American Medical Association tries to walk back its public-plan opposition.
American Medical Association tries to walk back its public-plan opposition.
The New York Times reported today that the American Medical Association (AMA) is opposed to the creation of a public health insurance option, telling the Senate Finance Committee that it “threatens to restrict patient choice by driving out private insurers, which currently provide coverage for nearly 70 percent of Americans.” Facing considerable attention (and criticism), AMA is now trying to spin its opposition:
Today’s New York Times story creates a false impression about the AMA’s position on a public plan option in health care reform legislation. The AMA opposes any public plan that forces physicians to participate, expands the fiscally-challenged Medicare program or pays Medicare rates, but the AMA is willing to consider other variations of the public plan that are currently under discussion in Congress. This includes a federally chartered co-op health plan or a level playing field option for all plans. The AMA is working to achieve meaningful health reform this year and is ready to stand behind legislation that includes coverage options that work for patients and physicians.
This statement really isn’t any better; AMA is still not committed to a robust public option. As Igor Volsky notes, “A public plan that lacks the ability to negotiate cheaper rates with providers and push private insurers to do the same is a public plan in name only. While it may provide a repository for individuals who don’t trust private insurers, it will be unable to significantly lower health care costs.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
In other words, the AMA really doesn’t want to support anything that would upset the status quo. But they’re willing to support a lot of smoke and mirror manipulation that essentially does nothing to insure more people or enable the average family to afford BOTH health care and rent.
June 11th, 2009 at 2:26 pmmisscoleopteramolly,
June 11th, 2009 at 2:34 pmI hope Think Progress attacks and silences this group. They are against our glorious leader Obama and they must be disolved. I hope Obama arrests these people and charge them with treason. We are not allowed to be against what Obama wants.
The Republicans (Boehner) are already voicing their opposition as well by confusing the facts. They want Americans to believe the GOVERNMENT wants to control the health business.
God these guys are either totally stupid or they think the public is.
70% of Americans who have insurance can opt to keep their present coverage; those WITHOUT coverage would be allowed to opt for a national option. This would not only provide insurance for those who need it AND give competition to the rest of the industry.
Of course the medical industry is well represented by the GOP…
June 11th, 2009 at 2:35 pmAt this point, does it really matter what the AMA thinks? Or the banks? Or the auto industry? Or any other industry that essentially needs the American taxpayer to rescue them from their own incompetence and greed. To hear it, you’d think American industry is opposed to ’socialism’ – unless of course it’s the only way to survive. The US health care system cannot survive as it currently exists. Change or be changed. It’s that simple, on oh so many levels and issues. The ability to continue to put hard decisions off for more decades has ended.
June 11th, 2009 at 2:36 pmAmericasBack,
June 11th, 2009 at 2:37 pmThe AMA are a Terrorist organization. They oppose Obama and must be silenced. I say charge them with Domestic Terror laws. No one must oppose Obama.
The corrupt marriage of big pharma, big ins. and the unwillingness of physicians to call out this sham arrangement spits on the Hippocratic Oath. Doctors are body mechanics and techno-pill advisers for the status quo. They lack bedside manners even when they are invited in on the most important kitchen table issue of our time. Instead of boob jobs and facelifts maybe they could look outside their wallets and really save lives on daily basis with people who could and genuinely need their help and guidance.
June 11th, 2009 at 2:39 pmThe doctors are thinking about money. They want more money, and certainly not less. This is all about the dollar signs, and not about helping sick people, or better yet, helping people to stay well.
June 11th, 2009 at 2:39 pmHi The Blame Game…
June 11th, 2009 at 2:40 pmMr Blame Game,
June 11th, 2009 at 2:42 pmYou are tiresome!
We get it: you don’t like Obama.
You need to get it: many of us do like him.
larkohio,
June 11th, 2009 at 2:44 pmI do like Obama, that is why I want to silence the AMA. I hope Think Progress and its Media allies destroy the AMA the way they destroyed Bush and the GOP. They must be silenced. No one can oppose Obama, it’s unpatriotic.
How’s you cousin’s insurance? Imaginary as well?
June 11th, 2009 at 2:45 pmThe AMA wants to support patient choice between insurance companies. But it does not want to support the choice of People to have the ability to obtain medical care or not.
Yes, they’re supporting the insurance industry. But what I’ve heard is that a majority of doctors are for the creation of a single-payer health care system that covers everyone, cuts out the insurance vampires from skimming huge percentages of premium payments for their executive bonuses, and kicks health care administrators out of the loop as far as making decisions concerning patient care is concerned.
The American Psychological Association recently went through a battle where the people controlling the association were preventing the membership from dealing with the issue of psychologists who were participating in government torture programs to make them more effective.
If I were one of those crazies who go around wearing a tin foil hat, I might start asking the question: “Who is behind this infiltration and control of professional organizations, how far has the phenomenon spread, and what can be done to put an end to it?”
June 11th, 2009 at 2:46 pmThe Blame Game Says some weird sh!t
June 11th, 2009 at 2:34 pm
__________________________________________________________
Oh, look — our resident troll with a new moniker. How cute. It’s a pity the blather is still the same. You’d think he could come up with something fresh. Maybe he’s just off his feed today.
June 11th, 2009 at 2:47 pmThe AMA has no business even talking about this. They are not supposed to be a political advocacy organization. They qualify who counts as a doctor, what counts as a disease, etc. If doctors want to form an industry lobby that’s fine, but they can form it as a SEPARATE organization.
June 11th, 2009 at 2:47 pmI hope Think Progress and its Media allies destroy the AMA the way they destroyed Bush and the GOP.
You guys did that to yourselves, by rubberstamping every Bush initiative.
How’s the sour grapes crop this year, farmer BlameGame?
They look ripe enough for harvesting.
June 11th, 2009 at 2:48 pmBlameGame = Trajan
Do not waste your time.
June 11th, 2009 at 2:49 pmAmericasBack
June 11th, 2009 at 2:50 pmActually I have a meeting I have to be at a 3 but I’ll be sure to check back in case the little feller needs any additional help being humiliated afterward…
Do not waste your time.
Hey, I’m on my lunch break, and it’s a slow news day…
June 11th, 2009 at 2:51 pmgummble-bee-itch,
June 11th, 2009 at 2:51 pmHate to dissapoint you, but I’m not Trajan. Try again at guessing who I am.
ElBruce,
June 11th, 2009 at 2:52 pmI agree and they must be silenced.
Two weeks ago, I saw an ad for my House Rep, Doctor Parker Griffith, Ala. 5th, paid for by the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), For Healthcare Leadership Council. In the ad, Griffith is “working for quality, affordable healthcare, for everyone, guaranteed choice of doctors, and better veterans health care…”
I went looking for this PhRMA outfit and found an article from the AMA, dated March 27, 2009, that details conferences held among many organizations interested in keeping the profit in health insurance. And PhRMA? Their CEO is none other than Billy Tauzin, former Congressman and current pharmaceutical lobbyist, of the Medicare Prescription Drug Bill fame. Wonder how my House Rep, supposedly a Democrat AND a Doctor, is planning to vote at crunch time?
The first two bullet points on their list:
1. Reforms aimed at having all Americans purchase or otherwise obtain health insurance.
2. Advanceable, refundable tax credits or other subsidies to help more people afford health coverage.
These folks are NOT friends of single-payer health insurance!
June 11th, 2009 at 2:54 pmTry again at guessing who I am
June 11th, 2009 at 2:55 pm—
Are you a tiresome loser who has no intent but attention seeking and disruption? What is your purpose little one?
Is the AMA bought off too? What is the politics around the AMA?
1/5 of our population have no access to health care and 20,000 a year literally DIE as a result. To those in their 40’s, 50’s and 60’s good luck in trying to find a physician if you have a pre existing condition and in need of blood pressure medication. But hey,… when you have the heart attack or stroke the hospital will take care of you when it is too late.
June 11th, 2009 at 2:55 pmI am a capitolist. I truly believe in capitolism – it’s the only way (today) that we advance as a people.
I, too, am a big supporter of the cities where the seat of state governments are located.
I’m not so sure that they represent “the only way that we can advance as a people”, though.
I mean, what about all those Americans who don’t live in capitol cities? Don’t they deserve to advance, too?
June 11th, 2009 at 2:58 pmI’m not a very big Obama supporter. Personally, I believe you’ll see him going along with the corporate agenda just as long as the clamor of the People remains below a certain threshold. Once we beging to make a big enough ruckus, then he will shift his position to accommodate our views, but not so far as to alienate those who back the current political power structure.
Don’t get distracted by schills who try to make it appear Obama is this big reformer, and the People who voice their concern over health care in this country, or the violence our military is committing abroad, or the call to terminate NAFTA and the other “free trade” policies, are merely following in Obama’s footsteps. The fact is that Obama is following the demands of the People – but only with tiny little baby-steps.
June 11th, 2009 at 2:58 pmdbadass,
June 11th, 2009 at 2:59 pmMy puropose is to agree with the goals of Progressives. Conservatives are weak and don’t fight back. Progressives are strong and ruthless. I like being with the winning side.
I hereby nominate The Blame Game for OFnF.
Why not just cut to the chase?
June 11th, 2009 at 2:59 pmHurray for Dr. Coy! Of course, the greedy AMA is opposed to the public plan or single payer system because these plans will rob them of the opportunity to continue gouging the American public. People need to make sure their MDs and representatives in Washington know that their present stance is not tolerable.
June 11th, 2009 at 3:03 pmWhen the supposed big dog of the doctor group comes out in support of continued profits for the health insurance and big pharma groups one of two things is happening.
Either they have been bought out and influenced by the mega bucks that infects Congress or…
I forget the other choice.
June 11th, 2009 at 3:03 pmThe Lost Begging, of multiple names and singular quest, woefully voices its solitude by blaming and gaming in hopes of an answering sound, caring not if it is in support or in opposition, only that there is a response.
June 11th, 2009 at 3:03 pmThe AMA has no business even talking about this. They are not supposed to be a political advocacy organization.
The AMA is behaving just as I would expect it to. It is behaving as a monopolistic force and it is doing what it feels it must in order to protect its franchisees and its attendant pricing power.
June 11th, 2009 at 3:03 pmSKdeAnt, I’ll second that one.
June 11th, 2009 at 3:04 pmRobert M – It doesn’t really matter if Obama’s politics were similar to those of the Chinese – Obama is just the POTUS. His little baby steps are necessary because Congress is the great road block to all things good and decent for average Americans. It is run by corporations for corporations. Hell, as I sit here typing this, I just received an email from Chris Dodd who tells me that Congress fought the credit card companies, and won. But, since I’ve been paying attention I know that they didn’t really fight all that much and they didn’t win all that much either. Obama can only go so far as the politics of the day will let him. He’s not Dictator in Chief – that apparently only works with US foreign policy, military deployments and ignoring the 4th amendment, not the health of millions of Americans.
June 11th, 2009 at 3:05 pmPre Reagan era, for profit health care was considered immoral, unthinkable and unheard of with the exception of elected procedures.
Look haw far in the depths of immorality we have come and how much further will this go?
The movies of Soilent Green and The Island come to mind.
June 11th, 2009 at 3:07 pmI hereby nominate The Blame Game for OFnF.
I think that I can probably second your nomination.
But, first, I would like to know what OFnF stands for.
June 11th, 2009 at 3:08 pm.
THE FACTS ABOUT THE HEALTH INSURANCE INDUSTRY
by paradocs2
Sun Jun 07, 2009
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/6/7/739718/-THE-FACTS-ABOUT-THE-HEALTH-INSURANCE-INDUSTRY
.
June 11th, 2009 at 3:08 pmOFnF is in effect. Bye, Blame!
June 11th, 2009 at 3:08 pmAmericasBack Says:
I know many many ‘would be’ patients that have NO choice. Do you know why BlameGame? BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO Fu(king INSURANCE.
I have insurance and I have no choice. Ever heard of “in-network providers?” If there was a public option, I could go to any doctor I wanted.
June 11th, 2009 at 3:12 pmtom Says:
But, first, I would like to know what OFnF stands for.
“Operation Flag ‘n Freeze.”
Of course, spending a whole thread talking about how you’re not going to talk to the troll is almost as bad as talking to the troll.. :P
June 11th, 2009 at 3:13 pmYou know what’s funny. I’ve been posting here for near 3 years and Ive never seen a troll by that name.
June 11th, 2009 at 3:14 pmFrom: truemajouity.org:
States across the country are already using public plans to drive down costs and expand access to health care.
June 11th, 2009 at 3:15 pmI dont have problem with true capitalism [companies competing to create low cost products] but when the insurance folks are basically pricing themselves out of business, and people into bankruptcy, and then wants government to protect those profits by teaming up [like a cartel] and lobbying for legislation to deny people affordable health insurance, which capitalism is supposed to do, something has gone quite wrong.
June 11th, 2009 at 3:16 pmI can understand their concern about medicare rates since Bush starved the beast for the last 8 years until it got to the point where doctors were losing money on medicare patients. But, I believe that if a public option is there (I sincerely hope so), that the government will make sure to pay competitive rates for services offered by care providers. They will have more of an ability to offer higher rates for services if the new system has only a 4% overhead like Medicare does.
As far as restricting patient’s choices of doctors, I can’t believe that the AMA doesn’t know that we don’t get to choose our doctors under for-profit health insurance. I get to choose my doctor from those who are signed up for Blue Cross.
It makes no sense to me that the AMA and/or physicians would be against a public option for health insurance. Do they really enjoy begging Blue Cross to cover a procedure their patients need? Do they enjoy the paperwork deluge they need to file to be reimbursed three or four months after the service? My physician and everyone in her practice are all for a single payer system. But, maybe that’s because they want to practice medicine, not get rich.
June 11th, 2009 at 3:20 pmThe AMA actually sounds pretty reasonable to be concerned. Medicare fee schedules are doo-doo. I haven’t heard or seen any proposals tying the rates to a % UCR. The guy that wrote the NY Times piece wrote a lot of filler with very little substance.
June 11th, 2009 at 3:21 pmI have an honest question that I hope someone can explain. One of the GNOP proposals is to require everyone to purchase a health insurance plan.
Even with tax credits, how can a (mythical) family of 4 making $50,000 per year possibly afford health insurance if they are not getting it through their employer? Will the tax credits that are talked about offset the cost of the insurance (assuming approximately $1500 or more per month for family coverage, for a total of at least $18,000 per year in credits)?
What happens to all of the businesses that would stop their coverage and force people to have to buy on the open market, heaven help you if you have any kind of pre-existing condition.
This idea doesn’t make any sense to me, because the numbers just don’t add up. All I see is a huge flow of money to already very rich insurance companies.
June 11th, 2009 at 3:23 pmIf the insurance folks were true capitalists they would compete against one another to create the best quality and priced product possible.
If health insurance were a car it would cost a million dollars, bankrupt you, and refuse to run because you had an existing vehicle.
June 11th, 2009 at 3:26 pmI’m surprised that the AMA is against a public/single payer option. They’re probably afraid it will cut into their profits – just like the insurance companies.
Where are the doctors in the AMA who took the Hippocratic Oath
to do no harm and to keep the good of the patient as the highest priortity???
It’s all about money.
June 11th, 2009 at 3:27 pmdeebaser Says:
gummble-bee-itch Says:
BlameGame = Trajan
You know what’s funny. I’ve been posting here for near 3 years and Ive never seen a troll by that name.
You missed Think Progress Watch? and ThinkProgressWatchWatch? That’s really too bad. Looks like TPW is back in business, and Trajan is referring to himself as Rodan, again.
June 11th, 2009 at 3:27 pmBrothaBill, hows the wife?
June 11th, 2009 at 3:27 pmYou really have to laugh when you think about it. The right is all about free market enterprise and capitalism. But, they don’t want any competition in the health insurance field. I thought that would be free market competition. Why does this industry deserve to have a monopoly with no competition?
Too bad if a little competition puts them out of business. We have shipped so many of our middle class jobs over seas which did away with them in this country. So why should we care if a public option competition puts for-profit health insurers out of business? I’m fairly sure that all the workerbees in that industry can find a job in the public sector health insurance system.
June 11th, 2009 at 3:29 pmRe: “doctors were losing money on medicare patients” – I’d like some proof of that. Until I see it, I believe that is such just so much doctor inspired BS. Doctors do not lose money on procedures the government pays for. They might not make as much as they would like, but they don’t loose money.
June 11th, 2009 at 3:31 pmI’d like to see how many doctors boycott a public plan when 40 – 60 % of their patient base is on such a plan??
June 11th, 2009 at 3:34 pmBlame Game vomits:
Try again at guessing who I am?
Rumplestiltskin?
.
Bilbo Hussein Baggins Says:
You really have to laugh when you think about it. The right is all about free market enterprise and capitalism. But, they don’t want any competition in the health insurance field. I thought that would be free market competition. Why does this industry deserve to have a monopoly with no competition?
I don’t see FedEx UPS and DHL going under just because there’s a USPS. The USPS has to give even coverage door-to-door, allowing the private companies to focus on competition in more lucrative markets. In fact, I think this could be a perfect analogy for how a public/private healith insurance relationship could work pretty well in the U.S.
June 11th, 2009 at 3:38 pmOkay. Compensation theory tells us that if the benefit goes away, other compensation needs to increase in order for a business to retain the same level of talent. This means that while not necessarily immediately, wages for that 50,000 family will rise over time to a level where the loss of employer sponsored coverage is offset.
However, this does not factor in the differences in the rates of individuals / families. Most employers absorb a % of the rates as opposed to setting aside a set benefit amount. This means that an individual whose plan costs $400 a month would only have an employee contribution of $100 out of their wages, whereas an worker with a family plan that costs $1200 would be expected to pay $400 a month.
On the one hand this is equitable in that the employer is giving a 75% contribution to both employees, but in reality the dude with the family is getting $500 more in compensation per month for the additional cost of his benefits.
Nail. Head. You hit it. Unless you remove medical underwriting and age banding and require coverage, it’s going to be a freaking mess. At that point though, you might as well nationalize the insurance anyway.
June 11th, 2009 at 3:39 pmI have health insurance and I haven’t seen a doctor in years. I’ve seen Physician’s Assistants and Nurse Practitioners! I have to demand to see a real doctor and be in critical condition to see one. If I make an appointment to see a doctor it’s always a LONG wait – sometimes until the end of the year for the appointment!
June 11th, 2009 at 3:40 pmBilbo Hussein Baggins Says
June 11th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
You really have to laugh when you think about it. The right is all about free market enterprise and capitalism. But, they don’t want any competition in the health insurance field.
_____________________________________________________________
The right only cares about free market enterprise and capitalism when it benefits THEM. If competition threatens them, they’re all about eliminating the threat through laws and regulations.
You’re right — I’m laughing. Their biggest argument is that any kind of government plan would spell disaster for the country and turn us into the Soviet Union. But if a government plan is so bad, and if private enterprise is so much better, why are they afraid?
They’re not afraid the government plan would be bad. They’re afraid it will work — and work better than the for-profit gravy train they’ve got now.
Nothing quite like getting squashed by the “invisible hand” — like a cockroach.
June 11th, 2009 at 3:45 pmThis fulfills President Obama’s
commitment to health care:
In the Wonkroom Igor Volsky has been doing much work on the health care issue. Here you will find:
June 11th, 2009 at 3:45 pmTri-Committee Health Reform Draft Proposal
deebaser:
Thank you for your analysis, it is pretty much what I was thinking. One further question though. You stated:
Compensation theory tells us that if the benefit goes away, other compensation needs to increase in order for a business to retain the same level of talent.
With the economy in the shape it is in, and will be in for the next 5 years, what are the chances of the compensation theory you discussed actually happening? I think there is a very large pool of talent that will be willing to work for much less compensation and benefits, and by the time the economy comes back and stabilizes the employer provided insurance will be gone.
Again, thank you for your informative and insightful comment.
June 11th, 2009 at 3:49 pmI got free health insurance. Its call the N.O.N.E plan.
Funny thing, not funny ha ha, but funny weird, insurance companies want to keep it that way. But its okay, I understand that investing in tobacco and derivatives is much more important than a life and some people need really big homes with big lawns so they dont have to see reality, cant say as I blame them, its a beautiful world and who wants to see people hacking up their lungs while checking your latest stock portfolio chock full of tobacco stocks poolside on the laptop while checking out the hottie illegal maid they hired….its a buzz kill. Maybe they will just nail me to a cross, like Pontius did that poor, thin, long haired guy with the really cool spikey headband.
June 11th, 2009 at 3:51 pmIt happens. I used to work in the Health Insurance industry and the Medicare fee schedules are a joke. I remember dealing with one case where a Neurosurgeon was paid hundreds of dollars for ten hours of Neurosurgery. When a doctor’s labor rate is less than a mechanics, the schedule is broken.
June 11th, 2009 at 3:55 pmIt’s really impossible to tell, but I agree it looks pretty bleak in this economy. On the otherhand, market forces can move pretty quickly in the job market (think Silicon Valley mid-late 90s).
Employers can pay you the bare minimum that they can get people in the door for, but the cost of hiring and training is usually significantly more than that of retention. High turnover is usually more devasting than the savings you get from paying what you were willing to pay to attract and retain employees anyway.
The bottom line is I have no earthly idea what the short term effects on the obsolescense of employer sponsored health care would be, but it’s pretty safe to assume that long term the total compensation will remain the same with the employer outlay shifting to direct compensation/bonuses.
With single payor, taxes will increase but I believe ultimately that this will be MORE than offset by the elimination of the cost of employer sponsored health insurance.
June 11th, 2009 at 4:12 pmNot to worry =) I dont get angry about such things.
June 11th, 2009 at 4:14 pmAwww… thanks dude. This is pretty much the first time that a masters in HR management has been of any use. lol.
There’s a fantastic textbook on compensation called ‘Compensation’. You can get an old edition pretty cheap on ebay. It’s one of the few I never sold back.
June 11th, 2009 at 4:15 pmBut in comments submitted to the Senate Finance Committee, the American Medical Association said: “The A.M.A. does not believe that creating a public health insurance option for non-disabled individuals under age 65 is the best way to expand health insurance coverage and lower costs. The introduction of a new public plan threatens to restrict patient choice by driving out private insurers, which currently provide coverage for nearly 70 percent of Americans.”
Dear AMA, kiss my ASS.
At least we know now who you really work for.
June 11th, 2009 at 4:41 pmShame on their greed in the face of so many others’ need!
June 11th, 2009 at 4:55 pmdeebaser:
My mama always taught me the value of proper etiquette. I learned “please” and “thank you” at an early age. She also taught me to always ask questions and, as she said, “learn something new every day” which I try to do. And I did today.
She also taught me not to suffer fools, so I have no problem ripping apart people that don’t think, don’t want to think, or are just stupid by their own choice, you know, your typical right wing Republicans ;-)
June 11th, 2009 at 4:59 pmdeebaser 75:
You are more optimistic than I am, but I really do hope you are right.
June 11th, 2009 at 5:01 pmScrew the AMA this is the same organization that screamed about Medicare being socialized medicine then proceeded to rape the program. I remember when doctors were respected members of the community who lived nice comfortable lives and drove Buicks. After Medicare they are some the richest in the community working half the hours. Interesting.
June 11th, 2009 at 5:15 pmOh dear, now the AMA wants to re-arrange the deck chairs on the Titanic. It is so bizarre that the AMA would not support a public option considering the fact that it takes 9 to 12 months for them to collect from the insurance companies and that the insurance companies NEVER pay the full amount.
There will be a health care rally in Washington DC on June 25 beginning at 11:30. Come join the rally, if you can. I’ll be there.
June 11th, 2009 at 5:22 pmThe AMA can’t tell exactly where it stands on torture, either.
June 11th, 2009 at 6:12 pmThe Blame Game Says:
You ignorant pathetic troll. How in the world can you be so proud to be so stupid and pathetic?
June 11th, 2009 at 8:26 pmThis is an opinion not based on any real analysis. But, I’ll bet the “official” AMA statements have alot of opposition among, at the least, a large minority of its members. I think that, probably, alot of the physicians influencing this position are in executive positions embedded within the same interests as the American Hospitals Association.
June 12th, 2009 at 1:04 amHere’s a piece from a physician about his position on the AMA’s actions, for anyone interested:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e88_1244763303&c=1
June 12th, 2009 at 1:51 amthe AMA has ruined the health of the American people… focusing only on symptoms, not causes or prevention, unecessarily creating new diseases from excessive drug/pharma prescribing.
June 12th, 2009 at 5:30 amBunch of drug pushers.
“The AMA opposes any public plan that forces physicians to participate, expands the fiscally-challenged Medicare program or pays Medicare rates, but the AMA is willing to consider other variations of the public plan that are currently under discussion in Congress. This includes a federally chartered co-op health plan or a level playing field option for all plans.”
Translation: We like making lots of money but will accept any government sponsored plan that forces folks to pay as much for insurance as a private plan.
June 12th, 2009 at 11:27 am