than private health care.

Note, the VA is not only public insurance, it is actually government run health care, soup to nuts.

And it works very, very well, at less cost.

Go figure.

"You know, the VA gets extremely high marks from the patients it serves"

I have said this before but, both the VA and Medicare typically get good marks for patient satisfaction, which is statistically meaningless for a comparison to private insurance.

The reason is that expectations of the VA and Medicare are not the same as expectations for private insurers.

If people with private insurance had to go through the paperwork mill and preauthorizations of Medicare patients they would be apoplectic. Medicare patients see that as the necessary evil of getting free care.

While I have slightly less experience with the VA the attitudes of patience and limited expectations seem similar.

It is just not a valid comparison.

Mind you, the VA is not an insurance provider, but a healt care provider.

And the good marks are from people that have access to both VA and private facilities.

I don't think that is apples and oranges.

I favored the simplist solution, which provided the actual goal of universal coverage.

The cost is not so much what I object to as the very pragmatism that Eric refers to later. If universal coverage was the goal, Medicare was the way.

It would have been called the public option, pleasing many.

It wouldn't have involved a whole new bureaucracy and would have only covered about 30M people at a time, so another 10% of the population.

I have no cite on cost but I suspect it would have been cheaper, with no need to expand it any faster than the ups and downs of the economy.

I agree with every single thing you've said here.

Unfortunately, your preference and mine was not available. Not even remotely close.

So, our choice is the bill we have and no bill at all. Or, maybe, the House Republican proposal, which doesn't expand coverage at all. More people would lack coverage than do now.

Does that suck? Yes.
Can we just do nothing and hope for the best? I don't think so.

I can't seem to find the passage in Marx or Lenin where "socialism" is defined as "placing reporting requirements on health insurance providers that are about half as stringent as those imposed on labor unions.

the GOP decided fear of socialism was too handy a tool to put away, so they changed the meaning of "socialism".

"it is largely free from the tyranny of CBO scoring and can be enforced as well (or as badly) as the Secretary of HHS and the new Health Choices Administrator want it to be"

Well at least someone is honest about it.

My best friend is an audiologist with the VA.

Lots of brain-damage and hearing loss in all wars, but especially the War in Iraq.

One day recently, as she tested an older veteran with hearing aids, he spent most of the examination ranting about ObamaCare and socialism and socialist healthcare and gummint meddling in the economy, and taxes and whatever.

She, of course, was professional about the entire deal, but I kind of wish I'd been assisting her.

As I fitted him with his new privately manufactured but heavily subsidized (also the great buying power of the VA, which lowers prices) hearing aids, I'd have turned the dial way up high and leaned in real close and shouted "I guess we're all Socialists, now, aren't we Sarge?".

As he jumped, I'd add, "You heard that, didn't you?"

JT: That was perhaps my favorite part of the Tea Party sh*t show: the people screaming to keep government out of Medicare.

That was perhaps my favorite part of the Tea Party sh*t show: the people screaming to keep government out of Medicare.

Work the logic backwards: if you accept that government programs are ineffective and unpopular, and that Medicare is effective and popular, QED Medicare cannot be a government program.
[Similar to: American does not torture innocents, ergo the people being tortured at Gitmo are terrorists.]

Here's the White House on what's in the bill: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/03/23/whats-health-care-bill

A pretty similar list but I think their explanations are a bit clearer and more precise. (Which is a change from the last version of this I saw from the WH - I think they hired an editor...)

There are times when I think somebody's right, there are times when I think somebody's wrong, and then there are times when I cannot figure out what somebody is trying to say. Can anybody help me parse Marty's reply in this exchange?

Tony P.: You want a Medicare buy-in. I salute you for that. What I want to know is this: do you think a Medicare buy-in would have been more likely, or less likely, if there were fewer Republicans in Congress?

Marty: TP, I think it could not have received any less Republican votes.

Thanks,
--TP

The comments to this entry are closed.