Tonight, it's from JimC on health care:
Here's what I don't get
Every Democratic candidate in 2008, from Sara Orozco to Barack Obama, ran (in part) on changing healthcare.
As it happened, after a mountain of work and a galaxy of money, we retained both houses of Congress and won the presidency too.
So why are we having a debate with the GOP, which ran on not changing healthcare? Why have we already taken single payer off the table?
Why do we have to call reps? We can pass this without a single Republican vote.
WHY?
Are you really telling me every Democratic campaign last year — every Democratic campaign — meant nothing at all? Because that's what I'm hearing.
… and I would add something else: Everyone in power — the President, Congresscritters, all these Dems — talk about this year as a “historic opportunity” for health care. Like, if we don't get it done this year, whoops, it will have passed away.
Why?
Will the problem have been solved – making the public fat and happy? Does Congress only meet every 15 years?
What am I missing?
Discuss
25 Comments . Comments are closed.Universal corruption?
Maybe there's only one political party, the "Politician Party", and they all answer to their bosses in Big Finance Inc, Big Insurance Inc, Big Weaponry Inc, etc. That's one hypothesis, anyway- though the story of Big Tobacco, Inc suggests that sometimes government steps in for the rest of us.
In a word, $quot;YES$quot;.
But of course there are other factors at play as well, such as the fact that there are many many moving parts in health system reform and that each of them is tethered to an immensely wealthy special interest group. Think Doctors- especially specialists, Insurance companies, Drug companies, Medical device manufacturers, Wall Street Co's that feed at the trough of healthcare as commodity (a dominant feature of the U.S.' hc system).
The closing point in Robert Reich's recent piece on reform of the financial sector gives voice to the same dynamics and obstacles that are having such tremendous impact on health reform. Yes, we're in for a fierce fight that'll expose just what the Democratic Party is made of; a scary thought since we've been counting on them for the battle.
The Three Essentials of Financial Reform, 16 June 2009 http://robertreich.blogspot.co... (click and while you're on his blog read his health reform piece "The Latest Public Option Bamboozle...)
On the "Weigh in" note: Each of us can take simple yet effective actions to help arm our stalwart allies in Congress for this fight; please take a look at the video clip by Senator Bernie Sanders at the below link and then decide if you will sign his petition. You can also submit a healthcare story that Senator Sanders will read into the Congressional Record. Thanks. http://sanders.senate.gov/peti...
I want a public option
I don't just want it passed -- I literally want it for myself.
76% of the country wants the option.
WTF are they waiting for?
And if the freaking Democratic Senators listen to the tax-cheating, loser Daschle... well, I think it's time for some new Democratic Senators.
I refer you
to the weekly bloggers poll by National Journal in which I participate. Last week they asked how important it was that health care reform be "bipartisan." I responded, I thought sensibly, that it's "not at all important"; that what matters is that something get passed and that it work. As I said in another thread here, I think bipartisanship for its own sake is little more than a fetish currently in vogue among the punditocracy; normal people don't care who voted for something as long as it works.
Yet there was a great deal of disagreement on the "bipartisan" question, even amongst lefty bloggers. They asked 19 lefties that question, and the breakdown is this:
Very important: 10.5% Somewhat important: 31.6% Not very important: 21.1% Not important at all: 36.8%
I love E.J. Dionne's take on this, esp. his closing line:
"Bipartisanship of fools." Fabulous.
Didn't Obama also say something like
he was a "fierce" fighter for gay rights?
The gov't dropping the ball on important issues -- whether I agree with what their 'intent' is or not -- is par for the course.
Want to know what your problem is? After 8 years of poor Republican rule, you got this idea in your head that since you're not Republicans, who were sucking, that you must be better. It never occurred to you that your politicians might suck just as bad if they had the chance.
All I can say is, welcome to the club.
well
Mid-term elections...
Future of health care is clear
Yet everyone misses the most important issue. How much control of your health will be left to you. Not much is the answer.
What are you missing?
Ask Charlie Brown
I'll play Lucy.
Noooooo
So you think the only solution is revolution? Kick the constitution to the curb after 144 years (since the end of the Civil War and the adoption of the Reconstruction amendments which fundamentally changed the compact). Thomas Jefferson thought we should reformulate the whole government every 33 years or so. The first version only lasted 69 years before it collapsed in civil war. But what to take its place? An end to the Great Compromise, perhaps: representation based strictly on population. Perhaps an end to "corporate personhood," and 100% annual corporate taxes. Benjamin Franklin was more or less in favor of the latter. As he put it, corporations wouldn't exist without the state, so they owed it everything.
Check JimC's comment below
He's a Lucy too. We Lucys respond to outsiders unreasonable expectations of our performance in the field by dismissing their criticisms and unfounded and uniformed. And then go back into center field and look for the next opportunity to catch a fly ball or scoop up the grounder fluffed by the guy on second base. (Thats a Charlie)
Maybe this is why....
Although we did have amazing victories last fall, they were still relatively close. There are mouths wide open and flapping, spewing forth tall tales in an effort to kill the future of a democratic majority, and even perhaps, a Dem president next time around. It's a fine line to have to maneuver. Maybe they are thinking about how to mitigate talking points that will come forth during the next elections. Although I would say that having a few Republicans on board is not going to help much, but it wouldn't hurt either.
This is a problem.....
Oh please.
That's grasping for straws at its finest, right there.
You can go ahead and think that...
if you want. Maybe you should watch FN for 30 minutes and see what they are saying. Actually, 10 minutes should give you a clue.
Thanks Charley
I feel a little better this morning.
I had this thought: It's not that the Democratic Party is always more effective and always works to the good. It's that the Republican Party always stands in the way of change.
So now I feel less like wringing necks and more like gearing up for the fight.
But we have the damn ball. Let's not have Josh Beckett hand the ball to Sabathia and say, "Maybe you'd like to pitch to Matsui in this inning. That's only fair."
Yes. Perfect. Twenty 6s
Consider it a life sentence with no hope of parole.
You have to sell the program
Just because Dems control all the levels doesn't mean you can pass sweeping and massively expensive legislation without selling it to the voting taxpayer. Folks may have voted for change, but not change at any cost.
You have to sell it to middle 40% of independent swing voters. The cost of this turkey is scaring many them, and, hence, their reps and senators.
This health bill is bad legislation, philosophically and financially. Set aside the philosophical arguments. The program's math just doesn't work.
This is why you feel the need to rush the plan through before Congress adjourns ... when the American taxpayer finally understands the economics of ObamaCare, you're afraid they'll balk.
And rightly so.
Selling
Think of it as a car. What the hell are double overhead cams? I have no idea, but I think my car has them. The public will never fully understand the details, even if they were all out there -- life is too short.
I agree that the price has to be sold, but that's easy.
I'm not in as much of a rush as the president, but I do think it needs to be done before the midterm elections, and I just don't buy any argument about waiting. This did not sneak up on anybody in Congress.
My main beef in my comment up top, though, was all the decisions being made too soon, like eliminating single payer as an option. Maybe it should go, but let's vet that, not wave our hands. Similar pressure is being put on the public option (thanks, Tom Daschle). Let's not snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
You're missing the reality of the very scary cost estimates
Despite the progressive pipe dream that this election was a mandate for a socialized health care system, more sober minds on Capital Hill are grappling with the insane cost of this program.
Perhaps the political junkies and policy wonks on both side of the aisle understood what Barry had in store, but I think it was not so clear to many casual voters in the middle. Is there even $1.6 trillion in annual income on folks above $250,000 left to tax? I don't think. So it's dawning on folks that someone has to pay the bill, and that means them.
Sure, the American electorate voted for "change" but not if massive tax increases are needed. So the $1.6 trillion cost -- that's just the first cut -- is scaring a lot of politicians. Surely it will rise as the fine print is read and cost estimates are refined.
This is why the Obama administration is trying to rush everything through before the summer recess (it won't happen) because once the American tax payer gets wind of the REAL costs, ObamaCare is toast.
By the way, what about the $74 TRILLION unfunded Medicare liability? Isn't that proof that $1.6 trillion is low by a factor of 10?
In a nutshell: Sticker shock
Well, they're paying for it anyway.
I understand the "sticker shock" theme. It's got a lot of merit.
The problem is that we've got sticker shock with the status quo.
So yeah, sticker shock, I'm familiar. The question is what you're paying for. The health care reform bills being contemplated at the very least involve comparative effectiveness research. We could have a strong public option, where the gov't bargains with drug cos and providers. You want to get costs down? That would work.
I mean, I'd have no problem spending 20% of GDP if everyone was covered, we were all running marathons and living to 110. But we get such crappy value for our dollar, with massive injustice along the way.
link
sorry ... http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost...
1.6 trillion
This is a double whammy for the taxpayers (big increase in the deficit and little decrease in the staggering health care costs) and a huge boondoggle for the insurance industry that will profit tremendously from the millions of new premiums that will be issued. In view of this, the corruption of many of our representatives, D & R, is absolutely staggering.
Triple
Triple whammy: big increase in debt; little decrease in health and overload of more demand into the system so existing customers foresee their coverage suffer.
Sticker shock
Health insurance reform. Different year, same roadblock.
Politician 2008: "yeah, let's have us some of that health insurance reform. Vote for me."
CBO: Ok, that'll cost $1.6 trillion or even $4.0 trillion or even (insert big number here, because it's the future and no one really knows) over 10 years to insure the (insert big number here) million currently without insurance.
Politician: [sound of rats leaving sinking SCHIP]
BTW, regarding the $1.6 trillion, figure this. Divide the $1.6 trillion by the 47 million presumed uninsured. It works out to be $283 per month, per person. This 2007 study has the cost per person under $220. Here's a Health Reform idea: give every uninsure person a voucher for $220 provided he uses it to buy insurance. At least we'd know that the cost would be $1.2 trillion fixed, and not a fuzzy $1.6 trillion.
This:
Rich people have insurance Poor people have insurance Working middle class has insurance Students have insurance Children of all these above groups have insurance Elderly have insurance
It's the working class poor who don't have insurance. The sticker shock of the CBO et. al. estimates cause the "have's" to recoil at the idea of i) ponying up for the "have nots" and ii) risking the insurance they have for a pig in a poke.
To put it another way
"It won't work"
So, while its real easy to be for something that your base is for - and maybe even you personally are strongly for! - once you are actually responsible for doing it then you can choose to crash the country into the ground, or not to.
Idealism is just ducky until you have to implement it.
Think cap and trade, too.
« Blue Mass Group Front Page
Wed 8 Feb 2:52 PM