Paul Starr knows health care. Way back in 1982 he wrote a big fat tome called The Social Transformation of American Medicine, which won a Pulitzer. He co-founded the American Prospect. He's a veteran of the Clinton health care wars. I'd say his lefty and health care credentials are pretty impeccable.
And this is what he says about the health care bill as it stands [my emphasis]:
The health-care reform legislation pending in Congress would be the largest program on behalf of low- to moderate-income people in the United States since the 1960s. Besides subsidizing coverage, it would create a new mechanism for purchasing insurance that would give greater buying power to people who now purchase policies individually and through small employers. It would eliminate pre-existing condition exclusions. It would enable people to buy policies at the same price regardless of their health (albeit with some allowance for differences in age). It would raise the standards of coverage for millions of people who are underinsured. It would represent a commitment by the federal government to make health insurance affordable to every American. And by making that commitment, the government would effectively commit itself to controlling both public and private health-care costs.
Oh, and by the way, according to the Congressional Budget Office, it would reduce the deficit and, according to the Medicare actuary, it would extend the life of the Medicare trust fund.
I'm sorry, but that utterly puts the lie to Dean's contention that of his list of worthy goals, “The current Senate bill accomplishes none of these.”
I can understand why a progressive would want to improve it; I cannot fathom how a progressive could oppose it.
Count me emphatically out of Bob's call for our Senators and prospective Senators to risk scuttling the bill. Improve, sure. But get the deal done.
If this kind of thinking were all the rage in 1960, President Kennedy would have reacted to the launch of Sputnik by challenging America to put a man in orbit for a week around the Earth.
<
p>A unique moment won’t be satisfied by weak measures.
The weakest measure of all is not passing a bill that is, by this description, at least useful, and maybe better. So maybe we agree.
<
p>It ain’t 1960, and this isn’t an “orbiting space trinket,” as the Onion put it.
Dean himself has said that much too. I’ve yet to be convinced that premia are guaranteed to drop without a deliberate intervention on government’s part either through a public option or utility-style rate regulation. To simply assume that the larger pool will drive costs down on its own sounds like warmed-over “let the market sort it out” that we hear way too often. Until I have more assurances not of what will happen, but what SHALL happen, I don’t support a measure that REQUIRES me to buy something.
said that group health care premiums did indeed go down in MA.
<
p>And here it is, from MIT economist Jon Gruber:
Wow. That’s just non-group, and maybe average isn’t the best way to measure: Does that include the subsidy? Don’t know.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyo…
<
p>
<
p>We can all pick and choose the facts, but if you look at the full picture, what you have is a program that’s lead to very, very expensive coverage, that’s unsustainable here, in a state that is far better off than the country at large and had fewer people to insure to begin with. You’re asking to transplant a system to the federal level that doesn’t even work well here.
<
p>It may deliver insurance to a lot of people who didn’t have it before, but it’s not doing a good job delivering health care and it’s not doing anything at a price that’s affordable or sustainable. Finally, if we push through this bill, it’ll be political suicide in 2010 and 2012 and maybe even beyond, all that for a bad bill. No matter how you look at it, Charley, this is a bad idea and a bad bill.
You know why? Because the services are expensive (hello Partners). And there are a lot of them! Yes, you bet, it’s expensive. But not because of MA health reform. Are you really contending that?
<
p>Here’s the full quote that Marcy used:
http://www.kff.org/uninsured/u…
<
p>I’m not here to defend the perfection of the MA plan or MA health care generally. It’s too damn expensive, no disagreement there; and the mandate is a real imposition on people, for real.
<
p>But here’s the question: Are more people getting the care they need than before? (Yes.) Is 21% higher or lower than before the law? (pdf doesn’t say.) Are medical bankruptcies (or, say, bankruptcies caused or exacerbated by mandated premiums) up or down? (I have heard they’re down, but I’m having trouble finding the data.)
<
p>—-
<
p>By the way, here’s a story from Health Care for All, who run a phone help line for folks dealing with insurance issues:
Is it better for people to have insurance, or not?
<
p>I really don’t understand that now that the PO is gone, all criticisms and shortcomings of the MA plan are being trotted out to justify the idea of ditching the whole damn thing. I think that’s preposterous.
Charley, most of the people forced to buy into health care didn’t choose to have it before. You will always be able to find a few people who got sick or pregnant and would have been bankrupted without it, however the truth is that the vast majority will not use the money they are now forced to pay in.
<
p>That is the only way for it to make budgetary sense, even by your own plan. Forcing healthy young people to pay, or forcing the taxpayer to subsidize health coverage for them, who will not consume their premiums, will balance the extra money going out for the old sick people.
<
p>This is the basic problem with the bill and why it is foundering. Most of the people who don’t have health insurance choose not to buy this product, because it doesn’t hold value for them at the price offered.
<
p>The solution for Dean and other lefties is to tax an ever-lower definition of “the rich” to pay for subsidies.
<
p>There are, in the main, three reasons why people don’t have health insurance:
<
p>–Don’t want it
<
p>–Can’t afford it.
<
p>– Already had it, got kicked out and couldn’t get re-covered…
<
p>Of the three reasons, the first “didn’t want it” is by a truly staggering ratio miniscule in comparison to the other two.
I would put myself in the second category, but I feel like a lot of people want to put me in the first.
There are a lot of things you “can’t afford” that you “want”… but if you wanted health insurance bad enough, you would stop buying other things and spend the money on health insurance.
<
p>Your chance of dying from disease or really any cause below the age of 40 is miniscule. The risk/reward of buying health insurance obviously doesn’t add up for you — especially a plan inflated by mandates to pay for expensive care for sick/old people.
<
p>The old and the sick don’t pay enough for the care they are getting, and the rest of us subsidize it. This plan is a way to get young healthy people to pay in and not take out. I’m not saying that’s wrong, but that is what the plan does.
<
p>I’m disturbed it’s taken so long for this to add up in the minds of people. If the mandated plan is too expensive, take out some mandated treatments that have low levels of benefit, like mental health (alarm bells go off).
Depression, addiction, substance abuse, bi polar, narcissism complex are all real mental health issues just as real as a broken leg and just as important to set right.
<
p>For conservatives and others who think the problems are unsubstantial and of no consequence, think about mental health problems as a dis-ability that obstructs an individual from contruting to the GDP.
Would you support a medical panel cost/reward review of mental health (or any other liberal mandate on health insurers to cover treatments), as much as some have supported a panel review of “heroic” efforts to extend life in the old? You might not like the conclusions.
My existence is pretty bare-bones at the moment – lowest rent I can find in the area, a car that I paid $2500 for, no major electronics (I use public computers) except for a small TV which I won in a contest a few years back with very basic service. Judging is inappropriate here, but you make a good argument for single-payer. Strongly disagree with the implication that mental health should not be covered.
health for economic. Both can lead to ruin and, indeed, death. With annual limits and loopholes riddled in this bill like holes in swiss cheese, all the vaunted ‘reforms’ are nearly worthless. And while those problems are going to go largely unfixed with this reform, that’s not until after we cause a whole new host of problems by placing the largest tax increase on the middle and working classes, at least in modern times, going straight to private companies for profit, all to deliver a shitty product. If this goes through as is, Charley, you’ll so be regretting it a few years from now…. especially given the fact that we could easily have better by turning up the heat on Obama.
for us for small business plan groups, opposite has been the result. Our BCBS premiums have gone from $13k in 2006 to $18k in 2009, with 2010 going to $22k (surprise, we’re leaving BCBS to go to Tufts). Maybe we’re the subsidiers? Don’t think our cmopany views the MA plan as anything remotely holding down costs.
… done by our own Sen Kerry (and others…)
<
p>
<
p>If I understand it correctly, premiums will have downward pressure exerted by transparency on the exchange. Should a provider find it necessary to raise premium it must submit a intent to do so to the regulators of the exchange to do so. If the regulators deem that the premium increase is not supported by health care costs they can say so, and if the provider continues to insist upon raising the premiums the regulators can de-certify them, in effect booting them out of the exchange. Or, in the parlance of the day, knocking the windfall right out of them…
<
p>This does not guarantee a premium drop, but it does guard against it rather diligently. I suppose the insurers could play some corruption on the the ‘civil disobedience’ tactic and refuse to participate in the exchanges as an industry. I think that would, fairly, be seen as a passive-aggressive request that the government implement a public option.
<
p>The other mechanism for cost control is expenditure reporting: each insurer will be required to spell out exactly how much money is spent on advertising, administrative overhead and profits. If their expenditures fall outside the scope of a given formula, they are then required to rebate to customers the excess…
First off, we have to be clear. This is the bill President Obama wanted all along. We could have something much better, but that’s not what Obama wanted. You ignore that, Starr ignores that, Ezra ignores that, Silver ignores that… you’ve yet to mention one person who hasn’t ignored that. Why should we fight for what Obama’s wanted all along, when it’s a bad deal and we could have something much better? If we don’t stand up now to Obama’s sleazy tactics, prepare to be rolled time and time again over the next three years.
<
p>Now, consider the fact that if we pass a mandate now, without a public option, we will have zero leverage to make this bill better in the years to come. Your strategy is to doom real reform for potentially the rest of your lifetime. It’s political idiocy.
<
p>Finally, I’m just not willing to give into health care neo-fuedalism, fostering a fascist alliance between government and private industry to force Americans to give up 20% of their income to pay for a bad product which has failed under similar circumstances.
<
p>The first Republican majority and POTUS, Charley, and all the subsidies go away, but none of the mandates. You are being beyond inept. It’s as if a bunch of the intelligent bloggers I read lately have all been beaten by the stupid stick — or worse, become one with the Obamabots. You best invest more in your rationalization logarithms, because they’re going to overload at this rate and fry your entire system.
is the rage that the dropping of the PO has caused. So … I guess I’m not really encouraging people to back off, or consider the work done. But I think the idea of scrapping the bill is dumb.
<
p>”Neo-feudalism” … man, what a lame, tinny turn of phrase. Same to my landlord!!
<
p>OK, Ryan … maybe all the “intelligent” bloggers suddenly went stupid. And the economists. (Krugman.) And historians, like Starr. It’s possible … wouldn’t be the first time. Maybe. Or … what’s the other possibility?
is “rage”
<
p>So, as I suggested and as others have suggested. No leverage.
<
p>
<
p>There’s a neat little divide now. Wonks who tend to support this, political movement types who are decrying it. I’m quite satisfied to know that people who are in between both camps — the Marcy Wheelers of the world, for example — are fully on the side of the movement progressives. Why? Maybe you can argue about whether this is more good than bad policy wise, but politics wise? It would be a disaster. Furthermore, it’s only ‘more good than bad’ if one presumes we can’t do better. Given that this is what Obama has wanted all along, if we call him on it and get him to smack Nelson and Lieberman as harshly as he has Dean, we’d win real reform. No question.
<
p>The Nates and Ezras of the world will always be too wonky to understand the politics side of this, which is why it didn’t surprise me at all that they’d be wrong on this. You cannot ignore the political implications of this, both why we don’t have something better and what will happen to our majorities if this “reform” is passed.
I think I do get it. I see the polls — progs are showing their displeasure with what’s coming out. I see the dynamic. It’s plain as day. Democrats should be concerned.
<
p>But politics is a means to an end. We are talking, in the end, about flesh and blood here — more so than just about any other issue, even including war and peace. I care about people being able to see doctors and get treatment when they need to.
<
p>I think the wonks in this case especially understand the moral gravity and the human cost — better than the politicos, IMO.
flesh and blood… and RENT! and you’re going to ask people to spend thousands and thousands of their own dollars every year for a shitty product. 21% of people in Massachusetts, to this day, don’t get care they need because they can’t afford it. How is that possible when only a fraction of that number is uninsured? It’s a shitty product! And, I repeat, this is in a state where people make more money and fewer people were uninsured to begin with.
<
p>If we lose our majorities because of this bad bill, Charley, we won’t be able to fix it, republicans will be able to torpedo the subsidies, while keeping the mandate, and the American people will be fucked. This lack of foresight is astounding. Pass the damn bill, but skip the mandate, and maybe, just maybe, we’ll be able to use that as leverage to pass real reform a few years down the line when Lieberman and Landreau are booted from office.
Without exaggeration, this comment may be one of the most ridiculous I’ve read on BMG in quite some time.
<
p>(1) You keep linking to Glen Greenwald’s piece as “proof” that “this is the bill Obama wanted all along.” I could point to a number of ways Greenwald completely and embarrassingly mis-characterizes the American political process, but that would require an entirely separate diary entry. For now, I’d just make the practical point that because Obama wanted to get “big Pharma” on board does NOT mean that he simply wants what they want. He realizes that without big Pharma at least easing on the brakes for reform (because, after all, they prefer the status quo and NO reform), nothing will get passed at all. Certainly not a ban on dropping the insured because of pre-existing conditions.
<
p>(2) Explain to me how we will still have leverage to change the health care system if this bill fails. If this fails, the possibility of health care reform will die for a decade or more. Not just next year, not just next session, but a decade or more. All this while “progressives” and Republicans lock arms to essentially sentence millions of Americans to life without health care coverage and treatment.
<
p>(3) Meanwhile, if this bill passes, the principle of universal coverage is established, massive subsidies are created that will be difficult to dislodge, Medicare is expanded, and we now have a critically important ban on insurance decisions based upon pre-existing conditions.
<
p>(4) “Neo-feudalism” and “fascist alliance”? With these statements, you have officially crossed the line from “reality based” to crazy talk.
<
p>(5) You say: “The first Republican majority and POTUS, Charley, and all the subsidies go away, but none of the mandates.” Who knew that you’re willing to kill health care reform because of the possibility that some Republicans in the future will reverse our gains. I guess we might as well all retreat from attempting progressive reform. You also forget so soon about a little thing called a “filibuster”. Remember that? It’s pretty prominent in the news right now. Oh, and Democrats can use it too. If Republicans take over the Senate in the near future, which is likely if kill-the-bill “progressives” rather than actual progressives gain the upper hand in the Democratic party, then the filibuster can and will be employed to maintain subsidies, just like we used to kill Social Security privatization, safety net cuts in the past, etc. It’s a lot easier to maintain the status quo than change it in the US Senate.
<
p>This bill is a line in the sand. More than any other issue to that point, I considered support for Bush’s Social Security privatization scheme in 2005 to be a line no Democrat could cross and still be called a Democrat. Social Security is at the heart of what progressives and Democrats must stand for. Just about equal with Social Security, however, is heath care. Just as in 2005, I consider any so-called “progressive” who advocates killing health care reform for million of Americans now to be in the same category as privatization-supporters in 2005 or, going back a bit further, Naderite “progressives” who helped bring us George W. Bush with their nonsensical, George Wallace-like references to their not being a “dimes worth of difference” between the parties.
<
p>This is a massive difference between the sides on this issue, and the stakes are clear. My one question to everyone is: on what side of the line do you stand?
The “line in the sand” was the public option.
<
p>It was crossed by members of our own party.
<
p>Instead of asking people like Ryan and me “on what side of the line do you stand”, you should be directing your challenge to Senator Joe Lieberman, Senator Ben Nelson and the other betrayers like them.
<
p>Your comment is an example of the circular firing squad that has destroyed the effectiveness of the Democratic Party since the Clinton years.
<
p>How dare you ask me that question.
<
p>I do direct my challenge to them, particularly if they continue to stand in the way of reform — not to mention all of the Republicans who are completely wrong on this issue. However, if “progressives” lock arms with the likes of the Republicans and Lieberman to kill this bill, then yes, these “progressives” are equally culpable for killing progressive reform. I don’t know how much clearer I can say it. If all you care about is the public option, fine. But if you care about providing health care coverage to millions of Americans, as progressives are supposed to do, then you would (and should) support this bill for its other elements.
<
p>I’m certainly not part of the “circular firing squad.” Am I criticizing most of the Senate Democrats here? No — I support them for putting together an imperfect, but still progressive bill. It’s the fake “progressives” that apparently are willing to destroy reform along with the Democratic Party. There’s reflections of the 2000 election here, and it isn’t pretty.
Is there a point where either of you would agree that the legislation no longer constitutes “progressive reform”?
<
p>1. It does not “provide” health care coverage to anybody. Instead, it mandates health insurance coverage to everyone, with no effective cap on insurance costs.
2. It does not do anything to advance single-payer.
3. It does not include a public option.
4. It does not extend medicaid coverage.
5. It weakens, rather than strengthens, protections against limitations based on pre-existing conditions in states like Massachusetts and Vermont that already have them.
<
p>As I wrote earlier, the line in the sand was the public option. A bill that includes an individual mandate and does not include a public option is not “progressive reform.”
<
p>I reject the assertion that I am “equally culpable for killing progressive reform” for observing this. To the contrary, to participate with the rightwing and the bought-and-paid-for representatives of the health insurance industry in advancing this comes perilously close to culpability.
<
p>The bill currently offered by the Senate is a health insurance company windfall. There is nothing “progressive” about it. That’s why it should be killed.
I see little or no resemblance between this issue and the Ralph Nader campaign.
<
p>Meanwhile, can I gently prod you to answer my question —
Is there a point where [you] would agree that the legislation no longer constitutes “progressive reform”?
<
p>If so, then can we discuss our relative priorities? If not, then is there really any substance to your accusation about me?
in another diary I said that Paul Krugman says it for me.
<
p>
<
p>In short, if we can get it out of the Senate and into conference we might be able to improve it some, but even then it will not be “progressive enough health reform” for many of readers of this blog.
<
p>But it will improve the lives of millions of people.
<
p>As for my relative priorities, they do not matter to any member of Congress except my own. And I trust Mike Capuano and Senators Kirk and Kerry to weigh them carefully along with yours, and get the strongest bill they can get. Amen.
<
p>Absolutely. If the Republicans put up a serious health care plan, which has not and likely will not happen, I’d imagine it would be terrible. It certainly wouldn’t look like this health care bill, which has many excellent aspects.
<
p>For one, it does expand Medicaid, so I’m not sure what you mean when you say it doesn’t. Two, it creates a new baseline of universal coverage, which is one step (albeit a fairly small one) towards single-payer. Getting there will take time, because we don’t have the votes for it now. I’m also not sure what you mean by the ban on pre-existing conditions in this bill being weaker than in some states now, given that the ban in this bill is indeed strong (and may not even pre-empt current stricter state regulations to the extent they exist; I’m not sure). It also mandates insurance coverage for everyone, which is a progressive step, not a “throwaway to the insurance lobby”.
<
p>Why? Well, first, it also allows the ban on pre-existing conditions. Without the mandate, this ban makes little to no sense and would simply result in massively higher health care costs. This point is so obvious that I’m not surprise most “kill the bill” types consistently sidestep this issue. Most importantly, because this bill comes with massive subsidies — a major new social spending program in its own right — it will indeed will have the effect of providing health care coverage to a much greater number of people. In other words, millions of Americans now struggling without health insurance would have it after this bill goes into effect, and it will paid for by the government. That’s the bottom line. You’re telling me this isn’t progressive?
<
p>2., 3. – agree. There is much to hate in the current bill, but that should not obscure the few steps forward you mention.
<
p>4. “neo-feudalism” vs “crazy talk”? – sounds like a draw.
<
p>5. agree. We can always count on Republicans and Conservadems to try to roll back progressive legislation. I’m don’t share your confidence about a progressive Senate making good use of the filibuster. Republicans use it, Dems “negotiate” its use away when they are in the minority.
<
p>I disagree with your take about two very opposing sides within the progressive ranks. I think we can all agree that the bill is quite bad compared with what we should have. The complex question is how bad does it have to become in order to be worse than doing nothing? We have a mandate sans public option here in MA to use as an example.
<
p>I’ve waffled on this question myself. Krugman, in whom I have great confidence, makes a case today for passage. I recommend reading the entire op-ed: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12…
<
p>
<
p>
Why does hogtying millions of Americans and leaving them at Aetna’s door or continuing on with our miserable present system have to be the only ends of this debate one can pick up?
<
p>I thought Lieberman lost the 2004 election. Remind me who is President.
<
p>Obama can make the case for a substantive reform package. The Democrats can enact something better using reconciliation. Last time I looked the House passed a freaking public option plan. Kerry should say as much. Candidate Coakley should be as bold about substantive reform as she was about preserving choice in the bill.
<
p>I mean, for God’s sakes, if we’re going to force everyone in the country to buy a product then let’s at least allow competition. The health insurance industry’s anti-trust exemption is preserved under this legislation. Talk about socialist!
<
p>If no one demands substantive improvement, then what we will get is truckloads of dollar bills shoveled into the current dysfunctional disaster and called reform. There will be improvements to the current nightmare, for sure, but there also will be very heavy costs — not least making the insurance companies even bigger and stronger than they already are and, in all likelihood, increasing taxes to make sure that health care executives get giant annual bonuses.
… that was an election with consequences. And Obama is no longer in the Senate.
<
p>”The Democrats can enact something better using reconciliation.” Prove it! Prove that they can get the whole camel through the needle’s eye of reconciliation. Gosh, I hope you’re right.
Drop the mandate now, so we have something to bargain with then.
<
p>
<
p>All Bob can do is ask them to try. Maybe the 51 votes aren’t there, but no one’s tried to collect them yet. That said, if Obama and Reid’s full weight were put toward collecting them, chances are they’ll be there in the end… but, then again, neither of their full weights have ever been put behind anything important behind health reform.
<
p>
<
p>That’s the second time you’ve used that straw man. No one’s said everything can get through using reconciliation, just some of the most important stuff. Pass that stuff with reconciliation, pass a lot of the other stuff using other means (few in the Senate have complained openly about banning discrimination against preexisting conditions). Maybe we can’t get this passed in one giant bill. Maybe it’ll take two steps in the Senate to reach the promised land. Does it matter how, so long as it’s done?
He could call the Republicans out on their craziness. And Lieberman? I recently learned that Obama counted Lieberman as his mentor when he was in the Senate. Bipartisanship you can believe in…
Fix what can be fixed in conference.
<
p>Reintroduce a public option as a separate measure through reconciliation. Possible, no? The PO would be deficit-reducing?
If Harry Reid and President Obama came out and said to progressives, “If you all pass this bill right now, I’ll support a reconciliation over the coming months and do all in my power to get it done,” and all the relevant chairs appeared with him as he made the statement, as well as perhaps the President and Nancy Pelosi, then absolutely, I’d stop complaining. I’d tell Kerry and ___ to pass it. But that’s just not the case.
<
p>If we could pass this bill and bring it to conference expecting to get something of the public option in it then, I’d urge the Senate to move this forward, too. However, the same Senators have already said they’d filibuster the conference report if it contains the provisions they don’t like in the current bill. That, by the way, includes Nelson over Stupak (get ready to see your rights get stripped there with this approach, too, Bean).
<
p>I support reconcilation…. first. Otherwise, it’s a hollow promise.
Ryan, I am admiring the heck out of you for standing strong on this. If Obama and Reid had half your fortitude and resolve on this issue, we’d easily have health reform we could be proud of. Howard Dean is right: Democrats aren’t tough enough.
that Obama had to pushed and cajoled into supporting a public option, and in general he had the weakest plan compared to Hillary and Edwards.
<
p>You’d think someone whose mother spent her last days fighting insurance company bureaucracy would have kept speaking on the point that insurance companies thrive by denying care as the legislation itself was being written.
<
p>But when Obama went out to campaign for a public option, his rhetoric was stupid, unprepared, and rightfully mocked by Jon Stewart. Remember how private-school educated Obama was asked by a student from a public university why the government should be allowed to compete in health care? And Obama couldn’t think of a good answer. His vaunted thoughtful oratory on race during the primary only showed up after it looked like his chance to win was threatened.
<
p>The President has not done enough to bring about meaningful healthcare reform. Since the President has clearly signaled that he wants this bill to pass, the right thing for progressives to do is to turn up the heat on him.
<
p>The way to get concessions from the President, concessions that move America toward just, equitable health coverage, is make the President realize that he doesn’t get what he wants until Progressives get what they want.
…was the key issue-based reason for my support of Clinton over Obama in the primaries. To me Obama’s plan all along sounded like trying to nationalize the MA plan. Too bad Clinton herself is in a Cabinet position that doesn’t get involved in this debate. I don’t like playing sour grapes from within the party, but I can’t help thinking she would knock a few more heads.
that Obama’s plan had a public option, but didn’t have a personal mandate. That was the point of difference. As opposed to the others … man, they were all pretty darn close, except for that. Has he changed on that? Yep. And frankly that’s the right move.
<
p>http://www.barackobama.com/pdf…
<
p>Well, this pdf from ’08 seems to conflate the “exchange” with a “public plan.” It doesn’t specifically say the “public plan” would in fact be government-run, only that it would be offered on the exchange.
<
p>Anyway, the alleged daylight between Edwards’ and Hillary’s plans and Obama’s does not, in fact, demonstrate that he’s in the pocket of insurers.
<
p>I find the reasons people cite for finding the current legislation to be not “meaningful” are … really contrived. And I find a lot of the objections coming out now to be the same ones they could have made all along, but didn’t, because Santa Public Option (in whatever weak form) was coming to town.
<
p>Contrivance #1: Insurers can cap annual reimbursements to policy holders.
<
p>Democratic plan: “get sick but don’t get too sick.” Senate bill original prohibited annual limits was changed to allow annual limits. So much for health care reform protecting families from medical bankruptcy.
<
p>Contrivance #2: Where’s the cost savings of $2,500 per year. Insurers AHIP announced their premiums will increase 114% as a result of this health care reform bill. $12,000/year will be $24,000 per year, that’s not a $2,500 savings per year.
<
p>Contrivance #3: Choice of new options: Public option? NO. Medicare expansion? NO. Non-profit exchange offered plans YES but we’ve been this route before and we have BC/BS with 20% overhead. Non-profits consolidate and end up not providing competition or particularly low overhead. The insurance market is divided up (Maine United Healthcare 71% Aetna %21) The choice of new options does not include the one Obama campaign on, Public Option, or the compromise, Medicare Expansion. Hardly a contrivance.
<
p>
they attain a majority of the hearts and minds of the American people. Just out curiosity, what do you think is the percentage of people who would self identify as progressives…. in the general population.
link
who uses the current bill vs a bill with the PO in it? Nobody.
<
p>I also cannot fathom the venom PO supporters appear to have for this bill which goes from a “bad bill” to a good bill simply by adding the PO to. You know, the PO which nobody can even guess what money (if any) will be saved by adding it.
<
p>The hatred for private insurance companies seems to be distorting many people’s views in this reform and I think they really need to understand the rhetoric going back and forth.
<
p>In the early days of this debate, I was someone who kept trying to remove the red herrings from the arguments. People kept talking about “preexisting conditions” and “being dropped from insurance” and I said “hey, we can agree to all that, let’s talk about what you really want”. It was the public option plain and simple. The proof of that is we have agreed to a bill that has all those other thorny issues resolved, we have a bill that will insure millions, remove all the restrictions… it is and always has been about the public option.
<
p>And to top off the cake, you guys can’t even quantify what savings (if any) the PO will even deliver. No wonder the bill is under fire and going nowhere.
<
p>Last but certainly not lest, does it confuse anyone else that so much debate can occur over a bill hat hasn’t even been released to the public yet? When are we going to see it?