Dems split about Public Option

[JB3]

We need the public option for insurance.

It's what Americans want.

Actually, the majority of Americans OPPOSE the inclusion of the public option and think it would result in less options and less choice.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/08/18/2033674.aspx

 

[naked gent]

What are you talking about? I've never been one for riddles.

What was the point of the factcheck link you provided? I thought it had to do with the possibility that some people currently insured could see their plans change.

Did I get that wrong?

 

[01solara]

Don't want to leave out the Senate.

Yesterday Robert Reich wrote a post on his blog about what's going on there:






Even if one believed Obama's absurd promises about post partisan politics and special interest groups, why, given the circumstances we've seen in recent weeks, would Obama continue to give Republicans like Grassley this kind of power?

Republicans don't HAVE this power, the People took it away from them last November. So when the People gave Democrats the power to make substantive health care reform, why does Obama dilute that power and empower Republicans to mess it up?

Democrats don't want to go it alone because they will bear all of the blame when the thing fails. They will then lose power which is all that either political party in this country cares about. If their concern was for the average middle class American we would not be in the mess were in. They only care about the rich and powerful because that is where they get their own power. That is the difference between politicians and statesmen. We are a country that was started by statesmen and has ended up in the hands of politicians.

There is hope to take it back but it won't be quick or easy.

 

[naked gent]

Oh I thought you meant a right to health insurance. If you had said choice in insurance I would have gotten you. I actually am self employed and have a decent amount of choices. However, the Republicans idea to allow insurance competition across state borders sounds very good to me.

This is another example of how republicans change their tune on 'state rights' when its convenient for them to do so and given the few number of private insurers out there I don't think that plan would really increase competition.

To increase competition we need to break the stranglehold large insurers currently have on the industry and allowing insurers to compete across state lines (when many of them currently do operate in different states just under different rules) is unlikely to achieve that imo.

What kills is the self employment tax. I wish I could save for my own retirement and use some of that tax to pay for insurance. But nope. Failed liberal policy chokes me.

I'm self-employed too and understand your frustration but the high cost of health insurance speaks to the private insurers failure to control costs and the fact that you wish to have less for retirement so you can pay for health insurance today makes me wonder why you defend the job they are doing in holding costs down.

 

[NineOfClubs]

In Hawaii, our most insured state, and in some European countries, all that was needed was not a public option, but a mandate for private insurance.

Just require everyone to purchase insurance and provide tax benefits or direct payment incentives to see that they comply.

 

[01solara]

I remain against this. I understand how it is a simple solution if your goal is simply to INSURE everyone, but I don't care for health insurance for everyone. My goal is healthcare for everyone. For-profit health insurance is a scam and an unnecessary, arguably sadistic, bureaurcracy that isn't as answerable to the people as the government is.

You really think the beaurocrats in Washington are answerable to anyone. Hell to the no. The government is a necessary evil but accountability and for that matter efficiency are not among their strong suits.

 

[01solara]

Their bosses are. The bureaucrats of the insurance companies are beholden to their bosses, sociopaths as argued here: http://www.alternet.org/workplace/1...ension-grabbing_ceo_--_if_you're_a_sociopath/ They don't give a fuck about anything but themselves. Government is a necessary evil, I guess, but for-profit health insurance IS evil.

I agree that many insurance company beaurocrats are evil. I watched damaged care a few years back and it was very revealing. Eliminating them will not solve our problem though. Reform the current systems so that there can be no exclusion for preexisting conditions and the insurance companies wont like this either but open the whole thing up to market forces. Replacing insurance company beaurocrats with government beuarocrats will not change anything.

 

[NickCole]

.... if these Democrats are corrupt and in the pockets of the Health Care Insurance Companies (which I am absolutely convinced they are), then what specifically can Obama do about this?

He can start by not being corrupt himself.

It was the Obama WH that cut a deal with Pharma about negotiating drug prices.

 

[NickCole]

Yes I see that you're right now. Its one of the reasons some here expect so much more from Obama than they did from Bill Clinton.

Bill Clinton, who had never served in either the House or Senate, got through his Omnibus Budget Reconcilation Act of 1993. That was vital legislation that helped seed the prosperity that followed.

Obama served in the Senate and presumably made relationships while there. Obama's powerful Chief of Staff served in the House and certainly established a presence and relationships while there, and is largely responsible for Blue Dog Dems being in office.

Obama is the one who promised health care reform and was elected because of the Hope and Change he promised to bring. Well let's see it. Not talk of it, not "oh he TRIED ["good job!"] but it's hard," but genuine health care reform. An actual achievement. He's the leader of the Democratic Party with a powerful WH and ObamaNation support mechanism, strong media support, Dem majority in the House that needs no republican votes to pass a bill and a filibuster proof majority in the Senate. And still y'all just make excuses for him, and of course drag out the old, "Clinton!!!!!" war cry. This is the pathetic excuse we get rather than real Change, real reform, real solid legislative solutions to major problems.

 

[NickCole]

Democrats don't want to go it alone because they will bear all of the blame when the thing fails. They will then lose power which is all that either political party in this country cares about. If their concern was for the average middle class American we would not be in the mess were in. They only care about the rich and powerful because that is where they get their own power. That is the difference between politicians and statesmen. We are a country that was started by statesmen and has ended up in the hands of politicians.

You're right for the most part but I want to point out that there ARE some elected officials who are trying very hard to do the right thing. There are several Democrats in the House who are insisting: public option or no health care reform bill. Just because the leader of the Democratic Party, and his staunchest "supporters" are deceitful and narcissistic about power, rather than wanting to use power to actually accomplish substantive reform, doesn't mean all Democrats are.

 

[naked gent]

Bill Clinton, who had never served in either the House or Senate, got through his Omnibus Budget Reconcilation Act of 1993. That was vital legislation that helped seed the prosperity that followed.

Clinton got his economic package passed by a single vote as I recall while Obama got his economic package passed without needing to involve his vp. Clinton so screwed up his healthcare package that it was never even voted on while Obama still has a chance.

Obama is the one who promised health care reform and was elected because of the Hope and Change he promised to bring. Well let's see it. Not talk of it, not "oh he TRIED ["good job!"] but it's hard," but genuine health care reform. An actual achievement.

I think perhaps you're jumping the gun here a little Nick as we don't yet know the outcome of Obama's healthcare reform but if you're making a prediction that nothing will pass then go ahead and make it.

 

[NickCole]

Clinton ...

I specifically named Clinton's Omnibus Budget Reconcilation Act of 1993 in response to Alfie's, "Doesn't Obama run the Senate, too? Isn't the US Senate unde the Executive's domain? Or am Im missing 'thomthing?" and my point remains. The President can exert power to craft and pass legislation.

I think perhaps you're jumping the gun here a little Nick as we don't yet know the outcome of Obama's healthcare reform but if you're making a prediction that nothing will pass then go ahead and make it.

Oh something will pass.

It's a prediction I've made before, from as far back as the primaries, but if you want it again here it is: Barack Obama with a Democratic majority Congress led by Pelosi and Reid will not pass substantive health care reform as outlined by Edwards and Clinton and Obama. I've also explained why.

 

[NickCole]

Apologias for Obama have always been pathetic and this one, that a handful of Democrats in an overwhelmingly Dem majority Congress are getting in the way of Obama being able to fulfill his promises of health care reform, is classic.

President Obama remains the most powerful player in the world and in the nation. If he won't use his political power to pass the health care reform Democratic candidates campaigned on last year, that says something about him, not the power he has.

Remember that in 2001 Bush LOST the popular vote, faced a 50-50 Senate and still got his agenda through Congress. What Obama apologists are saying is that in dealing with Congress, Bush was much more effective than Barack Obama can possibly be. So much for The One We've Been Waiting For.

 

[naked gent]

Oh something will pass.

In that case I suppose his leadership skills are superior to Clinton who also had democratic majorities to work with.

I may not like what ends up passing but passing something is still better than passing nothing on the legislative scorecard.

BTW I've never made excuses for Obama the way you did for Bill Clinton in the DADT thread. The very thing you excoriated Obama for you gave a pass to Clinton on which is why your agenda here is so transparent.

 

[NickCole]

Bush got his 2001 tax cut through Congress by using reconciliation -- you know, fifty votes, not the usualy sixty?

Yep I know all about that. Obama could do that, as well.

And after 9/11, he got what he wanted because Democrats like Hillary Clinton stupidly gave Bush whatever he wanted.

Yep I know all about that. Very sad if Dubya Bush was smarter about using political power than The One We've Been Waiting For.

Obama, for Christ's fucking sake, is eight months into his first term. You believe he won't get meaningful HCR through Congress, but others would disagree.

Yep I believed that as far back as the primaries, I explained why and we're seeing it unfold.

 

[NickCole]

It's a pity there aren't willing whores on the GOP side of the fence, whores like then-Senator Hillary Clinton, because if there were, Obama's job, like Bush's, would be so much easier.

Yep, too bad.

And too bad Obama's not smart enough to figure out another way to get Democratic health care reform through a Democratic House that needs no GOP votes to pass and a filibuster proof Democratic Senate.

Everything's so darn hard!

 

[NickCole]

^ I suspect it is very hard, Nick, and let me also say that that's why the president gets le big bucks. But I don't think it is as simple as you suggest.

Never said it's simple. Obviously it's not simple or Obama could do it. I said it's do-able.

Bush figured out how to push a reprehensible agenda (not just the Iraq war but all of it) through a 50-50 Congress, and scary-smart Obama stumbles with the health care reform every major Dem Presidential candidate ran on, even with a huge Dem majority Congress that his own Chief of Staff helped put in office. Pathetic. The only thing more pathetic is all the Democrats who didn't see him for who he really is and make excuses for him still.

Now, I'm certain that if America were so blessed as to have you as our president, this would be a piece of cake. As Spinoza approximately said (though it may as well have come from your mouth), "Had I been around at the time of the ordering of the universe, it would look quite different."

And still Obama is failing. And you're still making excuses.

 

[NickCole]

Bush had fifty zombies on his side of the ailse and he had the tiebreaker with Cheney. When one does things through reconciliation, lots of things are possible. Indeed, I suspect that when this Democratic Senate decides to use reconciliation, they will garner more than fifty votes, too.

Obama has a filibuster proof majority and reconciliation is an option as well. Democrats talked about using reconcilation back in April.

But with all the mess that Congress is they're not the primary problem. The larger problem is Obama. And to understand the problem, the previously blind can start with the secret deal he made with Pharma and his being wishy washy about public option.

 

[NickCole]

He added it after the bell, you see.

Before the bell.

After the "edit" button disappears I stop. That's the bell. I like to fine-tune.

You know, what does that say? If it were once, twice, three times, one could understand. But this is chronic -- pathological, one might well think.

I don't see efforts at improvement as pathological.

 

[HenryReardon]

Great News!! Thanks for posting. The public option is a horrible idea. Don't give gov't another opportunity to fuck something up.

Indeed. The folks in congress ought to take a closer look at what's happening around the world with healthcare:

http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/49525427.html

Medical care in the United States is derided as miserable compared to health care systems in the rest of the developed world. Economists, government officials, insurers, and academics beat the drum for a far larger government role in health care. Much of the public assumes that their arguments are sound because the calls for change are so ubiquitous and the topic so complex. Before we turn to government as the solution, however, we should consider some unheralded facts about America’s health care system.

[Quote truncated by moderator] Copyright © 2009 by the Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior University