Did Perez Hilton start working at the Mercury?

Do you see any faux semen in that picture?

I totally told Matt to add a hastily scrawled penis (along with some drippy semen) and he wouldn't do it! I tell ya, if you want something done right…

So true, Mr. V. You know, it's possible to be against this particular piece of legislation and be against trying to rush this in a matter of weeks despite it having as profound an economic impact as possible and still not be some spawn of satan.

How about a little sophistication in our thinking instead just of regurgitating some mindless talking points?

I second what everyone else is saying. I don't know much about Wyden's stance here, but assuming his motivation is to appease (EVIL, of course) corporations, without some pretty damming evidence, is unfair. Some real analysis of his position and his reasoning would be nice.

But then you might not get to bust out the MSPaint.exe.

I hope those evil corporations (doctors) get screwed. Then we can have as well run of a government run system as the Vets administration. I mean medicare ... or public schools, yeah them.

I think there should be a non-profit broker instead of insurance companies selling us medical care. Can we keep medical providers private but have non-profit or public company that sells medical coverage to people? Is that what this is about? About the only thing worse than government administration is insurance companies who try to screw literally everyone who they cover.

They are not 'trying' to screw people. They have to obey laws that mandate coverage (government) and protect their clients from huge lawsuits (government+lawyers) since there are few if any caps on malpractice and similar claims.
Now you may start to understand how government makes the problem worse.

Thanks goodness we can always depend on D and Mr V to defend corporate interests.

And Matt wonders why Wyden won't grant him an interview.

Please name which 'corporate interests' I defended.
Secondly - throughout history, who has killed more people on earth - 'corporate interests' or governments?

Isn't a combination of the two a definition of fascism?

A fascist state ultimately has the final say over the corporations. You know, putting the means of production in the hands of 'the people'

Corporate health insurance industry executives are jizzing at the idea of adding 47,000,000+ new "clients" to their rolls.

Maybe Senator Wyden is deaf to the 70% of American taxpayers who want A PUBLIC HEALTH CARE OPTION because those same corporate executives have their hands too far up his ass.
Foolish meat puppet.

I called the Salem office. Thanks for that shot out to JoAnn Matt.

I think it may be close to time to step in line, so to speak.

We need a public option. Too many rad people with too many rad things to say still.

I have yet to see an analysis of Wyden VS Obama plans. Somebody make a spreadsheet up with two sides. Something. This is getting ridiculous - calling people evil corporate interest and calling Obama's plan the right thing to do without including any sort of why, how, when, where...etc

Matt is totally missing the point. I'm from NC, but I have read Wyden's position and he's on the right track to real reform. His position isn't about insurance companies at all... Read on:

I have never been an activist or written a letter Like this. However, the major fundamental problem with the current mess in healthcare is that it's tethered to where people work.

Why does anyone believe it's a good idea to tie health insurance to the place you work? Because that's the way it's been for the last 50 or so years. That's a bad argument.

• Insurance on your health has nothing to do with where you work. It's a personal issue, no different than your life, car or home owners insurance.
• The expectation that your employer should pay your insurance creates an entitlement attitude that actually pushes health costs up, because the individual is far less responsible for the cost of his or her care. Since employees have less responsibility, they don't care as much about the cost incurred for their health services. Many of the real costs are relatively transparent or minimal to the individual employee, so they aren’t motivated to reduce them.
• Clearly, the President and all Congressmen know this. However, there is no momentum in to fix this fundamental problem with the system and apply health coverage to the individual, where it belongs.
• Why? Because too many interests are served by the current healthcare structure. These interests rrange from insurers to doctors, and the plan to remove the employer relationship to health insurance won't benefit any of them. We can still have a public health insurance company within this plan. That is NOT the issue.

In today’s US economy, people transition from job to job often. Not only does it make no sense that health insurance is related to your job, but there are many, many services or staffing oriented companies that employ people daily, weekly, monthly or for up to a year or so. 11 million work for staffing companies alone! If Healthcare reform does not remove the fundamental error of associating your job with your insurance, then the current 20 rules the IRS uses to define an independent contractor must be drastically changed to enable many services and staffing companies to treat temporary workers as 1099 contractors. Read the 20 rules in place now, and you’ll fear having a plumber come to your house to fix a leak without your hiring him as an employee. The 20 rules go way overboard now. If the error of having health insurance tied to a job continues, those 20 rules need to allow for temporary jobs of up to a year, minimum, and those temporary jobs must not count toward the payroll minimum for carrying health insurance.

In summary:
Forcing every company with over a $500K or $1MM payroll to cover employees insurance makes no sense in so many ways, and creates a huge administrative burden for small business, making them less competitive. Small business drives this country, and we must be very careful not to overburden small or large business with unreasonable administration and expense. The entire health insurance and health care system would be simplified greatly, if the health insurance coverage was tied to the individual. Why in the world does it make sense to process new health insurance paperwork every time an individual changes jobs? It doesn’t. How much does that cost the US economy now? Many Billions.

Clearly, the bills in the House and Senate are going to place a further burden on small business by forcing many them to carry health insurance on employees. That approach is wrong.

Matt is totally missing the point. I'm from NC, but I have read Wyden's position and he's on the right track to real reform. His position isn't about insurance companies at all... Read on:

I have never been an activist or written a letter Like this. However, the major fundamental problem with the current mess in healthcare is that it's tethered to where people work.

Why does anyone believe it's a good idea to tie health insurance to the place you work? Because that's the way it's been for the last 50 or so years. That's a bad argument.

• Insurance on your health has nothing to do with where you work. It's a personal issue, no different than your life, car or home owners insurance.
• The expectation that your employer should pay your insurance creates an entitlement attitude that actually pushes health costs up, because the individual is far less responsible for the cost of his or her care. Since employees have less responsibility, they don't care as much about the cost incurred for their health services. Many of the real costs are relatively transparent or minimal to the individual employee, so they aren’t motivated to reduce them.
• Clearly, the President and all Congressmen know this. However, there is no momentum in to fix this fundamental problem with the system and apply health coverage to the individual, where it belongs.
• Why? Because too many interests are served by the current healthcare structure. These interests rrange from insurers to doctors, and the plan to remove the employer relationship to health insurance won't benefit any of them. We can still have a public health insurance company within this plan. That is NOT the issue.

In today’s US economy, people transition from job to job often. Not only does it make no sense that health insurance is related to your job, but there are many, many services or staffing oriented companies that employ people daily, weekly, monthly or for up to a year or so. 11 million work for staffing companies alone! If Healthcare reform does not remove the fundamental error of associating your job with your insurance, then the current 20 rules the IRS uses to define an independent contractor must be drastically changed to enable many services and staffing companies to treat temporary workers as 1099 contractors. Read the 20 rules in place now, and you’ll fear having a plumber come to your house to fix a leak without your hiring him as an employee. The 20 rules go way overboard now. If the error of having health insurance tied to a job continues, those 20 rules need to allow for temporary jobs of up to a year, minimum, and those temporary jobs must not count toward the payroll minimum for carrying health insurance.

In summary:
Forcing every company with over a $500K or $1MM payroll to cover employees insurance makes no sense in so many ways, and creates a huge administrative burden for small business, making them less competitive. Small business drives this country, and we must be very careful not to overburden small or large business with unreasonable administration and expense. The entire health insurance and health care system would be simplified greatly, if the health insurance coverage was tied to the individual. Why in the world does it make sense to process new health insurance paperwork every time an individual changes jobs? It doesn’t. How much does that cost the US economy now? Many Billions.

Clearly, the bills in the House and Senate are going to place a further burden on small business by forcing many them to carry health insurance on employees. That approach is wrong.