The Boston Globe’s website featured an article that brought another chapter in the ongoing story of whether or not a so-called public option should be included in the nation’s health care reform. As the story reports here, the Senate Finance Committee voted down a measure to include the public option in their version of a reform bill.
Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, who did not include a public option in his markup of the proposal, had this this to say:
“My job is to put together a bill that gets to 60 votes” in the full Senate, the Montana Democrat said shortly before he joined a majority on the committee in opposing the provision. “No one shows me how to get to 60 votes with a public option,” the term used to describe a new government role in health care. It takes 60 votes in the 100-member Senate to overcome delaying actions that Republicans may attempt.
Return to www.thinkhomecare.org.
Think Home Care Blog 
I’ve just posted on the alternatives…with respect to federalism. …a different angle, huh? If you want to have a look, here is the link. I would argue that the consideration of health-care insurance reform alternatives ought to include an assessment of how consistent each is with federalism, for if we focus narrowly on the issue of the day without pausing to consider the impact on our system of governance, we will be unintentionally passing on a less perfect Union to our descendents. If you are interested in my attempt, pls see http://euandus3.wordpress.com/2009/10/27/health-care-insurance-reform-a-spectrum-of-alternatives-with-respect-to-federalism/
You might also be interested in this NYT article: