« What Will Happen to Banks that Fail the Stress Test, When You and I Own Wall Street | Robert Reich's Blog | The Truth Behind the Social Security and Medicare Alarm Bells »
Obama on Health Reform: The Dog That Didn't Bark
The only troubling thing about the President's statements today concerning health care reform was what he did not say: that he wanted a any health plan that emerges from Congress to include a public insurance option for Americans who do not want to buy private insurance. But without this option, there will be no pressure on private insurers to adopt all the other reforms to control costs or give all Americans access to affordable care.
Every other reform proposal announced to date -- electronic medical records, comparative effectiveness research, prevention of chronic disease, payments for services rather than for outcomes, and so on -- has been talked about for years. The reason none have been adopted is health providers and insurers can make more money without them. Only with a government plan that competes with private insurers, and offers Americans lower costs if the providers and insurers fail to reform themselves, will the system be genuinely reformed.
Hopefully, the President's failure to mention a public insurance option today was not intended to signal to Congress that the White House is no longer especially interested in it. The Administration should quickly inform policymakers how important this option is as a spur to real change.
Every other reform proposal announced to date -- electronic medical records, comparative effectiveness research, prevention of chronic disease, payments for services rather than for outcomes, and so on -- has been talked about for years. The reason none have been adopted is health providers and insurers can make more money without them. Only with a government plan that competes with private insurers, and offers Americans lower costs if the providers and insurers fail to reform themselves, will the system be genuinely reformed.
Hopefully, the President's failure to mention a public insurance option today was not intended to signal to Congress that the White House is no longer especially interested in it. The Administration should quickly inform policymakers how important this option is as a spur to real change.
Advertisement
The public insurance option must be implemented...it is the only way that any reform will work. Anything less will make a bad health care situation even worse. The government needs to be the one which makes sure their is actual competitiveness in a currently, and continuing if left unaddressed, anti-competitive (colluded?) marketplace.
May 11, 2009 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
1. Why does it have to be implemented? If I get the result I want by threatening to implement then why is that not just as good? Do you not beleive that threats work?
2. The government is already paying for half of health care in the US. They can effect a huge amount of change by using the leverage they already have.
3. If every health plan in the US were as good as Geisinger in PA or Intermountain Health in Utah, or Group health in Seattle, would that be bad, or would we still need everyone in a public plan?
May 11, 2009 5:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because, now listen carefully...if profit and several different insurance companies' different rules and regulations, co-pays, deductions, delays and denials are OFF THE TABLE!!!!, then health care dollars can be spent on health care.
WHAT A CONCEPT! NO EMPLOYEES IN OFFICES WHO SPEND HOURS EVERY DAY GETTING PRE-AUTHORIZATIONS; NO ADVERTIZING BUDGET; NO DIVIDENDS TO STOCKHOLDERS; NO REFUSALS OF COVERAGE FOR PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY HAVE MEDICAL PROBLEMS!
Do you get it? The people of England, Canada, Germany, France, Japan, Spain, etc etc do. Maybe you should get out more. Read a little bit.
May 11, 2009 6:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
You need to study more.
The fact is there are a great deal of efficiencies that could be gained in the current system, through better delivery of care (not through reducing administrative costs). In the current single payer system of Medicare, the cost of delivering care to similar individuals for the same condition, with the same outcome varies tremendously around the US (see Dartmouth Atlas project data) For some conditions the disparity can be as large as two to three times between the most and least expensive system. Medicare costs in LA are about 30% more expensive than in Portland. Over utilization of services has far more to do with excess cost than does administrative overhead. Another way of reading this evidence is that if we can figure out to get the rest of the country to operate like Portland we can deliver the same quality care (or better) for 20-40% less.
You should look at how the integrated health systems of Geisinger, Intermountain, Group Health, Mayo deliver excellent health care at significantly less cost and with greater patient satisfaction than do other non-integrated or organized systems.
May 12, 2009 12:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
You need to study more. We are woefully behind the other countries (in quality of medical care, longevity and infant death-rate), in which single-payer, Universal Health care is a part of life.
According to the WHO:
http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html
This is where we rank
1 France
2 Italy
3 San Marino
4 Andorra
5 Malta
6 Singapore
7 Spain
8 Oman
9 Austria
10 Japan
11 Norway
12 Portugal
13 Monaco
14 Greece
15 Iceland
16 Luxembourg
17 Netherlands
18 United Kingdom
19 Ireland
20 Switzerland
21 Belgium
22 Colombia
23 Sweden
24 Cyprus
25 Germany
26 Saudi Arabia
27 United Arab Emirates
28 Israel
29 Morocco
30 Canada
31 Finland
32 Australia
33 Chile
34 Denmark
35 Dominica
36 Costa Rica
37 United States of America
May 12, 2009 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
You;ve completely missed the point. As a nation we have a health care system that is waaay too expensive and produces no better, if not worse outcomes and insures fewer people than in lots of other countries. We agree on that. We probably also agree that single payer would be the fastest way to get to a better system. I am not sure if you agree that the most serious problem over the long term is the rising cost of health care not lack of coverage.
But what you are totally missing is that today, right now, there are parts of the US health care system that provide better outcomes for all their patients at much lower costs--which is the main goal of reform (also we can cover everyone for less money if we deliver care more efficiently).
The first piece of evidence comes from the Medicare program. If you look at the data form the Dartmouth Atlas project you see there are regions of the country where the same quality of care or better is delivered at 2/3 the cost of the more expensive areas. we understand to some extent why that is and we can design policies that make it far more likely that we can get the more expensive parts of the system to behave like the less expensive parts.
The second piece of evidence comes from looking at organization that provide integrated and organized care such as Geisinger, Intermountain, Group health, Kaiser, mayo. We would be much better off as a country, and perhaps much better off than many other countries if we could essentially enroll every American in one of these types of systems where needed care is delivered efficiently and unnecessary , excessively expensive care is avoided. That exists today. it does not require single payer, national health care to accomplish.
May 12, 2009 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Right. It's also important to note that any concessions Obama gets now are basically free politically and smart moves to take them, while he's picking his moment; while waiting for Franken to be seated for one example.
Also, the concessions he's getting now will be good practical studies to aid implementation later should such reforms be mandated. It's good for everyone to start the process now.
Something I've not heard mentioned much: studies show as much as 100M people may enroll in a voluntary Medicare like plan. Which would radically change the private insurers business plan, and likely prompt a great deal of restructuring, shrinking private insurers and expansion of Medicaid. So some overlap in skills and procedures from private insurers to Medicaid will be enormously beneficial to smooth the transition once legislation passes.
May 12, 2009 9:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I caught the News Hour tonight. A pretty liberal news show, right? They had Susan Dentzer and Karen Tumulty on discussing the issue. Tumulty went out of her way to make the point, without a public option, that the 1.5% annual curb in the cost growth would result in health care costs being reduced back to today's levels within a decade. Today's levels? Within a decade? And she said it as if that was a good deal. Think about that...all it will do is let costs rise for a while and within a decade it will get premiums back to the 'bargain' levels we are seeing today? We will return to the good old out of control days within a decade? P.T. Barnum springs to mind at this point...there is a sucker born every minute if you believe that the industry is capable of reforming itself.
The thing that struck me about the discourse between Dentzer and Tumulty is that both of them turned up their noses, as a totally unacceptable course of action, when questioned about the public option...and this is on liberal PBS. 'The industry' is gonna try to push back hard on this.
May 11, 2009 10:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Libertine, I don't know where you get that BS. Must be some sort of learning disability.
No they didn't turn their noses up at all. In fact they mentioned that 100M want to enroll in a Government program similar to Medicaid.
The statistics listed weren't given as ideal or endorsements of final policies, they were just citing the numbers the industry put out regarding this first round of voluntary concessions and optimizations.
Go watch it again, and get a grip. Jeebus, is there ever a moment where you don't think the sky is falling and aren't trying to be maximally whiny?
May 12, 2009 9:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't need to watch it again. I saw it the first time. And despite your infantile ad hominem stupidity I stick by what I said...emotionally you are the equivalent to a 12 year-old.
The public option didn't come up until the end and all they did was recite what the industry had said with no critical look at alternatives. Not what I expect from News Hour coverage. Like I said to OGD I hope I am wrong. I am hoping Obama makes the public option available. But like I also said to OGD judging by the way Obama is handling Wall Street and the investment banks I am not overly optimistic that he'll go against powerful business interests. How many at Chrysler and GM were laid off btw?
May 12, 2009 9:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
And spare me the "I hope I'm wrong" doomsday scenarios, Nostradamus. You're more often wrong than right so a terrible prognostication from you is statistically good news.
May 12, 2009 11:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let me guess, I am betting you are a member of the Jonathan Taplin's "Krugman Haters" club too.
May 12, 2009 11:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I haven't liked Krugman for many years.
He was a NAFTA, deregulation, and HillaryCare hack in the Clinton Administration and demonstrated then his lack of understanding regarding politics or real world application of economic policy.
He was a shill for Hillary in the Primary, again underlining his misunderstanding of politics and ability to pick losers.
His book is populist fluff with all the same problems as his political career has demonstrated.
Why anyone holds his political opinion in high esteem, given his track record of one failure after another, remains a complete mystery.
May 13, 2009 1:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Libertine? Whiney?
What?
May 12, 2009 10:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, you apparently do need to rewatch it becasue you weren't paying attention the forst time.
Again, they said that 100M people want to enroll in a government program similar to Medicaid. That's not condemning it. It's citing the political viability of it!
Again, they specifically said that they're making reform concessions now under threat that the Obama Admin would open up Medicaid to voluntary enrollment, which would totally alter thier business model.
Again, they were _reporting_ on the developments of this round of concessions, efficiency gains thus far as announced by the insurers. It's called reporting, not editorializing. They didn't nix future developments as your fevered brain seems to imagine.
Get a clue Libertine. You're just panic stricken and whiny as usual.
May 12, 2009 11:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
But again they never said that they felt that it was an option seriously being explored. And they made the point that since 100M people would enroll in a public plan that it was not a viable option. The whole discussion was from a POV of the industry reforming itself.
And you're a juvenile, grating apologist. Are you shaving yet?
May 12, 2009 11:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Before you stated they:
"turned up their noses, as a totally unacceptable course of action."
Now you say:
"they never said that they felt that it was an option seriously being explored."
Which one is it? It's a pretty big difference.
FYI: They're reporters, covering the days events, including the numbers put out by the insurers. They weren't speculating about the future. See if you can understand that.
"they made the point that since 100M people would enroll in a public plan that it was not a viable option."
WTF? No, they stated the data suggesting 100M would enroll, which is why the insurers didn;t want it. Period.
"The whole discussion was from a POV of the industry reforming itself."
The discussion was covering the day's events, which was about voluntary reform concessions. Not this other stuff you're inferring from your own paranoia.
WTF is wrong with you? Read the transcript. Get a clue.
May 12, 2009 11:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not gonna play semantic games with you. If you want to try to dispute the definition of the word 'is' go right ahead. Intellectually they turned their noses up to the idea of the public option by giving it little discussion and writing it off in terms of the viable options. There is a reason why I like watching something instead of just reading the transcript...the transcript doesn't let you know about the facial expressions, tone of voice and overall body language.
But just go by 'the transcript' if you want...
May 12, 2009 11:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not a semantic game you moron. It's what they actually said, as opposed to what you imagined they said.
Again, they actually said the Gov plan has 100M waiting to enroll. And that Insurers are therefore making concessions in the hope of staving that off.
You have yet to explain how you interpret that to mean they're saying the Gov plan is dead.
May 12, 2009 11:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please see this comment oh omnipotent one...
May 13, 2009 12:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wait... I'm the "omnipotent" one because I'm going off the actual statements which can be verified in the transcript... while you're the reasonable one based on your interpretations of their facial expressions and other subtle gestures?
Here's another idea:
Maybe you're a paranoid nutcase.
May 13, 2009 12:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't say the government plan was dead, I said that from an industry POV it wasn't a viable option...and as we see lately, and always, it seems industry, whichever one it is, always seems to get their way. And Dentzer and Tumulty seemed to me to be looking at the whole issue from the industry's POV. Just because 100M people are ready to enroll doesn't mean it will be implemented. Actually I think that 100M number is too low. I am thinking it is less than 50-50 that there will be a public plan during an Obama administration. But I stress again, I hope I am wrong...
May 13, 2009 12:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Quit changing what you said. It's right up thread.
You claimed specifically that the journalists "turned their nosed up" at a Gov plan when you can provide no quote or fact from the program to suggest that, and I've listed plenty sayign otherwise. So we'll chalk that up to your superior psychic and facial expression reading abilities.
You're also generally wetting your pants that a Gov plan is somehow more recently imperiled or the Obama Administration may be caving.
Which is totally unsubstantiated, and in fact the insurers are making concessions out of fear.
Only a whiny twit like you could interpret that to mean the Obama Admin is goign to cave, even when the Administration spokesperson just said:
A Gov plan is STILL CRITICAL to Obama's HC reforms!!
WTF is wrong with you?
May 13, 2009 12:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Again I stick by what I had said. They turned their noses up at it, and I made it clear that I felt they were looking at it was from the industry's perspective. I don't understand why they took that POV instead of looking at what would be our best option for reforms from all perspectives. I would have liked to have heard them talk about how it would impact the American people financially. Would there be savings for the American people under the industry's plan? All I remember them saying is the 1.5% cap on growth would reduce the percentage of income that the American people spend on health care back to today's level within a decade.
May 13, 2009 12:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fine. And I'll continue to cite what they actually said, which refutes what you imagined they "really meant."
This is another example of your chronic paranoia. I'll bet you've actually got some screws lose. Are you on medication or ever been diagnosed with mental illness by any chance? Are you employed?
You sound exactly like the semi-homeless paranoids at the local cafe who all fixate on politics to project their delusions.
May 13, 2009 12:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Intellectually they turned their noses up to the idea of the public option by giving it little discussion and writing it off in terms of the viable options."
They were reporting the day's events, specifically. Not future hypotheticals. Do you not know the difference?
But whatever, you stick with what you imagined to to be saying in their facial expressions or something, and I'll stick to the facts of what they actually said:
100M waiting to enroll in a Gov program, as per Obama;s campaign pledge, and insurers very scared about that prospect, so very willing to make concessions now.
Now go have your milk and cookies and try not to have nightmares tonight.
May 13, 2009 12:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Since I apparently have to spell this out for you:
The reason the insurers don't want Obama offering a voluntary government plan like Medicaid, is exactly becasue 100M would sign up for it. (Duh!)
Or in other words, from the very fact that 100M people would sign up for it, it evidence the plan is in fact quite viable. Enormously viable.
Also, as they pointed out, the insurers are scared becasue losing 100M to a Gov program would break their business model. Meaning, just the threat has gotten them to make concessions.
Insurers hope (read: hope, not assurance) that it may help avoid the Gov plan.
Basically, insurers are retreating.
OK Chicken Little? Got it yet?
May 12, 2009 11:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
But as of right now the 'government plan' isn't certain if 'the industry' is hoping to avoid it. Right Einstein? And if the industry can satisfy the decision makers in the Obama administration with their plan there won't be one from the government. I don't know how you can say that there definitely will be a 'public option' when so far it only exists in the form of a threat...
May 12, 2009 11:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
"But as of right now the 'government plan' isn't certain if 'the industry' is hoping to avoid it. "
Where do you get such nonsense?
I'll explain this to you again, the facts as presented during the broadcast:
1) 100M people want to enroll in the Gov plan.
2) Obama pledged such a plan during his campaign.
3) Insurers are scared to death of that, as it would break their business model.
4) Therefore, they're making concessions now in the hope it will buy them some advantage in the legislative battle to come.
None of that has to do with future speculation. Genius.
"I don't know how you can say that there definitely will be a 'public option' when so far it only exists in the form of a threat.."
I never said there "definitely" will be one, you strawman erecting moron. Not even Obama can "definitely" say one way or the other becasue Congress has to vote. (duh!)
What I did say is your pants wetting is a bit premature and a little crazy given:
1) the insurers are presently in retreat and making concessions.
2) there are 100M people waiting for a Gov plan.
3) it was one of Obama's central campaign pledges which helped win him election, and probably the most important specific issue besides jobs.
4) Obama's office stated the same day that a Gov plan is still their goal and critical.
May 13, 2009 12:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Then why doesn't Obama just come out clearly, right now, and say 'There will be a public plan no ifs ands or buts about it'? If it is certain this is just an exercise in negotiating with himself.
May 13, 2009 12:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
He said that all therugh the campaign, and his Administration continues to make that statement, you f'ing moron!!!!!!!
FYI: He's not King. He can;t dictate how things will be. Ultimately Congress has to decide this matter, and it does require some tactful maneuvering on Obama's part.
Why don't you get a clue Libertine?
You remind me of the quasi-homeless paranoids and conspiracy theorists who hang out at the local cafe drinking free coffee.
May 13, 2009 12:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, that's probably what you are, right?
May 13, 2009 12:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nope...I am just a realist. I base my opinions on what has happened in the past and what is happening currently. And right now there has been no 'official' announcement that there absolutely will be a public plan. You accuse me of reading tea leaves? Look in the mirror...nothing is certain except death and taxes.
May 13, 2009 12:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are one of those cafe political cranks aren't you?
May 13, 2009 12:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
I see you're heading back to infantile...when in doubt always gravitating to your comfort zone.
If that is all you have to say at this point have a nice night. :)
May 13, 2009 12:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm pointing out how pathetic the sort of factless, baseless, paranoid, speculation and whining from people like you actually is.
May 13, 2009 1:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
And no, you're not a realist. You gotta be kidding. You're a paranoid, probably a conspiracy theorist and ex-hippie who's done more than his share of psycadelics and still has psychedelic imagery all over his blog.
A realist doesn't see the insurance industry retreating and making concessions, the most progressive President we've had in decades who won election with a popular mandate to reform healthcare, who has specifically cast himself as a sort of bookend to Reagan, and who campaigned on HC reform specifically promising a Gov Plan as his central goal...
From all that you conclude he's just going to fold? Based on what? Just becasue he hasn't directly reassured you today? "Caus that's how politics goes, like, dood."
WTF is wrong with you? Get a grip. I'm so sick of you whiny nutcases.
May 13, 2009 12:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
And btw there is a big difference between saying you intend to do something and actually doing it. If I remember right he made some promises about FISA that he didn't keep when he had a chance to vote on it in the senate. I sincerely hope I am wrong and he does implement a public plan...but until that happens it hasn't happened. Now that he is president he just needs to say the words again. A very simple premise. Candidate Obama said it now President Obama needs to say it.
May 13, 2009 1:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
How do you get from the idea nothing is certain, to justifying your continual whining and pants wetting?
I'm not expecting you to be pollyanish, just a little less totally fucking paranoid and whiny.
You imagine doom and gloom every day, when the known facts are actually pretty encouraging.
You have mental problems.
May 13, 2009 1:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
And why don't you try dealing with the facts sometime instead of your continual reading of the tea leaves and pants wetting paranoia?
May 13, 2009 12:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
"And they made the point that since 100M people would enroll in a public plan that it was not a viable option."
Ugh. Amazing. I have no idea how you imagine that's actually a rational comment.
May 13, 2009 12:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
P.T. Barnum springs to mind at this point...there is a sucker born every minute if you believe that the industry is capable of reforming itself.
That is how I view it also. I don't want the entrenched showing up early with a leverage play.
We have seen this movie, as I mentioned. We saw the insurance industry pour many millions into a smear campaign against Hillary's single-payer wisdom, and beholden R's such as Phil Gramm and John McCain (hell, all of them), prosecute the smear.
Golly, where might GM, Ford and Chrysler be today, had they backed - uhm, CAPPED COSTS - 15 years ago.
In those 15 years Japan trounced them with superior cost containment - $300 health care per vehicle to $1500 for Detroit. Stupid, uninformed Americans falling for corrupt GOP propaganda, promulgated by commercial U.S. media. And maybe some PBS tossed in.
I know a guy in commercial printing. Company VP / GOP sheeple unfortunately. He has about 100 employees, he's fearful now that health costs may bury his firm. Best advice to friend: Xerox the problem across every global industry, and then go get under the covers.
We have a right to be upset on this matter. How many millions of Americans didn't get attention and / or procedures, in just those 15 years? This is a status quo vs. social justice issue if there ever was one.
Enough, Barack. Get on the mat - it will not happen without it.
May 13, 2009 2:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nobody is saying the industry will reform itself. Where do you get that nonsense? In fact, the insurance industry has already begun making concessions and is retreating precisely because it fears Obama's mandate and legislation to come.
While you whiners worry Obama isn't doing enough, the Bluedogs actaully worry Waxman, Rangel and Miller are going ahead and writing legislation without them!
http://www.rollcall.com/issues/54_130/news/34864-1.html
So how are you whiners going to spin that into defeatism?
Tell me how some of the most influential and progressive members of congress going ahead with healthcare legislation, and the Bluedogs feeling concerned they're left out, equals Obama caving on his Healthcare Mandate?
Get a clue you people. Yes pressure is important. Yes keeping an eye on developments is important. But you don't have to whine and predict defeat every fucking day do you? You could be a hell of a lot smarter and better informed, and a lot less whiny.
May 13, 2009 3:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
He who uses personal attacks to make his argument, has no argument to make... ;^)
May 13, 2009 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
He who has only tired cliches is probably also a real asshole.
May 13, 2009 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
.
OK . . .
You've stated the obvious about how you feel towards kozmik's demeanor, now how about answering kozmik's point?
That being:
I won't be holding my breath . . .
~OGD~
May 14, 2009 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't make the statement in your quote...
But Obama hardly had a "healthcare" mandate. He had a "change" mandate / both domestic and foreign relations. Nothing more specific than that.
I will take universal coverage however I can get it - efficient or stupid in design. When the entrenched interests show up early for leverage, it's a bad harbinger for both. That is why some of the more seasoned observers on TPMc smell a rat. We've seen this.
We could be wrong & I hope so. Bookmark the permalink though...
May 15, 2009 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Plus now I am a bit confused. Dean Baker seemed very optimistic about health care reform and the public option. When it comes to me having confidence that our government will take on entrenched financial interests I tend to be pessimistic also though.
May 11, 2009 4:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
.
As of 05/07/2009 . . .
~OGD~
May 11, 2009 6:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well why wasn't it mentioned today by the person who matters most on the issue? I really hope your right OGD but the president didn't give any indication of that being definitely in the plans during today's remarks.
May 11, 2009 11:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
.
I watched his remarks . . .
It was a day to put forth that which Obama says the industry has pledged to do to reduce their portion to help reduce the costs by $2500 per year for those who are fortunate enough to have insurance. And in so doing help save the overall health care costs $2 trillion over the next 10 years.
Why should he piss on that? If the pledge holds up, it's quite a step in the correct direction.
And ... the primary way to keep them honest is to implement and offer a public option plan.
~OGD~
May 12, 2009 2:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Libertine said;
Your pessimism is a rational adjustment to the incestuous relationship between our Government and the money changers.
This morning on C-SPAN's Washington Journal a reporter said he saw Billy Tauzin, Billy fuc**ng Tauzin!, going into Harry Reid's office yesterday.
Again, your pessimism is justified.
May 12, 2009 8:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah right now my confidence about it is positively underwhelming John. LOL...yeah Billy Tauzin, that says it all.
May 12, 2009 10:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Could you be a little more whiny and paranoid?
May 13, 2009 1:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
If leverage is needed, it will be used. If not, not. This administration is not prone to combativeness. We need to remember that plenty of people still confuse gentleness with weakness, and are startled when they're confronted with reality.
May 11, 2009 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
It would be the height of foolishness to expect the health care/insurance industry to voluntarily give up any measurable percentage of their profits unless they have no other choice. And, without either or both a public option, at least as good as Medicare A/B, and a set of regulations that require that something other than profit is considered when that industry is conducting business, that industry will choose the route of higher profits over better health care.
I feel sure that President Obama is aware of this, but I also feel sure that he is reluctant to force the issue if he isn't guaranteed that Congress will cover his back. And, as of now, he isn't.
May 11, 2009 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're right about their profits Hoppy and I don't think Obama or his people have any intention of pushing the public option despite it's obvious value in myriad ways, not the least of which is as the best way to pressure the parasites into actually honoring the promises they are making.
May 11, 2009 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well I am not expecting the congress to cover his back on any public option. They are as much in the pockets of the 'industry' as the GOP is. It is gonna come down to how much Obama wants the public option Hoppy, and judging by the way he has handled Wall Street I am not holding my breath.
May 11, 2009 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Looks like the navel gazing and pants wetting committee of regular trolls has reconvened.
Funny how the same group always predicts doom and gloom, and how none of them supported Obama becasue he was supposedly unelectable, and how none of these guys apparently have jobs considering they've all been posting to TPMC all day, every day, for years.
May 13, 2009 1:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Until you have the pleasure of admiring my navel, you shouldn't speak about my time spent gazing at it. And, as long as I don't sneeze, well.....
Believe it or not, life will continue for you after you retire, as I did, and retirement does free up a few more hours a day to educate the commoners who show up here. I don't expect thanks.
May 13, 2009 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't kid yourself. You've become a cranky old guy on the digital porch. You're just jawboning, pulling opinions out of your cranky, cynical, old butt.
All you guys do it kvetch and predict doom and gloom based on some vague meta-narrative of your accumulated wisdom stored in fuzzy navel form.
It's not like you guys are busting your humps to dig up the relevant facts around the internet and form smart opinions. It's not like you guys have made much of an effort to understand what's different now from 10, 20, or 30 years ago.
May 13, 2009 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you! That gave me a good laugh.
May 13, 2009 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is an excellent point.
The opponents always say: Govt plans are inefficient, onerous, long waits, denial of care.... so unappealing that Americans will be horrified by "socialized medicine".
If so, they have nothing to fear. But if it turns out that the govt public plan is cheaper and better, then it puts pressure for the private plans to compete and improve.
So, why so scared of terrible "socialized" medicine? Perhaps it is because they know it will be better and people will flee theirs.
I think if this genuine competition is created, these private plans will be revealed as wasteful and onerous themselves.
May 11, 2009 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is what really cracks me up. First they maintain that any public plan will be HORRIBLE, HORRIBLE, HORRIBLE. Then they proceed to insist that such a plan is anti-competitive because private insurance won't be able to compete with it. And somehow they don't get whiplash.
May 11, 2009 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
kernal of truth in there. Okay - maybe government health care is horrible AND they can't compete against horrible. What does that make their health care?
Worse than horrible?
and expensive.
May 12, 2009 4:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
LOL.
What Sebelius said we should repeat as a mantra:
""Competition helps to promote innovation. It helps promote best practices and also can help to lower costs," she said."
Who can be against competition, especially since Republicans have preached its virtues for decades. Now, instead of bringing in private competition to bloated govt programs, we need to do the reverse: bring in public competition to bloated, wasteful private bureaucracies.
May 12, 2009 9:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
What gets lost in the debates and discussions is insurance companies are in the business for profit - they really don't give a damn about the people they insure. They just want the money for providing health insurance coverage for healthy people - sick people cost money and eats away at profits and reduces shareholder equity. If Obama tackles this issue then I'm on board. Somehow I get the impression he isn't.
May 11, 2009 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bingo!
And so look for Congressional Democrats and the White House to do all they can to make sure that option providing for real competition isn't made available.
May 11, 2009 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
And how do you know this? Other than your manifest paranoia? And weren't you also a Hillary supporter?
Actually, the facts are:
1) Obama campaigned specifically on a voluntary Gov plan.
2) Obama's spokesperson on Healthcare just made clear the other day a Gov Plan is still critical to his agenda.
3) Studies show 100M people want to voluntarily enroll in a Gov plan i.e. it would be a big political victory.
4) The insurers are scared and making concessions now, in retreat as we speak.
5) we're still waiting for Dems to be seated. The threat of more Dems being elected int he Midterm will apply pressure to moderates to support HC reform.
Yet, somehow you're still paranoid and a wet blanket aren't you? Guess you just can't help it.
May 13, 2009 1:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
If there is no public plan, we are just totally screwed. The health insurers are no better than a mafia extortion racket and instead of kneecapping you they deny your knee replacement.
May 11, 2009 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly! They'll be looking for any and every excuse to cancel policies when they're taken to task to pay for costly medical services. If they can weasel a way to infer the condition was pre-existing or you failed to inform them on your application, you'll be cast adrift and laden with all the bills they paid for to boot.
May 11, 2009 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right you are bluebell!
May 11, 2009 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ha. They just got knee capped by Obama. Did you miss that part?
May 11, 2009 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama wouldn't be a terrible Republican. As a Democrat, he sucks. He's either in the tank for big corporations or he is so spineless that even with his stratospheric approval ratings he's afraid to make anyone -- anyone except liberals -- unhappy. Objectively, he's to the right of Richard Nixon.
I don't expect the guy who put the foxes in charge of the Wall Street henhouse and gave banksters trillions to make them whole while Main Street people get kicked out of their houses to do anything much about health care.
Another wasted eight years.
And sure, another wasted eight years is better than another catastrophic eight years. But the difference between the man who campaigned for president and the man who was sworn in is as big as I've ever seen.
May 11, 2009 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wrote this post before reading Robert Reich's post. I'm also concerned about the announcement today, and suspect darkly that Obama may be considering a middle ground between abandoning a public plan and having a public plan on day one. Specifically, I wonder if Obama has in mind a plan similar to what he's done for the banks and automobile industry: let industry try first to meet voluntary goals, and after they fail, step in with a government solution that he can then cast as a last resort attempted only after the private sector failed.
May 11, 2009 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
In an effort to be concise, I didn't put that point right. What I suspect is that Obama may phase in a public plan after a certain period of time contingent upon private insurers failing to meet mandatory targets for coverage and cost reductions (in effect, doing a Geithner-type plan for healthcare with mandatory targets replacing bank "stress tests").
May 11, 2009 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I see your point, however, the piecemeal approach will be more costly to implement. Also, the banks were allowed to haggle with the Fed and Treasury on the stress test results, so I suspect the insurance companies will exert their power through Congress to keep their slice of the pie intact. What I find strange is the secrecy of the discussions and the debates. It's almost as if a run-around is in progress to distract the public from what really on the table being discussed and formalized.
May 11, 2009 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
You should study the Wisconsin State value based purchasing approach to health care. They found that the threat of a public option was often sufficient to get the type of efficiency gains they wanted.
One big reason why we have a vastly inefficient health care system is not because they federal government lacks leverage, it;s that they do not use it. Allow medicare to negotiate drug prices. End fee-for service and instead pay for quality outcomes. Pay more for treatments that are empirically proven to be "best" and less for those that are not.
Reading the knee-jerk reactions on this thread one would have thought that the he whole point was to get a public health care system rather than a system--however funded-- that provides quality care to everyone who needs it, for 1/3 the cost per capita of what are paying today.
May 11, 2009 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
.
Did someone mention the words knee-jerk reactions?
As of 05/07/2009 . . .
~OGD~
May 11, 2009 6:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for posting that. It's also worth noting studies have shown 100 Million Americans would enroll in a Government plan similar to medicare.
Reich and the alarmists really need to get a grip.
May 12, 2009 9:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Professor Reich,
I am impressed with your diplomatic demeanor but you and I and anyone who has been paying any attention at all knows that the reason the President didn't mention the public option is because he isn't committed to it and it's unlikely to be included in any plan of his. Candidate Obama always had the most health insurance company friendly health care proposal among the Democratic contenders. Thanks to Rahm and his brother, the President has been in the hip pocket of the insurance companies since before he was sworn in. I hope I'm wrong but I think you and I both know I'm not.
May 11, 2009 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
.
Hmmmm . . .
I wonder why his HHS Secretary was out selling the public plan option?
As of 05/07/2009 . . .
She must not have gotten the memo from Obama that you got.
~OGD~
May 11, 2009 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
A statement from an underling means little. Why didn't he make a similar statement? You watch and see. Obama and his people will chicken out on the public option. I hope I'm wrong, but I doubt it. It's hard to lose when you bet the Democrats will sell out their own position for a compromise that virtually negates whatever reforms are said to be on the table.
May 12, 2009 1:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
.
Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah . . .
Watch out for Mars hitting you in the head...
~OGD~
May 12, 2009 2:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just remember where you heard it first OGD. The Obama admin will sell out on that just like they did on the mortgage cramdown provision last week.
May 12, 2009 4:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
.
It's quite revealing . . .
. . . when folks play their little silly kindergarten games of ... gotcha. Nanny nanny nanny . . . Those are the kinda of folks I've been able to pretty much steer clear of all my life.
Now -- YOU mark MY words. They're going to offer a turd, polish it real smooth, and call it a "public option."
The "plan" will be along the lines of something like this. And those bright bulbs on the hill in Idiotland on the Potomac will make it all gaudy with bright blinking lights, bells and whistles and give it a big name like "American's Healthy Choice Plan." Why not ... it works for dog food.
And if you actually bother to link that, make sure you highlight a couple of those states on that map at that site to see who the "government" has administering those plans in the individual states across the nation.
And no -- it's not just Medicare. Although Medicare is an option.
I truly hope that they're going to offer something more worthwhile, but ducks only hold their breath when they're diving for cover.
~OGD~
May 12, 2009 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
.
Also ... In addition . . .
You must keep first and foremost in mind Schumer's input last week on the Senate Finance Committee:
Divvying up the pie ... "America's Healthy Choice Plan."
The big print giveth ... and the small print taketh away...
~OGD~
May 12, 2009 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's just ore of the same con game the Democrats have been playing for years. But I honestly doubt we'll even get as far as a public option. When the insurance parasites realize the Democrats don't plan to back up anything they say, they'll gear right up and run over em like usual.
May 12, 2009 5:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Blah blah blah. You have nothing substantial to say. You just whine all the time.
May 13, 2009 1:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
oleeb, you were a Hillary supporter, and as long as I can remember you being on TPMC (I've been on TPM since Josh founded it) you've been wrong on just about everything. I knew long ago you're either a GOP troll or some crank.
May 13, 2009 1:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
I noticed your return recently. How unfortunate.
You are a mean spirited, small minded twit. Please stop your infantile (and very innacurate) namecalling and tantrums.
May 13, 2009 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
.
Okie Dokie . . .
I'll await your next rant and dump . . .
Watch out for Mercury.
~OGD~
May 14, 2009 1:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
First, Obama just got the health care system to admit that they could operate about 10% more efficiently without any changes in government policy whatsoever. Then he said there would be changes in policy anyway. Seems like he just won the argument. Why does he need to pile on and humiliate them even further. I repeat, he just won the negotiation. He will now get his way.
Second, while a public option is the most effective form of leverage, the government already has substantial leverage over the health care industry since it pays for roughly half of all care today through medicare, medicaid, VA, SCHIP, and other programs. There are plenty of reforms in the Medicare payment system of medicare for example that could make the health care system less costly and produce better outcomes. So the government still has plenty of ammunition.
May 11, 2009 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Why does he need to pile on and humiliate them even further."
Because we all know they can do much, much better than 10% that's why. They are stealing money from the American people hand over fist with impunity. He should humiliate them right out of business, but we all know that's just a pleasant fantasy and not reality.
May 11, 2009 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
You've been walking into a carpet store for years and the price on the carpet you have been coveting for years says $10,000. You say, that seems like too much. I have seen that exact carpet in like 30 other stores for $7000. the proprietor says sorry I cannot sell for less please leave or I will have you thrown out.
Today you walk in the store and the carpet seller says I will give it to you for $9000. So now you are worried that you will leave the store not able to do any better than $9000? Or rather you won't be satisfied until you leave being able to buy it for $3000.
Obama just made them blink. They have never, ever blinked before. Never.
May 11, 2009 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Getting them to blink is not the objective.
Getting rid of them as the primary arbiters of healthcare in America is the objective.
The American people will always get less than they pay for as long as those blood sucking leaches from the insurance industry are running things. Who cares if they blink? They need to get the F*#@ out of the way!
May 12, 2009 1:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Earth to angry person...the Medicare system is run by the government. It is single payer national health care, socialized medicine whatever. There is still a challenge in Medicare to deliver high quality, cost effective health care.
We could offer universal access to Medicare but given that the current system is on an unsustainable growth path you must have a plan for delivering cheaper and better care. Taking a wrecking ball to private health care won;t do a damn thing to change the incentives in the Medicare system or to change the way we practice medicine to something that is more evidence based.
Fortunately calm adults are working on this problem. You should go back to getting your rage on.
May 12, 2009 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
With all due respect... kiss my ass economides. I always wonder at people who have a childlike, rudimentary grasp of a situation and then promote themselves to calm, level headed adulthood as though they know what they are talking about. Yeah, you.
The Republicans deliberately attempted to wreck medicare and succeeded in large part. What they did can and will be fized. The system only has problems because of the encroachment of the parasites from the world of private insurance.
May 12, 2009 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Think about what you're saying. A for-profit industry saying they can drop costs to their policy holders by 10%. That means 10% less profit and shareholder equity. Remember, the fewer payments made for services makes for more profits and shareholder equity. This begs the question, how can a for-profit company give a 10% reduction to their policy holders without it cutting into profits and shareholder equity? If policy holders use medical services and the insurance company pays for those services rendered, it comes out of profit. The more services rendered, the more profits are reduced. The only way to keep profits up would be to ensure all policy holders are healthy so they don't have to use any medical services, that means no one with pre-existing conditions or older than 50, or charge higher premiums.
May 11, 2009 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
So I am guessing you never ran a business or bought a computer, or bothered to understand that in fact the cost of medical care in the most efficient parts of part of the country can be as much as 30-40% less than on the most expensive with just as good outcomes.
1. Under the threat of being forcing to operate under new rules, and or with much greater competition, the existing businesses just said they are willing to lower their prices (anyone involved in a negotiation should be pretty confident that they can lower than even further than stated in their opening gambit). That's even before the mew rules are implemented. They just told you they are willing to accept less. that's a win.
2. There are many many ways to deliver health care more efficiently with just as good or better outcomes. If you can produce the same outcome for less than you can make money. Or you can just provide better care more effectively depending on your motivations.
3. It's already true that major health care delivery systems provide better outcomes for less money. They don't do it playing accounting games, they do it by deliver care better. In other words the outcomes you think cannot exist already does. So the question is how you you incent more organizations to behave like the efficient ones.
May 11, 2009 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lost in all of this is an important goal of the insurance industry. That is their goal of forcing every single citizen to purchase a health insurance policy. If that happens, it will reduce the cost to the insurance companies by a lot more than 10%, so that goal will be easy to reach. And, Obama plus every other politician involved, as I recall, has stated that mandatory purchase of insurance will be a feature of a new health care system.
I think I see a Trojan Horse.
May 11, 2009 6:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
The government pays for almost 50% of our current health care system. The cost of that system is too high and is rising too fast. There are ways to change that. We know there are places in the country where Medicare costs per patient (with the same conditions and same outcomes) is much less than in other places.
In other words, you can keep your paranoia to yourself, while serious people go about figuring out how to refashion our current single payer system so that it cost mush less and gives beter outcomes.
May 12, 2009 12:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Our current single payer system was nearly wrecked by Republican "reforms". The Republicans want to ruin all such government programs and they do a good job of it. Once they ruin them then they can proclaim to the world "See, we told ya this would never work!"
The Healthcare parasites are going to make out like bandits once the federal government mandates that everybody buy their horrendous products! It's a scam!
If we want to save the most money and deliver the best healthcare we can to all our people all we need to do is pass the Medicare for All Bill. But the President won't even let single payer advocates participate in the discussions currnetly under way.
May 12, 2009 2:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Which Medicare?
We can deliver organized health care efficiently at high quality or we can do it expensively, with lots of duplication, and lack of coordination. Both those outcomes already exist in the Medicare system,although we clearly need to move toward one and not the other.
You are slightly confused at to what is the nature of the high cost of health care. It is not Medicare good, private insurance bad. It is expensive uncoordinated, poor quality=bad; efficient, organized, high quality=good. Models of both kinds exist in both the private and Public system.
May 12, 2009 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Paranoia? The health insurance industry spokesmen have stated that this is one of their objectives. They have also stated that this would let them reduce the cost of health care, because it would let the healthy young people pay part of the costs for older less healthy people. And, that is true. But, given the profit motives of all businesses, it is also true that health insurance companies will keep the largest chunk of the savings in costs as bigger profits.
May 12, 2009 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
I totally agree. Some of the TPMC regulars are either GOP trolls or just paranoids, washouts, and real losers. A lot of these guys just predict doom and gloom all the time.
May 13, 2009 1:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
They caved to the bankers - they'll cave to the insurers unless We The People scream our heads off.
On the count of 3 ...
May 11, 2009 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Didn't Obama just state clearly at his last press conference that he wants a public insurance option and didn't he indicate that Republicans (and other opponents of a public plan) were not likely to prevail on that issue?
May 11, 2009 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's the quote, from the 100 days press conference:
"And -- and I've said this to people like Mitch McConnell. I said, 'Look, on health care reform, you may not agree with me that I've -- we should have a public plan. That may be philosophically just too much for you to swallow. On the other hand, there are some areas like reducing the cost of medical malpractice insurance where you do agree with me. If I'm taking some of your ideas and giving you credit for good ideas, the fact that you didn't get 100 percent can't be a reason every single time to oppose my position.' And if that is how bipartisanship is defined -- a -- a -- a situation in which, basically, wherever there are philosophical differences, I have to simply go along with ideas that have been rejected by the American people in an historic election, you know, we're probably not going to make progress.
If, on the other hand, the definition is that we're open to each other's ideas, there are going to be some differences, the majority will probably be determinative when it comes to resolving just hard- core differences that we can't resolve but there is a whole host of other areas where we can work together, then I think we can make progress."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/29/us/politics/29text-obama.html?pagewanted=all
May 11, 2009 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
And since that statement . . .
Obama's HHS Secretary was out selling the public plan option.
Six days later ... As of 05/07/2009...
~OGD~
May 11, 2009 6:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Uh, OGD, four times in one thread? Flog it all you want, but Libertine has answered you upthread -- the first time you postedd the quote:
May 12, 2009 1:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
.
Blow it out your butt . . .
And run along and go thread cop someone else...
And BTW ... Where's your deep insightful comments here in this thread related to the topic besides your thread copping ?
Piss of!
~OGD~
May 12, 2009 3:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Uh, fail.
If you threadcrap, you can expect a thread cop. You can take your thread droppings somewhere else. Especially if you have nothing better to say than pasting the same quote after every comment, as if that proves something.
May 12, 2009 5:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wish that Kennedy was more involved with health care reform. I don't trust Baucus.
May 11, 2009 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is Reich looking for a roast beef dinner at the White House?
May 11, 2009 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reich and Krugman and becoming increasingly whiny and paranoid becasue they weren't invited to the party. They're now targeting the paranoid fringe as their niche audience. Typical.
May 13, 2009 1:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
A public insurance option to promote competition is great on the surface.
My fear of the public health care option to pressure the insurance industry is that it will be co-opted by the private industry. They'll push behind the scenes for all the very sick to be offered the option of public insurance, they'll take only the profitable non-sick and and even those will be dumped to the public system as soon as the health care costs for those long term rate payers rises.
Isn't that how home insurance works now. You pay in your whole adult life, then as soon as you make any slighlty substantial claim, they dump you.
Electronic Health records stored in the 3 huge data warehousing companies, the reduced cost of DNA screening will all give the industry the potential to cherry pick customers.
Crafting rules to prevent this is unlikley to be possible in todays lobbyist driven political system.
May 11, 2009 7:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Those who believe a public plan is so indispensable forget that we have a huge public health plan currently, called Medicare, that is plagued by all the same problems as private insurance. The administrative overhead of Medicare is certainly lower (partially because administrative costs are shifted to provider and subsidized by private insurance payments to those providers), but in all the important ways, Medicare is just as bad as our private insurers. It underpays for primary care, it rewards doctors for high-cost interventions often without regard to proven efficacy, and its costs are growing enormously. In many ways, because of its size and influence, Medicare often entrenches bad policies as the "standard," ironically hindering innovative cost control measures by private insurers.
I'm all for a public plan. But we shouldn't kid ourselves that by adopting a public plan that we can avoid the tough choices we have to make. More than the public vs private debate, we should be discussing what kind of regulations/policies/incentives would make for a more cost-effective system, whether they are applied to a public plan or a private marketplace. Unless we make those tough decisions (i.e., are we willing to deny people high-cost interventions that don't necessarily work), we will just adopt a public plan that, like medicare, is fiscally unsustainable and of inadequate quality.
May 11, 2009 9:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
.
There's also this federal plan besides Medicare . . .
OPM-Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan
All set in place, and regulated quite tightly.
I'm not pointing to this as a public option plan, but to show what else there is besides Medicare and that here is a complete matrix in place to work from. They don't have to re-invent the wheel.
~OGD~
May 12, 2009 3:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Time will tell. I gurantee the furor over this if thereis no public option will be almost insurmountable.
May 11, 2009 10:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Voluntary savings of 2 trillion my fat a**!!! I recall a few years back when “voluntary” wage and price controls were put in place to aid the economy. Most of corporate and business American did volunteer to freeze wages; volunteer price controls, not so much. How convenient.
Further, on the health care issue we progressives, liberals and Democrats need to shame Congress into meaningful health care reform by pushing the details of the coverage that congress-persons and their families enjoy on our dime. How much are their co-pays? What do they pay for prescription drugs? What is their deductible?
Why can't we have access to the same coverage. If tax-payer paid, "SOCIALIZED" medical coverage is good for them how can they say it isn't good for us?
This idea needs to be plastered on every newspaper, covered on every blog, pushed on all the network news and liberal talk radio outlets that would cover such (I am not counting on coverage by FAUX News). We need to be like the Rethugs on this and have a wide spread, simple, uniform message that we hammer out day and night every day.
May 12, 2009 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
And when Obama invoked Harry & Louise after using a knockoff image in an attack-mailer last spring against Hillary's health care plan ("You'll be forced to buy insurance even if you can't afford it!") - well, it's probably good that Hillary was not in the room.
Insult and arrogance, Barack. Not your best thinking...
As Mr. Reich & many others, I was likewise skeptical and underwhelmed to see the Status Quo set show up. Immediately, it feels like the road to less-than-real progress. Where were these constituencies (attn: insurers), with their 1.5% Altruism in the last 3 or 4 bleeping decades? Or was that the Greed before the Good Corporate Citizen, phase of your largess...
In summary: Bullsh*t. We have seen this movie.
Progressives are expecting to cover all Americans and cap health costs and underwrite the principle with the public treasury, as happens in the rest of the First World.
I can find a lone positive if I angle up the mirrors right. You don't mind the major media deciding and reporting over the last 2 days, that health reform "might actually happen". That is a categorical change-up from what Hillary faced in 1994.
Balkingpoints.com
May 12, 2009 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here goes Reich crying wolf and wetting his pants again. Maybe if Reich wasn't so interesting in the sky falling every day he'd notice a few obvious points:
1) As was noted above, the Obama Administration is still on track for creating a government run program of voluntary enrollment, still making public statements it's a necessary component.
2) Dems do not have 60 seats yet, so even in a straight party line vote it would be hard to get cloture. I can't imagine why Reich would have Obama do something as stupid as to throw down the gauntlet now and risk losing it all.
3) Obama continues to win concessions in the meanwhile. Why on earth would Obama want to risk an all out battle that could go either way, only 4 months in office, when he's still getting concessions for free?
Reich needs to get a grip.
May 12, 2009 9:29 PM | Reply | Permalink