Game Time: Obama Must Now Publicly Commit to the Public Option
Posted by Robert Zimmer on 10.25.2009
As health care reform nears passage in Congress, Obama needs to step in and settle the public option question.
The reports are conflicting, but the word from Washington seems to indicate an unusual situation. While health care reform inches tantalizingly close to the finish line, an unexpected split has developed between the White House and Congressional Democrats regarding the fate of the public option. Regarded over the summer as dead on arrival, the public option has come roaring back to life, with Democrats in both houses of Congress falling in line to support the controversial provision that nonetheless enjoys the support of upwards of 60% of Americans. However, as Congress has tacked leftward on the issue, President Obama seems reticent and reportedly prefers the so-called "trigger" advocated by Senator Olympia Snowe (R-ME), the lone Republican thus far to support the Democratic effort to reform health care.
According to Politico magazine, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi reportedly told her caucus "we're on the five yard line – let's not fumble the ball." Buoyed by cost estimates from the Congressional Budget Office that indicate inclusion of a public option would lower overall costs of the House version of the health care reform bill, Pelosi has elected to advocate inclusion of a robust public option with reimbursement rates tied either to Medicare plus five percent, or rates negotiated by doctors and hospitals. There is no question that the House bill will include a public option. In the Senate, the relatively cautious Majority Leader Harry Reid finds himself to the left of President Obama, with Reid leaning towards a bill including a public option, but with an "opt-out" provision that would allow individual states to elect not to participate in the program if they can substitute an alternative that would guarantee comparable access to care for those lacking insurance, such as by means of a state-level insurance cooperative.
According to several reports, Obama seemed cool to the opt-out idea at a White House meeting last week and appeared to favor Senator Snowe's trigger concept, in which the public option would not be implemented unless the health insurance industry failed to meet coverage and affordability benchmarks set by the legislation. (Unsurprisingly, the insurance industry favors the trigger idea.) Obama appears to be concerned about the political fallout that may face conservative Democrats facing re-election in 2010 if they vote for reform containing a public option. However, Congressional leaders are grumbling loudly and in the press, with some members remarking off the record that if Obama would simply go out on a limb and publicly commit his support to the public option, it would be enough to lock in wavering Democratic votes. Pelosi likely already has the votes in the House; Obama could help Reid out with moderate Democrats, who are open to the public option but want some political cover from the president.
Obama's insistence on bipartisanship, even in the face of a Republican strategy to block any kind of health reform whatsoever, should now be abandoned. The president has repeatedly reached out to Republicans on this and numerous other issues of gravitas, only to find his hand bitten. Polls indicate that Americans understand that Republicans simply intend to block health care legislation no matter the carrots offered to them. It is no secret that getting Democrats to agree on anything is like herding drunk cats. However, Democrats hold solid majorities in both houses of Congress, and the time is now for the president to take a stand. Obama's political strategy of using himself as a moving target, refusing to draw very many lines in the sand on health care reform and thus making political attacks harder to stick, has been shrewd to date, but this tactical ploy must now shift to serve the larger strategy of passing good reform, not just reform. It no longer seems to be a question of whether health care reform will pass; rather, the question is what form the final legislation will take. The reform effort has withstood the kitchen sink and more from Republicans and the health insurance industry over the last several months. Now, it is time for the president to expend some political capital and come out in support of a public option.
At a certain point, policy must trump strategy. Far from a government takeover of health care, the public option is just that – an option among many, within an insurance exchange of choices, for people that do not currently have access to health care from their employer or are too poor to afford it on their own. It ensures competition in the insurance marketplace, a hallmark of capitalism that Republicans, if they weren't lost in Limbaugh-land, would support. The Congressional Budget Office has given its fiscal blessing to the public option as an effective means of not only expanding coverage, but holding costs down. Is garnering the support of a single Republican senator really worth jettisoning good policy just so the president can say health care reform was a bipartisan effort? Over the summer, when the public option seemed like political Kryptonite for many members of Congress, it made some sense to consider jettisoning the idea in order to achieve the other critical reforms agreed upon by members of both parties – no more denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions, for example. But now that it is clear that the vast majority of Americans support a public option (even in Sen. Snowe's home state of Maine), there is less political risk in members of Congress voting for a bill that contains it, particularly if there are reasonable compromises built in such as a state opt-out provision.
The president campaigned on a promise of expanding coverage and lowering costs. The public option, not a trigger to placate Sen. Snowe, is a key way to fulfill this campaign promise. Ironically, the Americans most likely to benefit from the public option tend to be those living in districts represented by Congressmembers who oppose it. Kowtowing to extremists who would deny improved access to health care reform to their own constituents is insane. It's time for President Obama to stand up for these, and all other Americans, by going to bat for the public option, and doing so publicly.
**UPDATE** 10/26-27 -- Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid held a press conference to announce he will indeed be going with the public option with a state opt-out provision. He also noted that he would not be submitting the Snowe-supported trigger concept to the CBO for scoring. White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said President Obama is "pleased that the Senate has decided to include a public option for health coverage."
what do you mean it's time? What was that big speech all about several weeks ago? The guy is on my tv screen all the time touting this.
Posted By: gwpbrian (Guest) on October 25, 2009 at 08:20 PM
Amen, Robert. Last week a Democratic strategist was on Ed Schultz saying they should give up on the public option because they need to win in 2010. Of course, it's those same strategists (led by Rahm Emanuel and Harry Reid) who said they were powerless to do anything until they had majorities in Congress. They got the majorities in 2006. Then they needed the White House. Got that in 2008. Then they needed a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, and now they got that. Now we have to have at least one Republican support something? What's the point of being in charge if you don't actually enact any of the changes that you campaigned on making in the first place? I guess this is how the far right conservatives in the Republican party felt for those years under Bush when he promised to ban gay marriage and abortions but never did.
Sadly it's all about money. Obama doesn't want to upset his big money donors, which include the insurance and healthcare industries. They're the only two industries still making money off us and don't want the gravy train to end. If Obama doesn't give us a public option, they'll still lose seats in 2010, and the healthcare bubble will burst sometime during his second term. Why wait until then to say he'll do something when he has the public behind him right now? Listen to the American people, not just the American people who run corporations.
Posted By: correction (Guest) on October 25, 2009 at 08:43 PM
As long as the current "Force people by law to give their money to insurance company scum" plan gets scrapped, it'd be okay.
Posted By: Q:? (Guest) on October 25, 2009 at 08:48 PM
Excellent, well reasoned article! I envy your positive, generous attitude. I'm not entirely sure that Obama's tepid support for a real PO over the last 5 months stems from strategy so much as from far less benign reasons, but I'd be happy to drink the drink if he came out strongly in support while it still counts. Given all his other weak responses to the horrors left by barbed wire bush, coming out strongly for the most robust public option possible is the only way he will get this vote in 2012.
Posted By: Hmmm (Guest) on October 25, 2009 at 08:53 PM
"But now that it is clear that the vast majority of Americans support a public option"
There is absolutely nothing that conclusively shows that.
Posted By: Guest#4233 (Guest) on October 25, 2009 at 09:39 PM
It isn't passing, especially with the mandate to buy coverage. Even if it does, I'll be the first person in the courthouse the next day to challenge it.
Posted By: Chris Connolly (Guest) on October 25, 2009 at 10:05 PM
First of all, the GOP has offered several plans and amendments. To say they are against health care reform in any form is a lie and your punk ass knows it.
Second of all, what's being proposed does nothing to contain COST. All it does is force lower PRICING. Google Nixon and price controls to see how that worked out.
Finally, the CBO scoring is for 7 years of spending and 10 years of taxes. The cost to revenue curve will turn negative. And that's assuming Congress actually cuts Medicare reimbursements, which they have never and will never do. And that's also assuming spending on this will be kept in check, which we all know won't happen either.
Posted By: Chris Connolly (Guest) on October 25, 2009 at 10:12 PM
I still beleive tat Obama started by throwing up a whole lot of things that he knew wouldn't get passed, and using them as smokescreens to get in the more acceptable seeming plans and changes.
In this, he may not have believed public option would actually get anywhere beyond a huge distraction, and thus, never actually intended it to be a part of what he wanted done.
Posted By: AdamS (Guest) on October 25, 2009 at 10:55 PM
This is with no offense to you, or to anyone else that shares your opinion, but it looks like this is another example of a "liberal" who doesn't understand what the actual vote count looks like.
IMO, I would describe myself as a center-left moderate Democrat, who believes that government can be used to work toward the common good of all citizens, and that the biggest positive that a government can do is to provide the best K-12 education system, in the world, to its' citizens, but that's beyond the point.
Still, when you sit down and look at the actual votes in Congress, things aren't as "clear cut" as many people try to claim.
As much as many "progressives" would like to see, Speaker Pelosi doesn't have the 218 votes to pass a bill with the "robust public option" that she prefers in the House, and the 60 votes needed to break the Republican filibuster aren't there in the Senate.
As much as people point to the "massive public support" for the public option, the polls just don't line up with the actual votes.
First and foremost, in the House of Representatives, there is a near 70-seat coalition, the Blue Dog Caucus, that is opposed to Pelosi's idea of a "public option", for reasons ranging from the worries over costs of the program to fears of rural communities being reimbursed at Medicare rates, often at levels that are unsustanable for their rural hospitals.
In the Senate, all you have to do is take the polling, which shows "resounding support for a public option", and crop the numbers, to only look at a group of regions:
Mountain West: Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming
South: Maryland, Virginia, Tennessee, Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, North Carolina, South Carolina, Florida, Georgia, Texas
Rust Belt: Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York
Ohio Valley: Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, New York
Mid Atlantic: Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia.
If you would look at those numbers, you would easily see why Senators, like Lincoln(D-AR), Landreiu (D-LA), Nelson (D-NE) and others are being tentative with their vote. The same goes for why the BDC has been solidly against Pelosi's "public option". The numbers just don't add up.
President Obama is looking for a win on healthcare, even if it's only 80% of what he would actually want, and it's, in my opinion, more than awkward that you would be fighting against this.
Posted By: scipio2009 (Guest) on October 25, 2009 at 11:56 PM
Yes, the "liberal" movement, for years, has prided itself on "dying on its shield", standing by its principles, no matter what the current climate would dictate to be possible, and that's fine. More power to them. People like Olbermann, Moore, Huffington and others, can stand on their soapbox and rally for the call all they want.
But, President Obama isn't the typical liberal. President Obama is a person who, in his heart, believes in setting many of these big goals, while also backing them up with a legislative process that builds a pathway to actually see his goals accomplished.
Look at the healthcare debate. Looking at history, President Obama saw that writing the legislation, in the White House with his entire wish-list and then sending it to Congress, would not be the way of see something get passed, so he's letting Congress iron out the bulk of the details, only putting forth a broad set of principles, of what would be needed in the bill to warrant his signature. President Obama realizes that the majorities in the House and Senate have been built, primarily, on Democrats working into and winning seats in centrists and center-right districts across the country. Thusly, he's not putting too much effort into lurching the Senate bill away from what they've been able to agree with so far in Chamber.
This simple point is one that many "progressives" fail to come to terms with.
President Obama, a politician who actually wants to see some of these long held progressive principles become legislative law, knows that he's going to need the majorities in the House and Senate to see these ambitions come to fruition.
If signing a bill, that includes eliminating things like the "pre-existing" condition, dropping people from coverage who are current with premiums, the rate charging differences based on gender, the anti-trust exemptions for the industry, and a host of other improvements tht progressives have been asking for, in exchange for the idea that, if with these reforms, the insurance industry still can't control costs or create the necessary competition, the government would create a program in the future, that states have the option of opting out of, Obama is going to take it, if that's as far as his Democrat-controlled House and Senate is willing to go.
"Liberals" don't win seats in the South. "Liberals" don't win in the Mountain West. "Liberals" don't win in the Mid-Atlantic or the Rust Belt. It's just simple political math.
I don't know about "progressives" out there, but I actually enjoy seeing Democrats as the governing party in Congress, and I wouldn't mind seeing it stay that way for the forseeable future.
The Democrats don't need a "Club For Growth"-esque group, trying to "purify" the Democratic Party.
Posted By: scipio2009 (Guest) on October 26, 2009 at 12:38 AM
"First of all, the GOP has offered several plans and amendments. To say they are against health care reform in any form is a lie and your punk ass knows it."
If only there was a period of time in the last decade when the GOP was in the majority and had the presidency. We wouldn't have to worry about reform.
"Second of all, what's being proposed does nothing to contain COST. All it does is force lower PRICING. Google Nixon and price controls to see how that worked out."
That's disingenuous. Nixon's price controls were actual governmental control of the entire market. This is a natural price-lowering through market-based competition.
It's also disingenuous to suggest that PRICING is not what's at issue here or that there is a difference between cost and price. Those Republican amendments and plans you're so quick to point are all about reducing prices.
Posted By: J.D. Dunn (Registered) on October 26, 2009 at 01:05 AM
Don't they have any writers on this web site who are a bit less biased and far more independent. Why don't you just come right out and say you pal around with Harry Reid and David Axelrod on the weekends? I'm not saying you're not entitled to your opinion, but this site should at least try to be more independent. Between you, "Jake," and countless others, I am beginning to think this website is operated by Air America. I'm not a conservative nor do I want a right wing version of you to write on here. I simply want somebody a bit more independent and less addicted to government Kool-Aid.
Posted By: Chris (Guest) on October 26, 2009 at 08:32 AM
"If only there was a period of time in the last decade when the GOP was in the majority and had the presidency. We wouldn't have to worry about reform."
For all the domestic shit he did wrong, Bush did help push Health Savings Accounts. Unfortunately, the Congress was run by a bunch of free-spending idiots more intent on keeping their seats than solving problems. I have no love lost for any of them. I am just merely saying that there are GOP proposals.
"That's disingenuous. Nixon's price controls were actual governmental control of the entire market. This is a natural price-lowering through market-based competition."
There is nothing natural about the government competing with private enterprise. They can fix the rules and lose all the money they want and still stay in business. The Medicare reimbursement rates are price controls, and these "triggers" Snowe and others are talking about will work like price controls as well.
"It's also disingenuous to suggest that PRICING is not what's at issue here or that there is a difference between cost and price. Those Republican amendments and plans you're so quick to point are all about reducing prices."
Cost is how much it takes to produce something. Price is what the consumer pays. Big difference. The GOP plans attempt to reduce PRICES by helping to lower COSTS through things like allowing purchase of insurance across state lines, expansion on health savings accounts, etc. The Democrat plan would do nothing to control COST, merely force artificially lower PRICES.
Posted By: Chris Connolly (Guest) on October 26, 2009 at 10:15 AM
We don't need a public option. EVER.
1) We need more, and more competitive health care providers THAT ARE ABLE TO CROSS STATE LINES.
2) We need to DEPORT illegals instead of treating them.
3) We need to set a national CAP on malpractice lawsuits payoffs (like California did)
4) Need to educate parents about treating their own kids for a sore throat instead of automatically taking them to the ER.
5) Move hospitals out of the inner cities and into the suburbs/surrounding areas so their tax exempt status aren't a burden on major cities, therefor more money for cities and more social services for the poor.
Guess what, I just saved health care. Yay.
Posted By: Rehab (Guest) on October 26, 2009 at 10:34 AM
As long as the current "Force people by law to give their money to insurance company scum" plan gets scrapped, it'd be okay.
Posted By: Q:? (Guest) on October 25, 2009 at 08:48 PM
------
Somebody's mommy didn't love them enough...
Posted By: Guest#0246 (Guest) on October 26, 2009 at 01:27 PM
"Nixon's price controls were actual governmental control of the entire market. This is a natural price-lowering through market-based competition..."
Think about that last bit and let me know when you understand the sheer absurdity there.
This is not "natural", and it's not "marked based". It's government sticking it's greedy hand in where it has no business being, and is clueless how to run it.
Show me one example, except for the military (which is it's one Constitutional mandate, btw), where government gets involved that it doesn't royally screw it up.
Posted By: Masked Defender (Guest) on October 26, 2009 at 01:51 PM
Let's call this Health Care Bill what it is: A massive power grab. They could reform it without a public option. It's about their power and not about concern for people or business.
Posted By: Todd (Guest) on October 26, 2009 at 02:55 PM
The "across state lines" argument is one of my favorites. Next time you look at your credit card statement (if you're old enough to have one), check out where the company is based. Odds are it's based in Delaware or South Dakota. Why? Because those states don't have nearly the regulations that the others have, which was one of the reasons we're in the middle of a credit crisis that nearly destroyed the country. So by all means - let's let the major health insurance companies do the same thing. You think 29% is a high interest rate? Just wait until your health insurance rates are based on what they can charge in states that don't care about regulation!
I'm also a fan of "tort reform." Leave it to conservatives to say how they're all about individual freedom, and then turn around and say that people shouldn't have the right to a redress of grievances if it means they get to sue corporations.
Posted By: correction (Guest) on October 26, 2009 at 03:19 PM
Correction, that diatribe against ending sales of policies across state lines makes no sense.
The whole point of removing those restrictions is to allow more companies into the market of each state, which will lower costs and force companies to be more competitive. For example, there are 1300 health insurance companies in the US. You know how many there are to choose from in California? 6. Take away the artificial restrictions placed on the industry by states and the feds, and everyone's cost will go down.
Posted By: Chris Connolly (Guest) on October 26, 2009 at 04:10 PM
We don't need a public option. EVER.
1) We need more, and more competitive health care providers THAT ARE ABLE TO CROSS STATE LINES.
2) We need to DEPORT illegals instead of treating them.
3) We need to set a national CAP on malpractice lawsuits payoffs (like California did)
4) Need to educate parents about treating their own kids for a sore throat instead of automatically taking them to the ER.
5) Move hospitals out of the inner cities and into the suburbs/surrounding areas so their tax exempt status aren't a burden on major cities, therefor more money for cities and more social services for the poor.
Guess what, I just saved health care. Yay.
Posted By: Rehab (Guest) on October 26, 2009 at 10:34 AM
1) From someone who is voicing the position that has been taken up by the GOP, I find it hilarious that you, of all people, would actually advocate the federal government overriding individual states rights.
2) If someone is in a hospital, in a situation that they need to receive care in an emergency room, I think, by then, it'd be a little late to deport someone, especially as they are dying. Immigration reform definitely needs to be addressed in a substantive way, however whenever the topic comes up, the party you seem to be advocating, refuses to discuss the matter. The system is broken, and you're unwilling to fix it.
3) Most states in the U.S. already have caps of malpractice lawsuits, and yet again, you are voicing an opinion that states that the federal government should override state laws.
4) Agreed. Education on the effectiveness on preventative measures, in addition to parents understanding common diagnosis, like the cold and sore throat, would greatly help.
5) Moving all the hospitals to the suburbs would be a pretty good idea, of a way to affect costs.
Unfortunately most people, north of 70% of people, still live in cities and urban centers, so that idea would be a ridiculous waste of time, money, and effort.
1 out of 5. Things can't get that much worse for you, starting from that
Posted By: scipio2009 (Guest) on October 26, 2009 at 04:18 PM
Well if this "public option " plan is so great, then forgo bipartisanship. Go ahead and pass it. You have the votes, go ahead. Imagine all the success you on the left will enjoy if the legistlation goes like you think it will.
The reason Obama wants "bipartisanship" is when this turd fails, he can say it was both sides who supported the legistlation.
This bill will cost to much and everyone knows it. Its about goverment getting more power, plain and simple. The only reason the public option is back on the table is becuase the town hall meetings are over and the dem. controlled congress is back in DC, insulated away from any criticism.This will be another failure to add to the list.
The left has failed with the stimulus. Look at this quote...."Most analysts predict that the fiscal stimulus will have its greatest impact on growth in the second and third quarters of 2009,” Christina Romer, who chairs the President’s Council of Economic Advisers, said in testimony prepared for Congress. “By mid-2010, fiscal stimulus will likely be contributing little to growth.”
Obamas foreign policy has been weak. Afganistan? Iran? Giving up those nukes for hamburger ended up being a great idea with the Russians.
Hey the administration was only off by two trillion on the deficit.
I am sure the familiar people will come in and be a defense attorneys for the president becuase nothing the man does is wrong in their world. They will say I read right wing sites. Thats what the left does. Obama great, DECLARE WAR ON FOX, PALIN, and LIMBAUGH. That will help the unemployment rate.
I will give Obama credit, he has the leisure part in his life down. More rounds of golf in 9 months than the evil Bush had in his first 3 years. I am sure his swing gives Mathews a "special feeling running up his leg"
Connoly and masked defender argued the semantics well.
Posted By: John Galbraith (Guest) on October 26, 2009 at 04:56 PM
I don't get why a public option is government meddling in the free market. Who says that a government cannot also be a business entity? I'd actually go so far as to say that a public option will have very little impact on the bottom line for corporations. Know why? Dealing with a state run bureaucracy sucks. It's riddled with inneficiancies and red tape. That being said, you have to think that if one can afford private insurance, then one will buy private insurance. Hence, it's not like the government is taking away customers from the insurance companies, because these are the people who for one reason or another cannot buy insurance privately.
Posted By: Jlevysan (Guest) on October 26, 2009 at 05:01 PM
Connolly - if we have a free market now, then why does it matter if you cross state lines? Why can't BCBS compete against all of the other outfits in every state? Because they CHOOSE where they're going to offer their services. The insurance companies have divvied up the country, handing out states and deciding who gets what so they're all happy. That's the reason why most states have one main provider with 80 or 90% of the market share in a single state. Can you imagine if for every 9 Shell gas stations in a town there would be 1 Citgo or privately owned outfit?
Buying across state lines is a bait and switch. It's not about competition - because the insurance companies aren't really competing to begin with. It's a scam to con people like yourself to think you're creating competition, when in reality it's a way for the corporations to move their outfits to states like Delaware with few regulations. Or maybe you still think corporations really pay all of their taxes and don't have post office boxes in far away lands to avoid paying their fair share.
Posted By: correction (Guest) on October 26, 2009 at 05:55 PM
It's meddling with the private market because it will use subsidies to undercut the prices of private insurers, and this legislation will also allow the government to dictate to insurance companies what you get for your money.
Even if you stick with private insurance, you're still going to be paying for the "public" plan.
It's really this simple: they want to basically expand Medicare to everyone who makes under $60k a year for a family of 4. That'd be bad enough if Medicare wasn't bleeding out cash and doctors weren't so fed up with dealing with the government BS that they have been refusing to accept new Medicare patients.
What they are proposing right now is to take a broken, bankrupt system and expand it.
Posted By: Chris Connolly (Guest) on October 26, 2009 at 06:28 PM
"That being said, you have to think that if one can afford private insurance, then one will buy private insurance. Hence, it's not like the government is taking away customers from the insurance companies, because these are the people who for one reason or another cannot buy insurance privately."
Actually, a large chunk of the ever shrinking uninsured figure are folks who ostensably could buy insurance, but don't. Your reasoning also belies a significant misunderstanding of how most who have insurance are insured.
Econ Fail.
Posted By: Guest#5386 (Guest) on October 26, 2009 at 07:18 PM
We don't have a free market for health care in this country, and we haven't had one since Medicare was enacted.
Who cares where they choose to locate their corporate headquarters? That has absolutely nothing to do with allowing people to buy policies across state lines.
You are making one of the fundamental mistakes that a lot of people make, in that you're confusing the corporatist system we have now with a free market capitalist system.
And by the way, corporations don't pay taxes. Those costs are built into everything we buy.
Posted By: Chris Connolly (Guest) on October 26, 2009 at 08:15 PM
Well if this "public option " plan is so great, then forgo bipartisanship. Go ahead and pass it. You have the votes, go ahead. Imagine all the success you on the left will enjoy if the legistlation goes like you think it will.
The reason Obama wants "bipartisanship" is when this turd fails, he can say it was both sides who supported the legistlation.
This bill will cost to much and everyone knows it. Its about goverment getting more power, plain and simple. The only reason the public option is back on the table is becuase the town hall meetings are over and the dem. controlled congress is back in DC, insulated away from any criticism.This will be another failure to add to the list.
The left has failed with the stimulus. Look at this quote...."Most analysts predict that the fiscal stimulus will have its greatest impact on growth in the second and third quarters of 2009,” Christina Romer, who chairs the President’s Council of Economic Advisers, said in testimony prepared for Congress. “By mid-2010, fiscal stimulus will likely be contributing little to growth.”
Obamas foreign policy has been weak. Afganistan? Iran? Giving up those nukes for hamburger ended up being a great idea with the Russians.
Hey the administration was only off by two trillion on the deficit.
I am sure the familiar people will come in and be a defense attorneys for the president becuase nothing the man does is wrong in their world. They will say I read right wing sites. Thats what the left does. Obama great, DECLARE WAR ON FOX, PALIN, and LIMBAUGH. That will help the unemployment rate.
I will give Obama credit, he has the leisure part in his life down. More rounds of golf in 9 months than the evil Bush had in his first 3 years. I am sure his swing gives Mathews a "special feeling running up his leg"
Connoly and masked defender argued the semantics well.
Posted By: John Galbraith (Guest) on October 26, 2009 at 04:56 PM
1) The "public option" hasn't been pushed in the current bill, because a group of conservative Democrats believe that such a move is further left then what their constituents would want to see and they need that bit of cover. Point blank.
And, honestly, the primary reason why Afghanistan and Iran are such the messes that they are now, is because "the other guys" thought the best way to deal with tough problems was to let them fester, with Afghanistan falling apart and Iran closer to a nuclear weapon then ever before.
And if we really want to talk about deficits, all you have to do is look at Bush the Younger's record, where he doubled the national debt in 8 years.
As much as you want to make it like the last 8 years didn't happen, they did. Suck a lemon, and fall back while President Obama cleans the mess up.
Posted By: scipio2009 (Guest) on October 26, 2009 at 09:18 PM
It's meddling with the private market because it will use subsidies to undercut the prices of private insurers, and this legislation will also allow the government to dictate to insurance companies what you get for your money.
Even if you stick with private insurance, you're still going to be paying for the "public" plan.
It's really this simple: they want to basically expand Medicare to everyone who makes under $60k a year for a family of 4. That'd be bad enough if Medicare wasn't bleeding out cash and doctors weren't so fed up with dealing with the government BS that they have been refusing to accept new Medicare patients.
What they are proposing right now is to take a broken, bankrupt system and expand it.
Posted By: Chris Connolly (Guest) on October 26, 2009 at 06:28 PM
The insurance market, as it stands today, is still leaving around 17 million U.S. citizens without insurance coverage, and that number continues to rise, as the insurance companies pair down their roles.
This is the fact, even considering that the government carries the bill for health coverage for every U.S. citizen over the age of 65 (Medicare), the working poor in this country (Medicaid), and almost 10 million children of poor families (SCHIP).
In this climate, where many of the most at risk people are ward of the state, the private insurance market has still failed to provide adequate coverage to near all citizens.
If private insurance can't get the job done, why shouldn't government step in, to fill in the whole that private insurance consistently misses?
You sit back and cry about "free market principles", in the face of facts that clearly demonstrate that the free market isn't getting the job done.
Just imagine the United States without Medicare, as much as it's funding gap "hurts" the program.
Would private insurance actually step forward and provide cost effective insurance coverage for someone who was 70? How about even 65?
Without even knowing any of the number, I'd bet they would try to charge as much as 3-4 times what a 30 year old would pay, leaving nearly the entire senior coverage without health insurance.
15-20% of the country would be up in arms, beating down the doors of you and people like you, fighting for a way to bring some decency to their end of life processes.
And all you'd continue to do is stand on your soapbox, gladly claiming that everything is alright just the way it is.
Posted By: scipio2009 (Guest) on October 26, 2009 at 09:37 PM
guest#5386,
Actually, according to the Census Bureau, from september of 2008 to september of 2009 the number of uninsured people in America grew. Not sure where you got the idea the number was shrinking.
Secondly, you're argument is extremely vague. "A large chunk of people who ostensibly could buy insurance but don't" is not a legitimate number. What does "a large chunk" consist of? Is it more than half? Less than half? Do you even know?
Math Fail
Posted By: Jlevysan (Guest) on October 26, 2009 at 10:23 PM
"The insurance market, as it stands today, is still leaving around 17 million U.S. citizens without insurance coverage, and that number continues to rise, as the insurance companies pair down their roles."
That means that out of a population of around 308 million, 94% are covered. And where is the evidence that insurance companies are drastically cutting their rolls?
"This is the fact, even considering that the government carries the bill for health coverage for every U.S. citizen over the age of 65 (Medicare), the working poor in this country (Medicaid), and almost 10 million children of poor families (SCHIP)."
The government doesn't foot any bills. Medicare is paid through our lifetime of payroll taxes, and SCHIP and Medicaid are paid for through individual taxes and taxes on businesses that are passed along to consumers.
"In this climate, where many of the most at risk people are ward of the state, the private insurance market has still failed to provide adequate coverage to near all citizens."
What is your definition of "adequate coverage"? And a 94% coverage rate is pretty damn good.
"You sit back and cry about "free market principles", in the face of facts that clearly demonstrate that the free market isn't getting the job done."
Once again, look at the coverage rate. Also, the insurance industry is one of the most highly regulated industries in the country at both the federal and state level. There is nothing "free market" about the current system.
"Just imagine the United States without Medicare, as much as it's funding gap "hurts" the program."
People survived just fine without Medicare before its enactment, and considering it has helped skyrocket HC costs for everyone, I imagine we'd be in a lot better shape without it.
"Would private insurance actually step forward and provide cost effective insurance coverage for someone who was 70? How about even 65?"
Considering that Medicare Advantage does exactly that and makes Medicare less of a hassle for many Medicare recipients, I'd say yes.
"And all you'd continue to do is stand on your soapbox, gladly claiming that everything is alright just the way it is."
I'll gladly stay on my soapbox and continue to fight for individual liberty and economic freedom and against wasteful government confiscation of my money.
Finally, it's complete bullshit to say that because I oppose further government intrusion into economic life that I think everything is OK with the current system. There are clearly issues that need to be addressed. I just happen to believe that more government isn't the answer.
Posted By: Chris Connolly (Guest) on October 26, 2009 at 10:54 PM
Jlevysan, according to the Census Bureau, there are about 17 million uninsured who make over $50k a year.
Posted By: Chris Connolly (Guest) on October 26, 2009 at 10:59 PM
"People survived just fine without Medicare before its enactment, and considering it has helped skyrocket HC costs for everyone, I imagine we'd be in a lot better shape without it."
This is one of the most ignorant comments I've ever read on this site, and that's saying something. 45,000 people die a year NOW because we're the only industrialized nation that doesn't have universal healthcare. Have you ever looked at the WHO numbers and where we rank as a nation when it comes to infant mortality and preventable death rates? We have great technology and great doctors, but one of the worst systems for getting that care to the people who need it.
Posted By: correction (Guest) on October 26, 2009 at 11:09 PM
Have you ever looked at the reporting behind infant mortality rates? Other countries consistently underreport theirs, not to mention the fact that superior prenatal care here means that more pregnancies are going to be carried to at least the viability stage than anywhere else. If they didn't fudge the numbers, there would be even less of a difference than there is now.
Considering how diverse our country is, our overall survival rate is outstanding.
Also, infant mortality and preventable death rates have nothing to do with insurance and everything to do with access to care (which we all have) and making wise decisions about your own health.
Posted By: Chris Connolly (Guest) on October 26, 2009 at 11:52 PM
And if we really want to talk about deficits, all you have to do is look at Bush the Younger's record, where he doubled the national debt in 8 years.
As much as you want to make it like the last 8 years didn't happen, they did. Suck a lemon, and fall back while President Obama cleans the mess up.
Posted By: scipio2009 (Guest) on October 26, 2009 at 09:18 PM
Tool.
Youe messiah Obama has quadrupled Bushes debt. I see that you left that out.
Cherry pick away.
Obama campaigned about Afganistan being the war. Well he certainly has become complacent in doing what his hand picked general has recomended.
Keep blaming Bush.......that will help unemployment. Keep blaming Bush, it wll help you in 2010. The answer to everything is blame Bush.
Good luck with that.
Posted By: John Galbraith (Guest) on October 27, 2009 at 01:07 AM
"That means that out of a population of around 308 million, 94% are covered. And where is the evidence that insurance companies are drastically cutting their rolls?"
A country of 308 million people, where the government covers nearly 50 million through Medicare, 10 million through SCHIP, 40-50 million through Medicaid, and countless more, through programs like the VA, Indian Affairs and the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program, and even with the government covering near 130-150 million people, private insurance still can't provide affordable avenues to close out the rest of the whole.
"The government doesn't foot any bills. Medicare is paid through our lifetime of payroll taxes, and SCHIP and Medicaid are paid for through individual taxes and taxes on businesses that are passed along to consumers."
The U.S. government, like nearly every other government on this planet, finances its' operations through taxes. Is there any place where that isn't the case?
"What is your definition of "adequate coverage"? And a 94% coverage rate is pretty damn good."
Simple. Every U.S. citizen has, in my opinion, the right not to die or face financial ruin, because they get sick. "Adequate coverage" would give all citizens, through private insurance or otherwise, access to hospital care, before it reaches the emergency room.
And, again, you keep repeating a false number.
"Once again, look at the coverage rate. Also, the insurance industry is one of the most highly regulated industries in the country at both the federal and state level. There is nothing "free market" about the current system."
Again, pushing false numbers. And, if a company can control 80% of a market, "regulation" isn't working.
"People survived just fine without Medicare before its enactment, and considering it has helped skyrocket HC costs for everyone, I imagine we'd be in a lot better shape without it."
Honestly? I guess you must have selective amnesia, since having the senior population at near 80% below the poverty line is "doing just fine".
"I'll gladly stay on my soapbox and continue to fight for individual liberty and economic freedom and against wasteful government confiscation of my money."
Have fun.
"Finally, it's complete bullshit to say that because I oppose further government intrusion into economic life that I think everything is OK with the current system. There are clearly issues that need to be addressed. I just happen to believe that more government isn't the answer."
And until you actually put forth cohesive ideas for reform, instead of believing that the rights of states to regulate and parents not knowing that eating McDonald's 10 times a week is bad for their families health are the lichnpins to the cost problem, that's all you're putting forth
Posted By: scipio2009 (Guest) on October 27, 2009 at 07:50 AM
Maybe if certain people spent more money on things that matter like health insurance, healthy food, and exercise, instead of on bling, electronics, and other "goodies" they cant afford, there wouldnt be any issues at all.
I dont know how many of you go out and get groceries, but stand around at a grocery store for about an hour and watch how many people use food stamps and what they look like.
90% are 400 + lbs. women with 5 different kids causing a commotion. She will most likly be buying junk food and getting cash back for cigarettes. All of this with MY money taken through taxes. I just dont understand why there isnt more regulation with these government funded programs. Blows my mind how many people take advantage of the system.
This country is going places for sure... hell that is.
Posted By: AG Awesome (Guest) on October 27, 2009 at 08:18 AM
"Dealing with a state run bureaucracy sucks. It's riddled with inneficiancies and red tape."
Posted By: Jlevysan (Guest) on October 26, 2009 at 05:01 PM
So, let's go ahead and give the inefficient, red-tape riddled government MORE control.
Things that make you go "hmmm..."
Posted By: Masked Defender (Guest) on October 27, 2009 at 12:29 PM
Hippie crap.
Posted By: Hippy shit. (Guest) on October 27, 2009 at 04:17 PM
Maybe if certain people spent more money on things that matter like health insurance, healthy food, and exercise, instead of on bling, electronics, and other "goodies" they cant afford, there wouldnt be any issues at all.
I dont know how many of you go out and get groceries, but stand around at a grocery store for about an hour and watch how many people use food stamps and what they look like.
90% are 400 + lbs. women with 5 different kids causing a commotion. She will most likly be buying junk food and getting cash back for cigarettes. All of this with MY money taken through taxes. I just dont understand why there isnt more regulation with these government funded programs. Blows my mind how many people take advantage of the system.
This country is going places for sure... hell that is.
Posted By: AG Awesome (Guest) on October 27, 2009 at 08:18 AM
And finally the "veiled", ever so slightly, racism reaches the surface.
If a family of four, regardless of color, is just scraping by on $25,000 per year, pre-tax, how can that same family be expected to pony up the additional, hypothetically, $5000 in annual premium and co-pay costs?
More often than not, someone going out and picking up "bling" isn't the reason why there's a coverage problem with healthcare in this country.
Posted By: scipio2009 (Guest) on October 27, 2009 at 06:20 PM
"So, let's go ahead and give the inefficient, red-tape riddled government MORE control.
Things that make you go 'hmmm...'"
Masked Defender,
As oppossed to excluding millions of Americans from getting any healthcare at all. hmmm indeed.
Posted By: Jlevysan (Guest) on October 27, 2009 at 08:23 PM
And finally the "veiled", ever so slightly, racism reaches the surface.
If a family of four, regardless of color, is just scraping by on $25,000 per year, pre-tax, how can that same family be expected to pony up the additional, hypothetically, $5000 in annual premium and co-pay costs?
More often than not, someone going out and picking up "bling" isn't the reason why there's a coverage problem with healthcare in this country.
Posted By: scipio2009 (Guest) on October 27, 2009 at 06:20 PM
It's funny how you grabbed the word "bling" out of the quoted blurb and used that as a basis for trotting out the tired race card. I didn't realize that "bling" was exclusive to people of color. If there's a "family of four scraping by on $25,000 a year, pre-tax," then shame on THEM. Why on earth would you bring two children (or more) into a household with that paltry level of income? Typical liberal reaction, absolve the poor of any accountability and pass the problems (and bill) along to those who've made better decisions and work harder. Lord knows, THAT will curb the problem.
Posted By: TheDDG (Guest) on October 28, 2009 at 12:03 AM
And finally the "veiled", ever so slightly, racism reaches the surface.
If a family of four, regardless of color, is just scraping by on $25,000 per year, pre-tax, how can that same family be expected to pony up the additional, hypothetically, $5000 in annual premium and co-pay costs?
More often than not, someone going out and picking up "bling" isn't the reason why there's a coverage problem with healthcare in this country.
Posted By: scipio2009 (Guest) on October 27, 2009 at 06:20 PM
It's funny how you grabbed the word "bling" out of the quoted blurb and used that as a basis for trotting out the tired race card. I didn't realize that "bling" was exclusive to people of color. If there's a "family of four scraping by on $25,000 a year, pre-tax," then shame on THEM. Why on earth would you bring two children (or more) into a household with that paltry level of income? Typical liberal reaction, absolve the poor of any accountability and pass the problems (and bill) along to those who've made better decisions and work harder. Lord knows, THAT will curb the problem.
Posted By: TheDDG (Guest) on October 28, 2009 at 12:03 AM
"Maybe if certain people spent more money on things that matter like health insurance, healthy food, and exercise, instead of on bling, electronics, and other "goodies" they cant afford, there wouldnt be any issues at all."
The fact that it is being assumed that "certain people" decide to buy "goodies" they can't afford, before deciding what they can eat is foolish, in the most polite of terms. In addition, the fact that the author refuses to acknowledge "certain people" as fellow citizens of the United States of America, as well as using loaded comparisons of "bling" to food, belies a certain sense of underlying unease with the diversity of our country; call it whatever you want.
And, unfortunately, all citizens of the United States don't plan all of their children, like you are apparently trying to advocate as the only way to live.
too bad.
Posted By: scipio2009 (Guest) on October 28, 2009 at 03:23 AM
"So, let's go ahead and give the inefficient, red-tape riddled government MORE control.
Things that make you go 'hmmm...'"
Masked Defender,
As oppossed to excluding millions of Americans from getting any healthcare at all. hmmm indeed.
Posted By: Jlevysan (Guest) on October 27, 2009 at 08:23 PM
Don't put words in my mouth. I just pointed out what I saw as an inconsistency in your argument.
I don't believe that we should just ignore the health care issue, I just don't believe in the current proposal. For an alternative plan that I can get behind, check out Republican proposed House Bill HR3400. That's one you won't hear about from the mainstream news outlets. In fact, Nancy Pelosi won't even allow discussion of HR3400. Now why would that be? I thought we were looking for bipartisanship.
Posted By: Masked Defender (Guest) on October 28, 2009 at 10:54 AM
" If there's a "family of four scraping by on $25,000 a year, pre-tax," then shame on THEM. Why on earth would you bring two children (or more) into a household with that paltry level of income? "
What a stupid comment.
Posted By: Mikel (Guest) on October 28, 2009 at 03:56 PM
Well I'll give you credit for actually putting forth some sort of tangible alternative to the current set of bills making their way through congress. It's better than the way that 99% of critics just shit all over everything the Democrats do and don't make any policy recommendations of their own.
Now as for house bill HR 3400, it accomplishes some good things, but still has a few glaring problems. For example, under 3400, states would have to cover 90% of those people who are 200% below the federal poverty level. What about the people who are below the poverty level, but are not under the 200% mark?
Secondly, the bill puts control of medical tort reform in the hands of the insurance companies. According to Rep. Tom Price's website, HR 3400 would allow for "affirmative defense [of doctors] based on provider established best practice measures". Basically it would be up to the insurance companies to decide if the doctor committed malpractice. This is a problem because then what is to stop the insurance companies from avoiding payouts by just having extremely strict definitions of what constitutes malpractice? I'm all for tort reform, and i think that payouts are WAY too high in some instances, but this is not the way to do it.
Thirdly, the plan decreases spending on defensive medicine, one of the reasons we're in this mess to begin with. What we should have been doing in the first place is getting schools to emphasize physical exercise and healthy eating habits. We should have been offering more tax incentives for people who regularly go to the doctor for checkups (which by the way, would be much more affordable under the Democratic backed bills). All of these things fall under the category of defensive medicine, and all of them would see their funding cut by HR 3400.
Now as for Nancy Pelosi not allowing debate on the bill, Pelosi actually does not have the power to limit debate on the bill. That right is reserved for the chair of the Rules Committee, Louise Slaughter. And as for the reason she's not allowing debate, thats just the way congress works. In essence the job of the chair of the rules committee is to make sure that legislation that his or her party likes makes it to the floor, and to make sure that legislation from the opposing party does not. Republicans have done it to Democrats and Democrats do it to Republicans. Its total bunk to think that anyone is looking for bipartisanship.
All that being said, one can come to the conclusion that HR3400 was never intended to reach the floor. It's a bill that Tom Price wrote so that he could say to his constituents, for the sake of getting reelected, that he came up with an alternative to the current healthcare bills.
Posted By: Jlevysan (Guest) on October 28, 2009 at 05:26 PM
Dude, 200% of the poverty level means covering people who make up to twice the poverty level.
Also, I am pretty sure the "providers" you're talking about are the doctors, not the insurance companies. The medical profession determines best practices, not insurance companies.
Posted By: Chris Connolly (Guest) on October 28, 2009 at 08:11 PM
jlevysan, Regardless of the motives, that by definition is an alternative is it not? By your own admission, these alternatives, will never see the light of day on the floor of congress. At LEAST you acknowledged the fact that the democrats aren't asking for bi partisanship. Bi-partisanship to them is join them in supporting there bill and you get nothing. The point is, no one can say that alternatives aren't being put forth. MSNBC, CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, NY times etc may not want to cover them, but they are out there, it's just more convenient to come up with the simpleton answer "Republicans are the party of no" just to help more democrats get elected.
Posted By: gwpbrian (Guest) on October 28, 2009 at 11:49 PM
Chris,
perhaps you're right about the 200% thing. however, the summary of the bill i took off of tom price's website made it seem like it would be the insurance providers that would be in charge of setting the standards. truth be told, the synopsis of the bill on Price's website is pretty vague though.if someone wants to sift through the entire bill and get back to me then more power to them.
Posted By: Jlevysan (Guest) on October 31, 2009 at 04:02 AM
STAY CURRENT