The latest health letter from Public Citizenmentioned that Wyden's (and Bennett's) health plan was based on the model in the Netherlands. Unfortunately, this article isn't on line at this time. The article had reservations about this plan. Any plan that steers money to insurance companies should be regarded with skepticism.

Explain to me what the benefit is of requiring everyone to buy insurance, whether it's affordable and useful or not.

My experience has been that only three insurers were willing to cover my small business AT ALL. One of them was United Health/Pacificare, which apparently has an office policy of denying all claims and only reviewing them again for those squeaky wheels who can get through their customer service phone maze. The other two providers raised their rates exorbitantly each and every year, until my business could no longer afford the coverage for employees at all.

Seems to me, the option to just walk away has been one of the few things giving bargaining power. What's to stop insurers under the Wyden plan from requiring $5,000 mandatory premiums under threat of legal penalties? Will insurers be required to have affordable rates and to honor valid health care claims?

If you read my history of posts to Blue Oregon, you'll see that I generally support Wyden and other Progressive Oregon Democrats, and economic policies that help the little guy. I really want the Wyden plan to prove to make sense and to be good for the thousands of Oregonians who are facing financial hardship due to skyrocketing medical and insurance costs.

This plan gets support from the Rs and the business community for de-linking employment and health coverage. I think it bears consideration. Right now Amer. business is at a competitive disadvantage by having to shoulder health insurance. So this could be a winner, and a road to single payer ..

First off, hats off to Wyden for attempting anything in this mine field.

But, it just seems convoluted.

As a self-employed person, I have had health care that I pay for. When I hired my wife to do office work for me, and at one time had an assistant, we started a group health care plan for all three of us. Well, actually it was two. As my wife was the employee, she carried me as a dependent on her health care coverage in the group plan that I paid for as her employer. Due to a couple reasons, the assistant left about a year ago. That left a health care "group" with one employee and one dependent. We have been paying over $700 a month for coverage.

Now, if I'm required to go buy my insurance as an individual, and my wife too, how much will this cost? We will have to go through all the hassle of this. Then, I will have to pay my wife an insurance bonus of over $700 a month for two years?

Whew! First off, as the business now pays for our health insurance, that is pre-tax dollars. If I turn around and have to pay her the insurance bonus, that is taxed.

-- Actually that will be the same for everyone, and a windfall of tax revenue for Oregon.

But here is my main point - I'd rather pay an insurance tax as an employer of ??? $400 per employee per month, $600 ??, whatever -- And skip the whole middle. I'd rather have national health care without the insurance companies taking a profit cut out of the middle.

Wyden's plan is an okay start - but why should a national health care plan increase my income tax payments and guarantee for-profit health care companies a profit? Why not directly tax me as an employer per employee and cut out the expensive middle man?

Although I think the Wyden plan, or any health care reform plan that gets bipartisan support for that matter, deserves consideration, I am not convinced.

Bill, you said it perfectly - this plan helps out companies that are at a competitive disadvantage because they shoulder health care costs. But at what cost are those companies freed from paying for our health care?

Well, for companies paying minimum wage, at the government's cost, and ultimately our cost. For those who think this is bad, think again - we're already paying for minimum-wage workers' healthcare in the emergency room since most of their employers don't provide healthcare and, well, you can't afford it if you're paid minimum wage. This is an improvement.

For people making lots of money, it comes at their own cost. If they can afford it, especially as costs go down (as they're supposed to under this, or any reform plan), that's great! Let's free companies from the burden of providing healthcare and allow them to pay their employees more and be more competitive. Again, an improvement.

But there's a group in the middle for whom this isn't such a good idea: middle-income workers, who depend on employer-subsidized insurance. Wyden's plan could discourage their employers from covering their healthcare. Unlike their poorer counterparts, middle-income families are lucky enough to not need government subsidies. Unlike their richer counterparts, an increase in healthcare costs isn't easy. Even if healthcare costs drop, will it be enough to make up for the increased amount they pay when their employer stops covering part of it?

This is not to say the Wyden plan wouldn't work. But I think we need to look carefully at any plan that discourages employer contributions and think about how to make those plans affordable for middle class families who already struggle with rising prices and stagnant wages.

Maybe Kari knows this, but I'm pretty sure I read a similar concern about the tax implications of the Wyden plan on a previous post and his bill somehow keeps taxpayers from losing at tax time. Good point to raise.

As for "cutting out the expensive middle man," I couldn't agree more, but I think the chances of this happening are about as high as the chances of passing a Peace Tax through Congress (another idea I love). Single payer legislation has been introduced every Congress since the end of World War II. Not Obama, not Clinton, not even Edwards proposed anything close to single payer. Okay, I get it, politicians. You don't like our idea.

At least Wyden is finding Republican support for some pretty radical insurance restructuring and regulation, which is pretty amazing. What the hell did he promise them to support it?

I'm pretty sure the percentage of employers in the U.S. who provide health coverage is declining every year. Very soon, less than half of all Americans will have health care through their employers. Somebody, do something.

I prefer Hillary care of Wyden care. Hillarycare is free for most Americans. Wyden's plan doesn't go far enough for total universal care and elderly care.

Single-payer has never really struck me as a truly Commercial-American idea.

The problem with "truly Commercial-American idea(s)" is that they are not all great ideas. Some are absolute disasters. There are two primary problems with having commercial insurance companies involved in health care. One is the horrendous amount of administrative work involved. The other is that with every commercial enterprise there is always the risk of greed directing management. The approving reference to the Securities Exchange Commission above ignores the screw-up and probably malfeasance in the SEC in relation to the current sub-prime problem. The health care system is in enough of a mess without having foxes guarding this coop.

Here's the analysis by Physicians for a National Health Program about the Lewin Group's analysis and Wyden's Plan:

Lewin Group analysis of Sen. Wyden's plan http://www.pnhp.org/news/2006/december/lewin_group_analysis.php

Make sure you read McCanne's comment after the overview of the Lewin Group's analysis where he argues why the entire premise of the Wyden plan is simply out to lunch. No wonder that at last check Wyden has gotten more Republicans to sign on to his idiocy than Democrats.

Wyden's "Healthy Americans Act" is Wrong Model for Health Reform http://www.pnhp.org/news/2008/february/wydens_healthy_ame.php

For those who haven't been paying attention, Chipper here, along with all of the Democrats and most of the Republicans (there's your hint), voted for SB-329 in the 2007 session after the Democratic leadership, in cooperation with Republicans, made sure no single-payer or other public plan was even on the table.

If the Oregon Health Fund Board it created follows the intent of Chipper and his buds, you WILL be required to buy private health insurance in 2009 unless your employer provides it, or you are eligible for a federal or state program, just like with Wyden's plan. Massachusetts enacted a similar plan this year and, surprise, surprise, it is already failing.

My question to Shields is this: Have you been paying attention to what is happening right now with the Oregon Health Fund Board process and the grassroots advocacy efforts to turn that process into something far more progressive and practical than you and the rest of the Oregon Legislature want or Wyden's plan? Why don't you look into that and get back to us?

Patch Adam Perryman writes, "Should the U.S. Government really be in charge of doling out health insurance? My thinking is no, but it should be in charge of making sure that insurance companies maintain the same, level and ethical standards across the board. The parallels here are the EPA or SEC. Regulations are made and maintained. New ideas are considered and adopted through legislation."

I hear that alot. But I think of two things:

First, the government is in charge of my fire protection, and I don't have a problem with it. Not one. If there is a fire, you call 911 and in a matter of seconds fire trucks start showing up, and they do the best they can depending upon the circumstances. It works well, and when I look at my tax bill, I'd call it affordable. Government can run complex programs that benefit people, and run them well. It's just a lot of anti-government Republicant hype that government has to cost more, and run poorly. It's just not true.

Second, should for-profit businesses be in charge of "doling out" my health care? Let's face reality. By having for profit business in charge of health care, we are saying that there is a profit motive to denying my coverage of conditions, types of treatments, and generally delaying health care -- and there is not ANY motivation that I receive good quality health care. This goes beyond insuring that there is not waste or misappropriation in the system, the cost of the claim review process is far greater than what waste and abuse would ever be. What this is all about is "insuring" that I pay the most for the least. In that formula lies greater profit.

What Wyden's plan, Clinton's plan, well, just about every plan does is to provide an insurance monopoly. These companies under the manditory health care systems would be in the driver's seat. I would be REQUIRED to pay for something geared to deny me health care. That is not a health care system, it is a health care denial system.

Only in America.

I prefer Hillary care of Wyden care. Hillarycare is free for most Americans. Wyden's plan doesn't go far enough for total universal care and elderly care.

Steve Johnson has repeated two falsehoods about Clinton's plan (unkowingly I'll presume) that needs to be swatted down for the cyncism and deceit Clinton fully intended in the very formulation of her plan.

The first is what Clinton's plan even is. Under her plan you have the choice of 1) keeping your current insurance (if your employer does if you get your health insurance through your employer), 2) buying into some undefined public plan or 3) BUYING into the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program.

She threw in 2) as a tactical deceit when Kucinich was in the race pushing his single-payer plan (HR-676). She gave no specifics and it has fallen out the dialog now that Kucinich and Edwards are not in the race.

She has tricked people into believing with 3) that most Americans would get "free" health insurance. Nothing could be further than the truth. In fact the FEHBP is a managed competition system of that is in most respects private health insurance. Federal employees have their premiums paid to the private health insurance administrator they choose under this plan by us, the taxpayers. She has not put forth any Medicare-like tax collection system, or any alternate tax system, under this plan to pay the premiums of private citizens who would chose the FEHPB option.

And for those not paying attention, her plan, like Wyden's, and unlike Obama's, would require that you buy what amounts to private health insurance with no real option to buy into any true public insurance plan under penalty of law. Paul Krugman, who before 2000 actually rebuked anyone who dared call him "liberal", has vociferously supported Clinton's concept of mandated participation. He has also supported some from of single-payer, which would mandate participation much like SSI and Medicare does now, and has found himself in a moral bind between that principle and Clinton's hijacking of that principle. Clueless Democrats somehow have taken that as evidence Clinton's plan is "liberal".

In all respects, despite Johnson's second falsehood, Wyden's plan would go exactly (NOT) as far as Clinton's plan towards affordable universal care and elderly care.

(Steve are you just misinformed, or are you peddling Clinton's intentionally misleading propaganda with this comment?)

Another problem with private insurance companies being involved in health care is that part of the money that goes into the health care financing pot goes as profits to the shareholders of those companies who do nothing about providing health care.

One of the more profound thinkers of the 20th Century was Peter J. Drucker who was regarded as the father of modern management and who was a consultant to many major American corporations. He held a theory that a successful society needed three components: Private enterprises, government, and non-profit organizations. The trick is to decide which functions belong where. France, which was rated No. 1 in the world by the World Health Organization for delivery of health services, chose to make health care a government function. Others that were rated higher on the WHO year 2000 report than No. 37 (the United States) also made health care a government function. The main reason Congress doesn't follow suit for the United States is that politicians in Congress are bought by the health care industries.

Here is at least one problem with Wyden’s plan: Just like when the qualifying age for receiving full benefits from Social Security was raised from 65 to 67 and the contract American workers bought into when they first started working and paying Social Security taxes was broken by the government - people who receive medical benefits as part of their pension will have the retirement contract they worked many years to receive broken by this proposed legislation. People have already paid by way of their employment to receive these contracted medical benefits. Any healthcare legislation that is passed MUST keep those retirement contracts intact. Anything less MUST be rejected!

While an interesting highlight of one Senator's efforts, unfortunately it reads more like a PR piece witten by the Senator's staff than a news piece meant to educate the public. The quotes of critics play a minimal role in the piece and do not really address the fundamental flaw in the Senator's plan. The key flaw is the belief that the same mentality that runs our schools, manages the building and maintenance of our roads will be requiring everyone to have an insurance policy whose minimal coverage is defined by a bureaucrat rather than the market. Existing mandates regarding drug use therapy, fertility services and others restrict the choices that both employers and employees have regarding the level and cost of health insurance. The Senator's plan fails to include one of the key elements of health insurance cost control. When employers and employees can exercise discretion about where and when they spend their health care dollar, health care costs drop dramatically. When I pay a discounted retail cost of $40 for a generic drug, I have a much greater incentive to purchase it at Wal-Mart of Target for $4 than when my co-pay is $7. Most people are used to paying $7-$15 RX co pays where it is seen by many as an entitlement. The author of this article and the editors should immediately have a similar piece that promotes a non-government solution. To not do so is shameful and another milestone in the decline of journalistic standards. I am sure the Heritage Foundation will provide the same sort of documentation to the author that the Senator's office did.

How does the plan address primary care? It seems that if everyone has to have insurance, and it is a fairly high minimum standard, than most Americans would get basic preventive medical services, immunizations, well baby checks, screenings for common diseases and cancers, and the usual array of annual exams/lab tests.

MERELY by providing these (very cheap) preventive services, it sure looks like Wyden's plan could save billions (if not trillions). No one is talking about the massive public health benefit (and cost effectiveness) of providing universal primary care.

The reason why we need a health system to cover EVERYONE is about cost -control, not authoritarianism. Uninsured people drive up the cost of health care.

Of course, any successful government run program (even in a public-private partnership) MUST have a few essentials: 1) electronic medical records and a system of privacy protections to go with it 2) government regulation of capital investments -- and please, let's do a little better than Oregon has done with the certificate of need debacle. 3) evaluation of medical and pharmaceutical technology -- we cannot allow these expensive technologies to drive up the cost of cost or medicine, as they are now

Look at Canada. They have a truly excellent system -- see Health Canada. We don't have to follow their same organizational model for service delivery, but their research and regulatory systems are excellent.

Rose

P.S. Keep a look out for some health care issues closer to home -- Lane County is proposing a $400,000 budget cut to Public Health Services (out of a 1.6 million budget, $400,000 is a 25% reduction). Right now county level Public Health is literally the ONLY medical care system helping many many many vulnerable people (and keeping the chlamydia under control)... maternal child health, immunizations, std clinic (and epidemiological tracking/partner notification services), HIV testing, Hep a & b immunizations and Hep c testing, emergency preparedness, tobacco prevention, and so on...

Above all, remember that Wyden's plan is a plan for universal private insurance crafted by one of the most progressive members of the Senate, with a decades-long career of fighting for consumers. So, his approach is to empower consumers, not the industry.

Sorry Kari, you're flat out peddling propaganda here, but you are just a flak for a lot of Democrats who like to mislead people they are progressive. Ron "I endorse Judge Roberts" and "consumers driven into debt by health care costs should not be able to declare bankruptcy (because he's in the pocket of credit card companies)" Wyden is deceiver #1. Wyden is not progressive.

More to the point, just because you say he wants to empower the consumer doesn't make it so. In fact, when it comes to health insurance, the very idea of empowering the consumer is a pure example Republican antisocial mental illness. The fact is that consumer power in the marketplace is not a meaningful concept when it comes to private health insurance. Private health insurance is by design and market function a vehicle for controlling costs by denying health care. That's the objective with private health insurance because in our health care and health insurance market structure, increased profits only come by reducing payments on health claims for insured patients.

The minimum available plan will be a very high-quality plan, at least as good as that which members of Congress

The cost for plans of this quality will be vastly inflated and by all credible analyses unaffordable, even though people will be forced to spend excessively for it, because private insurance companies will be diverting a portion of what should go to health care into their private, very well-tailored pockets where Wyden lives. Particularly since the health insurance and health care industry will line up on one side against premium-paying consumers on the other.

Wyden's health care plan actually makes your health insurance premiums a tax deduction,

At the bottom line Wyden's plan is a massive welfare-for-private-insurance-industry fraud because, as Kari actually argues here, it just diverts a large percentage of national treasure to them. The only true progressive and Democratic alternative is a much more cost effective public plan that tells private health insurers to take a hike, and reserves the national treasure we don't give them for other important public needs.

You're just repeating Wyden's Republican talking points here Karl. Fortunately, if you keep it up you'll be making the best arguments against Wyden - and Merkley. Merkley has endorsed Wyden's plan because, after all, what else is a toady like Merkly who is basing his entire campaign on collecting endorsements from sellouts like Wyden gonna do?

I used to think the war would be the thing that would cause the people to clear the liars and crooks out of the Democratic party who have sold out to the Republicans out of office. I now think it is going to be health care. The best thing Oregonians who actually want health care can do this year is vote against Merkley (while getting all over Novick to give us real health care reform), and next time vote against Wyden, the guy who is lining up Merkley and more Republicans than Democrats to rip us off with this plan because it IS a Republican plan. He, like Westlund, another guy who is still a Republican pushing his state-level version in SB-329, just have the nerve to lie about it right to our face because they don't think we're smart enough to know it.

Look at Canada. They have a truly excellent system -- see Health Canada. We don't have to follow their same organizational model for service delivery, but their research and regulatory systems are excellent.

Umm Rose, Canada has much affordable primary care than we'd ever have under Wyden's plan to throw massive welfare to private insurance companies BECAUSE Canada has a PUBLIC health insurance system that most cost effectively provides coverage for primary care.

And what don't you like about their service delivery system? It's primarily based on private doctors who make a reasonable living. We've all but lost private practices here as doctors have been driven by the private insurance system into corporate health care systems, many into specialty practices. Private corporate interests who will line up with the private health insurance companies against people under Wyden's plan, by the way.

Read the PNHP analysis of Wyden's before you starting spouting things you think his plan would accomplish that don't have any solid basis.

Credit to Wyden for trying, but I don't like it. One of the main things driving health care costs are the lobbying efforts of the insurance and drug industries. This doesn't take them out of the equation at all. So part of that $813 billion is the profit expectation of the private firms and their major shareholders. The American people will be compelled to participate. Oversight will be limited due to the private structure.

If we're going to do it, we need to go all the way and demand socialized, single payer health care. Wyden should take this concept and form a pool where companies with a direct stake in American military occupation (oil, defense contracts, gas pipelines) and offensive war efforts are forced to pool their resources to pay for U.S. military involvement. That should return our military budget to the pre-Iraq war level of $300B, saving $200B a year. Then there's the other direct costs that Congress and the President don't even figure into the budget. That's another $100-$200B a year saved. Corresponds quite nicely with the record profits of the oil cartels.

The U.S. Army has been providing single payer health care to the surrounding communities of military bases for years, but we can't do that for our own citizens?

Oh... One more thing. IF we are all going to get taxed one way or another for health care, let's fix the FDA, USDA, and other government bodies that aren't doing their jobs. Make them independent of the executive branch and answerable directly to a bipartisan committee from Congress. Stop feeding aspartame, MSG, high fructose corn syrup and all the other slop to the masses (or at least put Surgeon General's warnings on the packages so people know what they're getting), aggressively limit pollution on industry, limit the work week (even for salaried personnel), and all the other things that are making Americans so unhealthy these days.

"The Rest of the Story" is feeding us some fiction or poorly researched non-fiction.

Wyden voted AGAINST the Bankruptcy "Reform" bill.

As for Roberts, a lot of good Dems voted for Roberts (Feingold, for instance) because they can't just oppose every nominated judge. That one vote hardly tells the whole story on a Senator's progressivism.

Wyden not a progressive? Well, by DC-standards he's a liberal, so you might be right. Give me a break. Anti-war from the very first vote, anti-Patriot Act after the first vote, anti-Bush tax plan, anti-Bush energy plan, pro-choice, pro-consumer, pro-education, pro-tax equity, pro-environment. One of a dozen or so in the Senate who consistently voted for immediate withdrawal from Iraq. Yeah he's made some votes that irritate us - who hasn't? Earl voted for DOMA and Republican takings legislation. DeFazio votes against immigrants and with the NRA. And they are great progressives, just like Wyden.

As for health care, I would have to agree that this is not an entirely progressive plan. Certainly the fact that he got the Republicans to agree to universal care with a massive government subsidy for working and poor people is pretty progressive, as is making insurance companies stop cherry picking healthy people just to make more billions. Allowing the insurance companies to go on living -- not too progressive, but probably the only choice for any leader with a shot at getting a fillibuster-proof bill through the Senate.

Single payer non-profit is my preference. But there are some good things in the bill (minimum standards of coverage and insurers required to cover anyone). It's probably the best we can do and as Kari said it moves the ball forward.

One thing I would like to see in the bill is a Medicare option. Allow people to purchase coverage from Medicare if they choose. Then we'll see how many people prefer private coverage over government health insurance. The only objection I can see is the private insurers asking "How are we supposed to compete against that?". Who cares?

"Non-Fiction Story" is typical of the deceit offered in support of Wyden. They are clever weasels, you just have to know the facts and where to find them:

Wyden voted AGAINST the Bankruptcy "Reform" bill.

There were two bankruptcy reform acts. Wyden did vote against the "Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005" (S-256), passed by the Senate on 10-Mar-2005. But he voted FOR the "Bankruptcy Reform Act of 2001" (S-420), passed by the Senate on 15-Mar-2001, which later become the "Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2001". The 2001 act had passed both chambers. It was to become law after a final conference on Sept 12, 2001. The rest as they say, is history. Only because of events of the day before did it not become law:

36 'Democratic' Senators Vote For Credit Card/Banking Industry's Bankruptcy 'Reform' http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0316-03.htm

By the way, the sponsor of S-420 that Wyden happily voted FOR in 2001 was Grassley who has also signed on to Wyden's corrupt health insurance plan. Note also that Wyden gladly sold the people out with his vote in early 2001, when the Shrub was still weak, because that's the kind of guy who sells out his constituency (and has a staff who'll sit there and deceive the public for him) that Wyden is.

As for Roberts, a lot of good Dems voted for Roberts (Feingold, for instance)

Just because both Feingold and Wyden voted like idiots for a dirtbag like Roberts, a guy who had less than 2 years total judicial experience before the voted for him to be CJ SCOTUS, is the kind of disreputable argument we've come to expect from Wyden and the kind of people who support him.

Wyden hasn't been out front with a principled stand for years. What appears to be principled, like the telecom immunity issue, is only when he is 100% sure it is totally safe with his constituency for him to do it.

By the way, if you want to know who really owns Wyden and why he is teaming with Republicans to push corporate welfare for the health insurance industry go here:

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/sector.asp?CID=N00007724&cycle=2008

In 2003-2008, his biggest single contributor is the Finance/Insurance/Real Estate sector, add to that the "Health" sector which includes mainly corporate health care interests, and you get 31% of his total contributions, 33% of his identifiable contributions. The remaining 60%+ spread across 10 other identifiable categories, some of which are catchall categories themselves.

It's pretty clear whose doing the lying and deceiving here. Par for the course for Wyden, his staff, and his supporters.

riverat is congenial enough but misses the point of what Wyden is trying to do here:

One thing I would like to see in the bill is a Medicare option.

Wyden and Clinton are specifically designing their plans to prevent people from having a public insurance option because they know it will be the most cost effective, give we the people control over our health care decisions rather than private insurance companies (notice how Kari pimps Wyden's plan by talking about HMOs where people who have their eye on the bottom line make your health care decisions), and cost a landrush of people and dollars into the public insurance plan which will all but eliminate the private health insurance industry.

And to Kari's fraudulent, propagandistic question: "How long are you willing to wait?" How about no later than the end of this year? Right now the Oregon Health Fund Board is meeting pursuant to SB-329 passed in the 2007 session. Their mandate is to create exactly a state level version of Wyden's plan. They have before them a grassroots plan to do exactly what riverat proposes:

http://www.healthcareforalloregon.org/ http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/OHIP08/

The Democratic and Republican establishment, including Wyden and Kari, are hoping you never know about it, and certainly never actually demand your legislators give it to us because they, like Kari, want to make sure you are forced to by private health insurance.

The only way Wyden is going to get to a veto-proof majority is get Republicans on board because Democrats know that Wyden is headed in exactly the wrong direction. His plan is contrary to everything Democrats who are actually concerned about health care for working people stand for and know we need to do. In fact, Sanders and Feingold are sponsoring bills that represent the Democratic position: Offering enormous opportunity and support for states to create exactly what grassroots advocates are pushing for here in Oregon avoid the corrupt influences of the private health insurance industry that Wyden represents so we can get to national plan state-by-state like Canada did.

Rest of the Story, you might want to go back to Portland IndyMedia, where you belong. I looked at the link you provided and among the 36 Democrats in the Senate who voted for the 2001 bankruptcy bill were those well-known neo-con "weasels" Patrick Leahy, John Edwards, and Patty Murray. Whenever people around this board talk about bankruptcy reform, they are referring to the bill that became law in 2005, not one from the dustbin of history that did not pass. Who is the deceiver, hmmmm?

Oh, and way to insult the two-thirds of the state who consider themselves Wyden supporters. His supporters are all "liars and deceivers? Charming.

Hey Non-Fiction Story - Some support Wyden because they don't know the facts, others because they don't care, relatively few advocate for his positions. So they are in a completely different category than you and him. You keep pulling the tactic of throwing red herring arguments like this, so it's pretty clear either you don't have the grey matter to understand the difference, or the personal integrity to care.

Everyone should note also how you don't speak to the facts when you just point out how other Democrats --- the same ones who rolled over for the last 7 years and brought our country low --- have done it too. Didn't your momma teach you it doesn't matter what the other kids do, you are responsible for what you do? All you succeed in doing by pointing out other Democrats who voted for a bill whose provisions you probably don't even know, are how they are just more examples of failure to take responsibility for the damage they've done to the country. And why all of the NW Democrats you cite should be voted out of office for better Democrats.

Wyden voted for bankruptcy reform and there would not have been a 2005 vote if the utterly improbable events of Sept 11 had not intervened. He cast many other votes, including the vote for Roberts, which show his vast problems with his principles. And that has nothing to do with the people who voted for him, it just says we have failed to encourage better people than Wyden to come forward.

Kari, appreciate the invitation but the discussion will have much more import if you invite Shields, one of the guys who will actually have to vote on this to do the research and a provide a thorough explanation. We and he will learn a lot more, and when one of their own goes on record legislators are put in the spotlight where we can see much more clearly what they are and aren't doing.

Chip, you might want to consider volunteering here to continue what you started with a fair presentation of what SB-329 is and isn't, as well as the details of the cited grassroots advocacy. No need to get into the battles around SB-27 and SB-329, although I suspect most would find the Democratic leadership infighting over those measures enlightening for how it changes the popular picture of who is and who isn't the average working person's friend in this health insurance battle. You represent District 43, from the things I've read there are definitely people from District 42, and quite possibly from your own District 43 who support it.

God forbid there ever be any difference of opinion here! You are henceforth banished, Rest of the Story!

Yeah, darrelplant, keep on trying to be aloofly cute with middle-age language and anonymous indignation.

Seriously, if you want to claim superiority, or at least feign it, it might help you to tend to your own blog where you have editorial control.

Senator Wyden's plan is solid, bold and quite frankly, visionary.

Your suggestion that BlueOregon represses speech is best left for your own paranoid rantings elsewhere.

While ranked 37th in world, the US spent ~$7,600 per person on health care costs, over $2 trillion in ’07. Three times the per person costs of the top rated countries. The insurance companies, big pharma and hospitals (Hey there, Bill Frist) call it “health care” as moral cover. Inching towards “universal” health care is the same as the inching towards impeachment: do you really think you’re going to get either one. This is just another case of domestic profiteering. Any plan that doesn’t eliminate the for-profit companies is just lipstick on a pig. A thousand words have been wasted above analyzing the lipstick.

darrelplant/The Rest of the Story should post the URL of his blog. I would read it, if for no other reason than to stick it to the man (Kari).

I found it, and while darrelplant/The Rest of the Story's blog is pretty thoughtful, it's also pretty boring. Perhaps dp/trs should post on his or this blog about why single payer is preferable and achievable. Be sure to throw in lots of "fraudulent" "propogandistic" "weasels" kind of language and insult great progressives like Chip Shields and Ron Wyden.

I think I'll stick with the "fraudulent, propogandistic" man, Kari.

Don't have a blog and I'm not darrelplant. But if that makes some of your day to believe it, like you want to believe Wyden actually wants to give us a good health care plan, go right ahead. You'll probably like this other vote of Ron's too: He voted FOR the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Moderniztion Act of 2003 (HR-1). That's the one that gave us Medicare Part D and PROHIBITED the U.S. government from negotiating for the best prices.

The argument there was all about pushing people into the private insurance marketplace and somehow competition there is going to fix the system, same as Wyden is peddling with his health insurance plan. We know the aftermath. Drug prices continue to the highest in the world by a wide margin and people are faced every year with guessing if the plan they currently have will cover the medications for the medical problems they will develop OVER THE REST OF THE YEAR.

But that isn't even the whole story. On Nov. 24, 2003, there was two critical votes in the Senate that could have kept the debate alive and maybe even scuttled the whole thing. The first was to invoke cloture. Cloture being the tactic Democrats whine that the Republicans are now using to thwart the majority will, Wyden voted YEA with the Republicans and AGAINST 26 Democrats and 3 Republicans (Chafee, Hagel, McCain - interesting, huh?). The second vote later in the day was another maneuver that would have blocked passage. In that case, Wyden again voted YEA with the Republicans and AGAINST 34 Democrats and 2 Republicans (Hagel, McCain).

The other big story in this episode was how Rep. Billy Tauzin, the person widely credited with writing this bill BECAUSE it would keep drug prices high and that Wyden voted with, quit Congress the next year and took a job as a lobbyist with the pharmaceutical industry. Yea, Wyden is all about putting the people ahead of the drug and health insurance industry.

Why I am not sold on Senator Wyden's healthcare idea:

It is not single-payer. I am not in love with the phrase, and I do not demand that all problems be solved by government run programs, but it abundantly clear that the major problem with our healthcare delivery system is the insurance companies - whether independent entities like Blue Cross/Blue shield or combined insurance and delivery entities like Kaiser Permanente. It is true that reform is difficult when these politically powerful businesses are in opposition, but it simply not feasible to fix a problem when the major source of the problem has veto power over remedies to the problem. Some argue that Wyden's plan can be a step toward single-payer. I see it as a step toward discrediting government involvement in healthcare, because the plan will fail to control costs.

I also dislike Wyden's plan for the same reasons I am a Democrat. I can tolerate government requiring the payment of taxes in order to fund programs that benefit the general welfare, as long as the needs are real and the money is used wisely. I am not comfortable with government telling me what I cannot do, and less comfortable with government telling me what I MUST do. Such coercion should be reserved for situations that are clearcut social needs, e.g., I must remove attractive nuisances that might injure children going about their normal lives, or I must keep my motor vehicle in a condition that allows for safe use. Telling me that I must buy health insurance, and that there will be programs available to subsidize my costs if my income is deemed insufficient is the kind of government intrusion that drives me and lots of other people crazy, and turns many folks into libertarians and anti-government Republicans.

Making the health insurance companies go away will not be easy, especially when our political system allows campaign contributions to be used as business investments, but it seems to me to be the only way out of this mess that is killing and maiming thousands every year and driving us all broke.

My compliments to the real health-care progressives who have posted on this thread: Tom C., darrelplant, The Rest of the Story, bye bye Smith, Ted, William Bodden, et al.

The rest of you need first of all to understand that this is an issue of democracy; large majorities have been clamoring for single payer, universal health care for decades, and regressives have been saying for just as long that it is "politically unfeasible", i.e., the corporations who pay politicians like Wyden don't want it.

Let's also consider the fact that positions on health care can't be disassociated from other issues, like fair trade, bloated and irresponsible military budgets, impeachment of the worst criminals in our history, etc. It's time to jettison all regressives, Democrat or Republican. We centrist/progressives are a majority, and we will not continue to support lesser evils forever.

Don't fall for it! Wyden's plan is terrible!

It's great news for the private insurance companies, which get lots of new customers, but it screws employees who now get good coverage because of their bargaining power with their employers or their employer's good values. It also screws the employer who provide coverage by taxing them to pay for subsidies to those buying private insurance. And it doesn't really save much money on a percentage basis.

The key question for those who support single-payer is this (and please note, I am one of you): How long are you willing to wait?

This is a fair point, but on the opposite side we should note that if we settle for a quick fix that is defective we will almost certainly be stuck with it for the rest of our lives and very unlikely never get the optimum single-payer system. As Michael Moore noted in "Sicko" the French government is greatly concerned with the opinion of its citizens whose health care system was rated No. 1 in 2000 by the WHO while the American people defer to the American government; that is, the corporatocracy that really is in charge.

How much have Wyden and Bennett received in campaign contributions from Big Pharma and other corporations running our health care system? Has Billy Tauzin let them know he might be interested in hiring them as assistants if they decide to retire from the Senate?