« Study: The Importance of a Public Option | Kali Star's Blog | White House Caves to Drug Company Lobbyists »
If No Public Option, I'll Be Working for a Third Party Candidate in 2012
If Obama can't deliver a public option for health insurance with this Democratic Congress, I will be supporting a third party candidate in 2012. I suggest that those who feel the way I do should make their intentions known now. Come on Mr. President. Do the right thing.
Advertisement
This of course is certainly a choice. However please point me to a third party or a candidate for a third party that has a snowballs chance in hell of getting elected. Next point me to a third party candidate that doesn't end up taking away votes so as not to put Repugs back in power. A suggestion if you live in a district with a Blue Dog or a R. Senator or Representative why not work to get a progressive D elected? Just askin'
August 4, 2009 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
If a Democratic President with 60 in Congress ends up being another bought-and-paid-for- middle of the roader, I'm done with the Democrats. I take the position that all the politicians who allow special interests to rule Washington aren't worth voting for. I plant to vote. If it's a protest vote, that's fine.
August 4, 2009 6:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Explain to me how an unruly congress is the president's fault? No, actually don't. You can't and you'll just make some bullshit excuse for taking out your anger on the wrong person.
A better suggestion: You move to Montana and vote against Baucus.
Or alternatively, sulk, fantasize about third parties, and generally waste our time with self-indulgence, while the wingers are actually out there attacking HCR.
August 4, 2009 10:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you saying that the President has no influence in Congress? If so, he's a rather weak figure.
August 5, 2009 7:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Of course he has influence, but he's not the leader of Congress, and the Constitution never intended him to be.
Why are you fixating on 2012, when 2010 should be the more immediate (and more relevant) concern?
August 5, 2009 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Technically, the Executive Branch is a separate and distinct governing branch. So too is the Legislative branch. One is not suppose to have any influence over the other. This is simple grammar, middle and high school civics and US history we were all suppose to learn. When a President does have influence, the barriers to effective government have broken down. It's much preferred he doesn't. If Obama needs to manipulate the Congress, then he needs to persuade them to pass the legislation he desires and hopes they give him what he wants.
August 5, 2009 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
that should have read ... barriers for effective government.
Separation of Powers are barriers I'm talking about that are established in the Constitution to keep the Executive, Legislative and Judical Branches from interfering with the exercise of Constitutional authority granted exclusively to each.
August 5, 2009 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
He doesn't control them, doesn't elect them, and can't fire them. For the Blue Dogs, he doesn't even win their districts.
August 5, 2009 10:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Congress fails, I still would like the modest health reforms that would pass, like banning exclusions for preexisting conditions and ending the practice of "recission". This is evil shit from sleazy, murderous health insurance cartels. ("Killing for profit") And real people will suffer/die in the decades until we finally get HCR. It would be unconscionable to veto this "on principle" because we didn't get our big plan. At least some bill, perhaps a separate one, must pass banning these practices.
In the choice between symbolic gesture and letting that old lady with the bad kidney live another year, I choose the latter. Banning abuses must pass no matter what.
I know it feels go to be "uncompromising" but in this case, saving some lives is more important.
ps. Why do people always scream about leaving the party and taking their marbles with them -- a form of surrender if you ask me. Why not just do the sensible thing (and mature thing) -- work to elect better, bluer Democrats. Primaries are a powerful thing. Organize and challenge. Progress is more about tireless engagement than getting huffy and quitting. If you can't win a primary, going third party is useless, because that third party can't with either.
August 5, 2009 10:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, it's impossible to elect a liberal or genuninely progressive candidate if you never vote for one.
I started applying Kali's standard in 2006 and if nothing else it makes me feel better about voting. If the Democrat supports my core issues, they get my vote. If they do not, they don't get my vote. Obama got the benefit of the doubt in 2008. I'll vote on his record in 2012.
August 4, 2009 6:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's where I am. No one wants him to succeed at a genuine progressive outcome more than I. But if he can't make it happen, after the promises and dimensions of the election victory, the progressive left will collapse. We'll need somewhere to go to get off our collective knees.
August 4, 2009 6:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
The problem we face is that we have Blue Dogs and then we have the pseudo progressive Blue Dog enablers like my Senator Amy. Senator Amy will vote the establish party line and support Obama but she'll tell her constituents that universal healthcare is "unrealistic" because the Blue Dogs enable her to hide. She will, like so many here, always use the excuse that whatever we want: withdrawal from Iraq, EFCA, repeal of DODT, repeal of FISA, truly universal healthcare... all are unrealistic, impossible, don't even bother, she'd love to vote for them BUT...
My response to that is that it is unrealistic to expect me to vote for you.
August 4, 2009 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
You don't need single payer to get universal health care. Principles without pragmatism is not progressive and usually accomplishes very little in the way of progress, though it is quite "liberal" as it has come to be defined.
We can get a universal health care bill through Congress that starts us down the path we need to start down, but expecting 40 years of animosity to disappear in six months is just not realistic, especially after how bitter the 2008 race was for a lot of people.
I prefer to think of it as having been cleansing and now the real work begins, which includes politicking for outcomes instead of ideology.
August 5, 2009 7:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
PS: I am not the biggest Klobuchar fan, but Minnesota representatives have always struck me as being essentially progressive. Seems to me you are getting mixed up about the speed at which these sorts of changes happen in this country.
It took a decades of tinkering to get things like the New Deal and the Great Society not only passed but functional. Progress takes time if the goal is to do it right. I believe America is already on the path that leads to so many of the things you speak of.
Ironically, only impatience and intransigence can slow the transition down.
August 5, 2009 7:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
bluebell, you hit on a very important point here. What does it mean that we have come to a point in our democracy when we accept the notion that lobbyists and campaign contributors are uber-constituents? We can have our debates and our legislation, but only if ewe first receive prior clearance from the masters who own this government.
Even a discussion of single payer health care is deemed to be impractical because the insurance industry would never allow it. Take a step back and see just how perverse that is! We should all be ashamed for laying down and playing dead, even when it's disguised as "just being practical."
August 5, 2009 8:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dude, most citizens don't want single payer, don't want to be forced into a government run program. It has nothing to do with the industry and everything to do with the American spirit. How is any of this a surprise to you?
August 5, 2009 8:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Really? I've seen polls that suggest differently.
The American Spirit? Seriously? And that would be...the spirit of bending over and taking it from the insurance companies?
Keeping what we have isn't some celebration of individualism, a pull-yourself-up-by-the-bootstraps kind of thing. Most people, most doctors, want a system that isn't so clogged with bullshit bureaucracy no one can see straight.
August 5, 2009 8:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Polls suggest Americans overwhelming support significant and systemic health reform, not single payer as presented in the Medicare-for-All bill. See my comment below to understand why. The choice before Congress isn't single payer or nothing.
In fact, single payer was DOA, so I don't even know why you guys keep talking about it. All that does is convince moderate conservatives that the wing nuts are right. Liberals do want to use the public option as a Trojan Horse. That sort of positioning will doom reform to failure.
We want a choice in America. That is the American Spirit I speaking to. By removing all choice from the discussion, it became either acceptance of an unproved theory of government control of health insurance or more progressive change within the existing system.
It is clear that "most Americans" are leaning toward the latter rather than the former.
August 5, 2009 9:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Choice! What choice do we have now? I get no say in how much my insurance company charges me, what they pay for, and how much is left to come out of my pocket. We don't get much choice in our insurance plans either. Employment based coverage generally offers us the "choice" of 2 or 3 plans. And private insurance? Almost no choice, unless you're a 20-year-old male who's never had a head cold.
August 5, 2009 9:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Again, that is what we are seeking to fix with this legislation and it does plug many of the most glaring holes if you bothered to read it.
Are you suggesting we replace a lack of choice with a lack of choice? Trade one unaccountable system for yet another another unaccountable system? There is a lot in the Medicare-for-All plan that is unworkable and most unconstitutional to boot. You want this reform package to end up in court or actually on the street doing some good?
No wonder the "liberal" wing of the democratic party couldn't get HR 676 out of committee because no one has actually read the damn thing.
August 5, 2009 9:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
How do we know "most citizens don't want single payer" when it was forbidden to even be discussed and developed as an option?
Methinks the fear among Insurance Execs that most citizens would learn to want single payer if it was given a hearing is PRECISELY why the insurance industry would never allow the idea to be placed upon the table.
It's pretty tough to get past the decision to kill single payer before it could even find daylight. It's an unassailable indictment of the "Health Care Reform" turned "Health Insurance Reform" process and its skewed objectives.
August 5, 2009 8:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's been discussed. The damn bill couldn't get out of committee. Want to know why? Read it. Pay special attention to section 103 where every single business covered by single payer must convert to being a public or nonprofit entity within 15 years.
Again, you are blaming the American people for either not buying or not understanding the message. Single payer advocates lost as soon as they put Kucinich and Conyers in charge of the effort. They continue to lose by not switching tactics when their initial tactics failed.
Most Americans know what a single payer system is and the one the democrats presented was horribly deaf to political reality and ideologically blind to its own failings.
August 5, 2009 8:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Who else would do it, jason?
And how is giving states the option to enact single-payer a losing proposition? Seems to me to be the only way to get single-payer on the table.
And by the way, it hasn't "lost" yet.
August 5, 2009 9:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
HR 676 hasn't made it out of committee, so it is unlikely it will make it into the final legislation. I don't believe it should for reasons articulated in my last blog.
I also talk about the reforms I would have put forth in that blog that would have encountered much less resistance than much of what the "progressive" wing of the democratic party has been able to come up with.
Shoving single payer down the throats of moderates dems and reps was also going to fail, either before it left Congress or during implementation; however, I think they could have positioned the public option as a common sense way to ensure the health insurance industry straightened up its act and followed the regulatory structure we put in place.
I can't help but think the democrats once again shot themselves in the foot by applying yesterday's solutions to tomorrow's problems.
HR 676 would have been great in 1945 or 1965 but was doomed to failure in 2009.
August 5, 2009 9:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jason, the phrase "shoving XXX down the throats of" is a particularly nasty little rhetorical turn, and would you please give it a rest? It's a slogan, it has no intellectual content, and it's widely used by Republicans to tag any pro-Government policy and make it seem like abuse or torture.
So from now on, whenever I hear it, I'm going to reply with a phrase of almost perfect equivalence - stick it up your ass.
Shorter - stop jamming that stupid phrase down our throats.
August 5, 2009 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am not the one taking an All or Nothing approach to the discussion. It isn't the policy itself, which is bad enough, it is the rhetorical stance as exemplified by many comments on this blog.
I am sorry if that is how the single payer advocates tactics are perceived, but I am not responsible for the perception and it exists on the left as well as the right. Not a single one of the single payer crowd would claim to be anything less than a revolutionary when it comes to health care.
That being the case, they need to accept the consequences of having caricatures applied to their preferred solutions when their methodology ensures they will never design a plan that the silent majority can get behind.
August 5, 2009 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow. Letting your inner Rabid Republican off the leash today, are you?
Hmmm, lemme see. "I'm sorry if you're perceived as a Republican idiot, Jason, but I am not responsible for the perception." See how that works? The old, "use an insulting phrase and then blame it on the perceptions of others trick."
Next up, the "Not a single one... would claim to be anything less than a revolutionary." Every one Jason? Really? Wow.
And then the topper - "They need to accept the consequences of having caricatures applied to their preferred solutions when their methodology ensures they will never design a plan that the silent majority can get behind."
So you decide there's a silent majority behind you, and that makes it ok to caricature the other guys? Let's test this.
- You have no silent sane majority behind you, Jason. Your party is a batch of Birthers and fucking thugs right now.
- Your party's most recent leaders should be in prison. Your party lied to start wars, and has the blood of hundreds of thousands on its hands.
- Your party fed hundreds of billions down the maw of an insurance industry that more closely resembles organized crime than anything related to health.
Don't blame me for the perceptions of others.
Don't blame me when a caricature comes home to roost.
Far as I can see, of anyone on this site, you have the least credibility and should stop trying to shove your Republican Lite shit down our throats.
See.... this is how your argument would work in reverse.
August 5, 2009 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nothing in what I wrote could reasonably be defined as "Rabid Republican" rhetoric or as "insulting phrases" but you prove my point ably. Creating caricatures and straw men to knock down with ad hominem attacks is not the same thing as having a reasonable and honest debate.
"My party" is certainly part of the problem, as is yours, but no where I have advocated GOP positions or done anything that would indicate I approve of their tactics. In fact, about 15% of the GOP voted for Obama in the last election, so I would suggest that the republican party is no more monolithic than the democratic party is.
You continue to use Rubber and Glue commentary as a way to deflect and dismiss legitimate concerns with the proposed legislation.
August 5, 2009 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jason, you don't hear yourself. I agree that you don't usually attack people personally, and that's great. But the way you argue, and the terms you often use, are Republican hammers, and if you don't like being attacked in response, then I'd suggest thinking about not using them.
Take this. "Silent Majority." You use it all the time now. It was Nixon who brought it in, and - I just checked through Wiki, and they seem to agree - was then used most notably by Reagan, Gingrich and Giuliani. It may not mean that to you, but when most people read it, I suspect they make those usual, historic connections.
Others are phrases like referring to the "American Spirit" and how it demands "choice." Do you understand that you're implicitly saying the OTHER policy positions here are UN-AMERICAN? I mean, you're tying a supposed national characteristic up alongside a very particular - and perhaps even minority - public policy decision.
"Shoving down the throat" is another such phrase. It's always GOVERNMENT that's shoving down throats, right? Not insurance companies.
So you regard these phrases as neutral, polite, impersonal ways to argue. For others, they read as redhot Republican phrases that are used as blunt weapons during political warfare. Do they want to be implicitly referred to as the "noisy minority" or "unAmerican" or "shoving things down throats?" I don't think so. Do these actually count as personal attacks? Well. Your call.
August 5, 2009 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, for you they read that way and perhaps a small handful other posters here. The vast majority of my interactions on TPM an elsewhere do not devolve into pissing matches because I used some word that you took out of context and got pissed about.
Further, you know who I am from months of personal interaction, so taking offense at words that might be similar to the fringe right when to describe my position is hardly an example of intellectual honesty. If this was the first time we had interacted I would agree that your impression would have some merit independent of my actual thoughts.
The "Silent Majority" is a real group of people comprised of moderates from both parties and a number of independents. They are mostly non-ideological and are well represented in the pages of TPM, so this criticism makes less than no sense. It isn't even accurate, despite who originally coined the term.
Same thing with the idea that choice is somehow a right-wing position. If I remember correctly, one of the democratic parties core issues revolves around choice and not allowing the government to dictate personal decisions. So, now "choice" is a dirty word, too?
As often as you counsel me to look in the mirror, I am struck by the irony of your inability to do the same.
August 5, 2009 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Precisely. When combined with attacks on "liberals" for "flawed methodology" in achieving goals, it's particularly rage-inducing.
August 5, 2009 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Trying to engage Jason has once again left me with only one simple question: how many "ad hominem" credits do you have to be awarded before you earn one outright "assault" credit?
August 5, 2009 8:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well then the American people have been brainwashed by the John Galtists who inhabit the U S of A Jason. Everyone I talk to in Canada and Europe love their systems. They say the care they get is very good and puzzle at why we haven't changed our health care system yet to something that resemble theirs. The problem is that enough people here have generous plans subsidized through their employers and don't want to give it up. But enough people have lost their jobs or have been priced out of the insurance marketplace, by advancing age or medical conditions, which is affecting change on the Galtish mindset that we have been indoctinated to.
In short we have been brainwashed by people who point out the exceptions rather than focusing on the rule.
August 5, 2009 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I disagree. I think the fact that we are proceeding so quickly indicates the exact opposite. Except for the ideologues, most legislators seems to be approaching this from a position of wanting to reform the system without breaking it further.
The plan making its way through Congress right now indicates that the silent majority want real reform, even if it takes a series of legislative acts to get there, and includes many of the same things that make other countries with universal coverage so happy with their systems, most of which aren't true single payer but a public-private hybrid of some sort.
I think where the single payer advocates when wrong was positioning the public plan as a Trojan Horse when their preferred legislation stalled in committee. That was a move that almost assured the current problems we are having getting that provision through the senate and into the final bill.
August 5, 2009 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
We'll see if you're right Jason because the plan that is in the process of being passed is trying to keep our system intact. I think the people who want to keep the status quo are planting a poison pill to make the reform efforts fail and then be able to roll them back in the future. No one has shown me anything in the current reform proposal that would get us anywhere near what is in place in Canada and Europe. The only way to reduce costs is to force an umcompetitive market to become a competitive one...and the way to do that is with a government sponsored public option. If left to their devices the players in the 'for profit' health care market will keep costs and premiums up because it is in their best financial interests to do so.
August 5, 2009 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
What is in place in Canada and much of Europe are two totally different systems. Many European countries use private, non-profit health insurers to cover their citizens needs. In either case, none of them started with our exact problems, so it will take a hybrid of all available options to meet our needs.
As far as I can tell, the current legislation drastically reforms the for-profit insurance industry with regards to many of their most fraudulent practices. It seeks to create a public option by way of a non-profit insurance cooperative that would include the 49 million without insurance, the tens of millions of self employed as well as every small business with fewer than 20 employees.
That would make the "public option" a huge competitive force in the market. What I am less clear on is how the reforms would change the rest of the medical system (providers, pharma, etc.) as well as how it would reform Medicare and other existing public health plans that are experiencing financial difficulty as are many of the European and Asian plans currently are.
Oddly enough, it appears as if the Dutch actually had a plan similar to Canada's and transitioned to one more like the one we are currently considering in 2006 because of sustainability issues. As good as other systems are around the world, they are no without their own problems that continue to be confronted via the legislature.
August 5, 2009 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hi Kali - Like you, I favor a strong public option, and believe we push our elected officials to achieve it. I think we will probably end up with something reasonably satisfactory, although perhaps less than ideal. I would even settle for a strong non-profit cooperative approach (a la the Senate Finance Committee) if it had teeth and was subjected to adequate government oversight.
Short of that, I would be profoundly disappointed. However, as to what to do in that case, my reaction is first, to plan not to let that happen, and second, not to decide now how to proceed (although I do agree that threats to legislators that you won't vote for them are legitimate tools).
Ultimately, our goal is affordable, high quality health care for all. All the other industrialized nations already have that. Some are single payer, and more employ various public/private hybrids, but a "public option" similar to what is proposed here actually appears to be unique. Interestingly, the need for a public competitor to private insurers appears to be a less critical component of insurance reform than many other elements - specifically, mandates requiring insurers to accept all applicants, utilize uniform pricing regardless of age, sex, or health status, deny no claims by legitimate health care providers, refrain from excessive copays or deductibles, and a comply with a variety of other similar provisions.
Healthcare in the Netherlands is an intriguing example, because it is one of the societies with good results. The government pays for long term care and care for the disabled, but most other medical care is managed by competition among private insurers only, subjected to the restrictions I mention above. I don't think it could be implemented here in exactly the same fashion, but it illustrates the point that insurance reform is probably more important than the balance between public and private insurance for most types of care. Here is a useful link -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_Netherlands
August 4, 2009 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I do agree that threats to legislators that you won't vote for them are legitimate tools.."
That's what I doing. Making a threat. And I know many others who feel the same.
August 4, 2009 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kali,
What is it specifically that you believe President Obama hasn't done and is still not doing to deliver a public option?
Thanks.
August 4, 2009 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
He should announce now that he will not sign a bill that doesn't include a public option. He should use all his considerable communication powers to explain this one aspect of reform to the country. He should be on this message every day in town meetings. Stop compromising. Show leadership. Take a stand. He lost a lot ground during the Gates affair.
August 4, 2009 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought he'd already stated he wouldn't sign a bill without public option. I believe he's taken a stand.
However, I don't think he's 'rolled out' the healthcare public option processes or programs well. It would have been better, in my opinion, to give a specific outline of what the bill was to deliver along with cost and how it was to be paid for and released to public (most likely in bullet point K.I.S.S. format) and I could go on in depth, but I know you get the gist.
The Gates issue remark was a fumble, no doubt - but hey, he's human. But the media is doing whatever they can to deflect from delivering the type of reports on healthcare reform/public option facts.
Thanks Kali, I appreciate your posts and your response to my query.
August 4, 2009 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
As far as I know, he hasn't stated that he won't sign a bill without a public option. If he has, I'd like to know about it. I would like to know what was agreed upon when he met today with various senators including Baucus.
August 4, 2009 6:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
He said, "I will not sign a bill that does not include a public option." And believe it was during the last press conference. I heard it myself.
August 4, 2009 6:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's good news then. What was said today after the meeting with Baucus?
August 4, 2009 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know. What was said? Please share.
August 5, 2009 1:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
As far as I know, the President has not said recently that he wouldn't sign a bill without a public option. Yesterday he encouraged Democrats to keep working with the Republicans. Senator Baucus looked quite happy emerging from the meeting.
August 5, 2009 6:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sounds good if you want to help the repubs get the White House back...All what you are suggesting accomplishes is making you feel like you are taking the moral high ground, while we get to live with another Republican in the driver's seat. Thanks, but no thanks. In a perfect world, maybe, but not in the one we live in.
Even if Obama fails to deliver (and how can he possibly with his own party unable to come to consensus???) having him in office is better than whatever Republican they offer up. Show me a perfect President and I'll show you a pink unicorn.
Vent if you want, but making good on your threat will accomplish nothing of value. Better yet, put your efforts where your mouth is and work harder to accompish what you want.
August 4, 2009 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hi stilli - I think there's understandable anger in play about the frustrations involved in getting reform enacted, but I agree Obama should not be the primary target.
I'd appreciate your thoughts on the comment I made above about the role of a public option vs other insurance reforms in improving our health care system.
August 4, 2009 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the reforms you mentioned will make the public plan obsolete. Rather than the public plan leading to single payer, the public will lead to its own demise if the regulations we put in place are the right ones. That is the story that democrats need to be telling their conservative brothers and sisters and moms and dads.
August 4, 2009 6:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like it. It's a total lie, but from a marketing standpoint I like it.
The elephant in the room is any system that lopping off the useless appendage of the investor/executive layer, which adds billions in overhead while providing little (if any) value to the service provided, will always be more affordable than one that has to carry the dead weight - while providing the same level of service. It's really simple math.
The only way a public option won't destroy the corporate model in a head-to-head market competition is if the public option is somehow artificially hobbled.
August 4, 2009 8:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
In the Netherlands, public and private insurers operated more or less in parallel until 2006. At that point, due to rising costs, the government shifted to all private insurers for most medical expenses, while continuing to subsidize long term care and care for the disabled.
The rationale, apparently, was the same as commonly invoked in these circumstances - private enterprises have more incentive to be efficient than government bureaucracies.
I don't subscribe to that principle in all circumstances, but neither do I dispute it in all circumstances. What apparently seems to be operating in the Netherlands (although it's still too early to tell) is the principle that a strongly regulated private system that is not permitted to cheat its clients will try to rely on efficiency rather than poor service to make a profit.
The U.S. is far larger and more heterogeneous than the Netherlands, and the type of oversight that might work there would be a greater challenge here, but what I believe we can all take away from their example is the conclusion that reform of how insurance is provided needs at least as much attention as an attempt to limit insurer profits.
August 4, 2009 8:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Netherlands has a population slightly larger than the LA urban region (LA/OC). IMO, you are really comparing apples and oranges. Besides, your characterization of the Netherlands system isn't exactly a correct:
Hardly a free market by any American definition. I stand by my statement that in AMERICA, with any of the proposals actually on the table, that the corporate overhead alone (investor returns, executive salaries and perquisites, etc.) would keep the current private model from competing in any meaningful way with a truly public plan following the basic model of medicare - unless that private plan is somehow hobbled.
August 5, 2009 12:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
That isn't true. Corporate salary's (overhead) is driven by expenses.
In a heavily regulated environment, meaning insurance companies can no longer kill their customers for profit, they would become self regulating. There are multi-billion collar nonprofit - Red Cross comes to mind - with well paid executives who aren't Masters of the Universe.
We need to change corporate culture not replace it with government culture by submitting to the idea that we can't control them. Neither system is as efficient as its proponents would have it, but government tends to cost twice as much as many private organizations from a revenue standpoint though not necessarily in a dividend sense.
August 5, 2009 6:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Care to offer a respected reference citation? Or are we just repeating GOP talking points?
August 5, 2009 7:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are saying there is no fraud, waste and abuse in the federal government? Things that are not tolerated at many private companies? Is common sense and logic so hard for you to take or does it always sound like a talking point to you?
August 5, 2009 8:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
A great deal of the fraud, waste, and abuse in the federal government is in fact PERPETRATED by private industry. (See Kellogg, Brown & Root; Halliburton; Blackwater; etc.) And when it does happen to occur in government, it is declared a scandal. When it occurs in the private sector, it is too often passed off as "free market, libertarian capitalism." (See Goldman Sachs; Wall Street Exec Compensation; etc.)
I don't see multi-million dollar executive pay packages in government, nor can I imagine ANY government agency being allowed to so wilfully screw over clients in the manner the insurance industry does as discussed on the Moyers program I referenced earlier.
August 5, 2009 9:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dude, where the fuck have you been the last thirty years? Your comments seem totally disconnected from reality.
The government and private industry are a revolving door of fraud, waste and abuse. Both parties, all sorts of industries, the entire edifice is riddled with corruption and has been since at least the end of World War II, though it is a bit more obvious now. Good people work in government, too, but the very structure of how contracting means there will be zero accountability and tons of fraud. Much of it encouraged by government employees themselves.
You and Uncle Sam need to get a room and get your fetish satisfied already, so we can discuss the reality of how our government operates and what it will take to fix it.
August 5, 2009 9:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Enough with the personal attacks on other posters. OK?
August 5, 2009 10:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Follow the thread back to the top to see who started using dismissive language and ad hominem attacks first. I am rarely the first to do so, but am more than happy to go there if prompted.
August 5, 2009 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let me put it another way:
Name a single country, company or organization with a little over a million people in it that spends 680 billion dollars a year, not including the 2 wars we are fighting, to keep itself afloat without delivering any obvious return on investment.
The federal government spends money like a drunken Sailor on leave and you want to me to somehow prove it? How does one prove that water is wet or that fire is hot?
August 5, 2009 8:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
"$680 billion dollars per year" "with no return on investment."
And to think you so regularly accuse so many others of hyperbole when you are so routinely backed into illogical cul de sacs!
I must assume by the response that your argument is founded upon nothing more than GOP talking points. After all, I've driven the interstate highways in Wisconsin and the toll roads in Illinois, and I can tell you which one gives me the greater return on my investment. There are so many other examples where government excels at providing for our community needs in such better fashion than the private sector that your comment is patently ludicrous.
But then again, I bet you believe that government run health care will execute your Aunt Mable too, right? After all, Boehner & Co. would have you believe it's true, if for no other reason than they can't arrive at any truly defensible opposition to single payer.
And please abandon this nonsense about "Medicare is unsustainable" as "proof" that government run health care doesn't work. Clearly, the present system is unsustainable as well - even as it cherry picks to provide health care coverage only to HEALTHY people.
Medicare is universal in it's coverage, and there are few complaints about its system of coverage. The costs are overwhelming, but they are the same costs that are confronted by any heath care provider.
Bottom line, however, is that the same reform that would get medical costs under control for the health insurance industry would work for (Universal) Medicare as well. In comparing the essential differences between the two plans (Medicare and Private Insurance), however, I believe Medicare far surpasses anything offered by the private sector.
August 5, 2009 8:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Are you saying the 680 billion dollars a year we spend on the DoD is a good investment? You are claiming that the DoD is not riddled with fraud, waste and abuse? There is nothing hyperbolic in either of those statements. We get VERY LITTLE return on our investment in the military.
Again, I must repeat myself.
You have yet to respond to anything I write, but instead go off on ideological tangents that have nothing to do with the discussion at hand. You are a demagogue's demagogue, incapable of a reasonable and rational discussion without using ad hominem attacks and partisan framing.
And still you wonder why "liberals" can't seem to get anything done that is truly progressive.
PS: How many of those roads are maintained by private companies at the behest of the federal government. Even the government isn't run by the government anymore and certainly isn't spending all its money on government employees. You are clearly uninformed about a great many things, but rant away.
August 5, 2009 9:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
You keep trying to change the subject when you get your ass handed to you. You're nothing but a hack, Jason. Go away.
August 5, 2009 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
More nuanced commentary from the TPM Ad Hominem Club.
August 5, 2009 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
JEM Wrote: Corporate salary's (overhead) is driven by expenses.
That was a few years back, Jason. Today, salaries are driven by unbridled greed. It's not even related to profit margins as evidenced in the financial SNAFU, execs getting salaries and BONUSES from companies that had imploded and only remained because of federal bailout funds. The salaries of these execs have become the equivalent of a bad gambling habit. We're gonna make a fortune if we just give this guy millions and millions of dollars! I know it! This time.... The Board od Directors should be ashamed they let these chumps talk them into agreement with this, but I guess that's how they made their millions too, huh?
August 5, 2009 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's driven by greed because of a lack of regulations and accountability, but I agree that this is the situation today. Boards and executives and major stockholders gaming the system for their own reward at our expense.
All of it mostly legal.
Put those controls back in place (and enforce the ones that are already there) and many of our worst problems with corporate America disappear. We have periods, albeit very short periods, of time when corporate America was broken to our needs using smart and effective regulations and regulators. We need to get back to that, not head down a totally different path fraught with unknown dangers that dismisses the very hard lessons we have learned over the last three decades or so.
Of course, if we continue to have a pathetic 16% average turnout for primary elections, it doesn't matter what we do today, we leave ourselves vulnerable to new privations tomorrow.
August 5, 2009 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
We need to get back to that, not head down a totally different path fraught with unknown dangers that dismisses the very hard lessons we have learned over the last three decades or so.
I'm not afraid of unknown dangers. It is likely our path will be similar to the dozens of other countries with national healthcare. This is only new ground for the USA, but really, we already did it with Medicare, the VA, etc. I have more confidence in an organization responsible to the electorate then I do a company responsible to shareholders. I believe we can watch a government organization a lot better then we can a private one, unless of course, it's the CIA, FBI, NSA, or Homeland Security, but I digress.
August 5, 2009 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Again, you contradict your own statement by showing where in fact we can't control the government and continue to have less than satisfactory returns on investment.
As to your first statement, I am also not afraid of unknown paths with unknown dangers as it is how I have lived my entire life, but I am not designing the health care system for 320 million Americans. The people who do that have an obligation to First Do No Harm. The VA and Medicare are good systems, but each has significant structural problems that have yet to be addressed. In fact, the VA has just now started to come together after decades of abusing our veterans under presidents of both parties.
I am sorry, Gregor, having worked in government at the state and local level as well as spending 10 years in the Navy, I am convinced that Uncle Sam is quite capable of making the situation worse using the proposals currently on the table and the historical record of piss-poor performance at sky-high rates.
August 5, 2009 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I like it. It's a total lie, but from a marketing standpoint I like it."
Awesome.
August 4, 2009 11:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Quinn - I'm not sure what it is you're labeling a lie. The Netherlands health care system is as described in the linked-to article - for most medical care, it involves only private insurers. This was undertaken to reduce costs, for reasons stated above. The government funds long term care and care for the disabled but not standard care. The rationale for why the insurance regulations benefit consumers is also clearly stated in the article, and the salient points are the strict prohibitions against insurance practices that either discriminate against some individuals or penalize all. Since health care in the Netherlands has excellent performance data for universality, economy, and health outcomes, their system is worth study. Because it is evolving, we don't yet know which elements will need further refining and which will be maintained without change, but the system is very much worth following, particularly since it indicates that a public option, however desirable, may not be the only route to a goal many of us share.
I encourage others to read the article to judge for themselves. I doubt that many here will understand exactly what it is that you believe is being lied about, since the article is evidence-based, but in any case, I hope each reader draws his or her own conclusions.
Health care reform is a complex issue, with many different potential means of addresses some of its components. It is one of the reasons why I attempt to stay curent with relevant information and share it with open-minded readers.
August 4, 2009 11:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
First, This nobody has proposed the system that the Netherlands has (which is not entirely a private anyhow). Second, the reason that the Netherlands plan works is because the insurance industry is managed at the systemic level by the government. Third, to administer a system such as theirs with 300+ million people over 50 states would be more expensive and massive from a bureaucratic standpoint than just providing the health administration directly - and then we'd still have to pay for the insurance. Maintaining competition the way they do works because they have so few people. The government provides an adjuster who audits the claims for every insurance carrier and a separate auditor who ensures the plans are consistent and meet the mandated level of service.
I'd be happy to bet you a nickle on this. I've worked with Cigna, AIG, The Hartford, and many many others for years. So unless you have some experience in the industry and can give a real-world explanation how to pull it off in the private structure we have today that I'm missing; I have to tell you: you are talking out of your ass.
All we have to do is get a non-hobbled public plan and then we'll see who's right. I'm down for the competition.
August 5, 2009 12:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
I worked for Mercer HR in their group benefits practice and sending RFPs to all of those companies and reviewing their incomprehensible proposals at the behest of clients of all shapes and sizes, yippy skippy.
We all have a resume but that doesn't make us logical. Where exactly did you work at those companies? Actuary? Claims adjuster? Executive? Broom handler? It's hard to tell because you seem to not know that the insurance already operates under a number of government structures such as HIPPA and ERISA and COBRA.
Want to fix health care? Here is how you do it: Change the regulations that already exist (or add new ones) to actually meet our needs. The insurance companies will play ball, become nonprofits or they will go away. Same as Ma Bell and Microsoft and all the other companies we decided needed a peepee slap by the federal government over the years.
You can't have it both ways. Either the government is able to regulate industry and run a public insurance plan or they capable of neither. The jury is out on both counts for me, but at least I am consistent.
August 5, 2009 8:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
I remember that you were a poster who once wrote extensively and passionately on the details of health care and Obama's programs. You've stopped. I make the assumption that you're disillusioned like so many others.
August 5, 2009 7:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
I know gutlessness when I see it.
These Democrats couldn't carry Tommy Douglas' jock.
I'm fed with the lot of them. That Obama's supporters aren't enraged with how things are being done is the only surprise to me. Progressives should be burning white hot this Summer, and instead, they're sad sacks of shit.
Sometimes I wonder what the fuck happened to America. Really.
What. The. Fuck. Happened.
It's just not polite for me to say that too loud. So... this dude abides.
August 5, 2009 10:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Some of us are getting nervous, but are still hoping that Obama will deliver. It's only been 6 months. Of course, as with Iraq, there needs to be a point where we demand results. I'm not sure we're there yet with healthcare, but I understand those who are more nervous than I.
(Regardless of whether Obama delivers on healthcare, however, I have a hard time imagining myself voting for anyone else in 2012.)
August 5, 2009 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe Teddy Kennedy will offer a repeat of the 1980 primaries because Obama isn't "progressive" enough?
I am sure he learned his lesson on that one, though, so unless Barack gets caught in some very uncompromising position between now and then, I suspect he will be reelected, perhaps with a landslide depending on how things actually pan out over the next few years.
I think the big surprise next year (and in 2012) will be for incumbents in Congress and not our incumbent president. As far as I can tell, he seems to be pleasing the silent majority that elected him, even if he pissing the fringes off to no end.
August 5, 2009 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Frankly, the agitators are bringing up my rage. I am disgusted that there loud-mouth half-wits are being allowed to dominate the town hall meetings. When the Single Payer crowd made noise at the hearings, they were taken out of the room. It's time to do the same. They can either wait their turn and provide a persepctive they wish to have heard, or they can be taken away. They are taking more then their share of the precious time we are wasting while people are dying each day for lack of care and the lobbyists are shelling out another $1.4 million/day which the policyholders are going to have to pay later.
August 5, 2009 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with this assessment. This is a legal issue and should be treated accordingly.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander and if the fringe right (or corporate stooges) wants to play loud-mouthed activist, they should be treated the same way the activists on left have been all these years.
Hypocrisy seems a way of life for most Americans in way or another, myself included.
August 5, 2009 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let me amend the last statement: I, too, am not immune to hypocritical actions at times and must always be aware of that natural human tendency. I was simply trying to not ignore my own faults if I have the temerity to comment on other people's.
August 5, 2009 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're a good man, Jason. You have a knack for returning to a level head pretty quickly, and recognize when things are off the topic promptly as well. I have contradictions of my own.
August 5, 2009 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for recognizing, Gregor! You guys have had a front-row seat to my personal development in this regard. :O)
August 5, 2009 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nebton, IMO health reform progressives should never ever ever have listened to this shit about sitting back and giving him time and letting the process work and all that nonsense. Just like bloody FDR, he NEEDS to have people out on his left, blazing away, hard. That tension would have created much more room for him to come up the middle with something good. As it is, right now, all these goddamn "sit back and let Obama lead us home" geniuses have produced is a situation where the Republicans are screaming, even though the proposals on the table are weak, and the Democrats are scrambling saying, "should we get mobilized? if so, how?"
It's a bloody embarrassment.
And people need to wake up about 2012, and even 2010. Obama-love and Republican collapse are NOT gonna overcome a really shitty economy. Honest to God, people were bleating on about his poll ratings, 6 MONTHS INTO OFFICE, and projecting what this would mean for 2012, with the greatest economic collapse in 70 years happening outside their window. Christ. We need to win health care. "Obama's Waterloo" is not the dumbest thing political prognosticators have said.
August 5, 2009 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've got no problem with those left of me agitating, and in fact encourage it for exactly the reasons you state. However, I personally think it's too soon to judge his efforts on this.
As for elections, I can't stress strongly enough that it's 2010 we should be talking about, not 2012. Congress is in charge of enacting legislation, something that many of us seem to forget. The only reason for bringing up 2012 right now is for those Senators who face re-election in 2012 instead of 2010 or 2014. (You probably know more about this than most Americans, but in case you don't: Representatives get elected every 2 years, and Senators every 6. That every 6 years, however, is pretty much evenly divided up amongst 2-year boundaries.)
August 5, 2009 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well ! This was sure worth the wait - Mr. Quinn Esq.
August 5, 2009 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Love is the drug, Kali, and after that election, huge numbers of supporters were in a sweet honeymoon haze. And I understand that. It was a long wait.
But no political movement worth its salt should have accepted being demobilized like that, that fast, before anything was delivered, and without guarantee. If there was anything that gave credence to those proclaiming it a cult of personality, it was the way so many argued against remaining active on the ground and pushing for the changes that were needed. Instead, we were to wait for Obama to see it all through, using his miraculous skills to defeat partisanship and swing the public and blue dogs and Wall Street and the Afghanis and ... aw, fuckit.
But there's nothing you can really do during those times, other than let the haze wear off. We need to be active, mobilized, working, raising money, running ads, cranking up stories, blasting for single payer, blasting for public options, but above all, blowing the living hell out of the status quo and the media defending it.
August 5, 2009 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just want to chime in and fully endorse everything Quinn has said.
August 5, 2009 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Chiming and endoring, also.
August 5, 2009 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Chiming, endorsing and throwing in a good ol' Bronx cheer.
August 5, 2009 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bronx Grrrrl!!! Good to see ya!
Yeah, I guess this means my 6 month self-imposed gag on political rants is over, huh? Can we all come out and speak sensibly about politics again? It's been an odd time, eh? that economy sure looks crap, but nobody really even blogs on it anymore. We're all just hoping against hope that something's working. Same on the wars. But health care? This seems to be the one that broke the silence open again. I'm glad. But really.... people State-side should be hitting the bricks on this one. Hit the pols, yeah - but hitting the streets woulda been way smart. Right now, poor turnout at our rallies and the high-profile given to the Repub-Ranters sends the wrong signals. Yeah, they look a bit nutty. But they also look active, visible, and like they own the ground. We need that back - like during the election.
That should be the #1 blog here today. How to get a visible street presence back. Fast.
August 5, 2009 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I literally could not possibly agree more. I just don't have the answers to write that blog.
August 5, 2009 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Study Alinsky. Get Mad. Get organized. Get effective.
I'm outta time here for now, but we have terrific opportunity to effect health care reform AND knock the pay-to-play pols on their ass. And we are fools if we simply go along to get along so as not to disturb anyone "important."
August 5, 2009 5:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not a lie at all. This is the truth.
The public option becomes a place for the uninsured and the uninsurable until regulatory reforms across the medical field start to change things, hopefully for the better but we have been known to adjust things over the years.
You seem to consider the current operating practices of the insurance companies as a foregone conclusion despite the massive regulatory change we have forced on many other industries in the past who also liked to think they couldn't be managed for the public good.
I am not sure what books you are reading, but this idea that the health insurance industry can't be brought to heel by public outrage and strict regulation isn't in keeping with the historical record.
August 5, 2009 8:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Two things Jason.
One, which industries are you referring to? When I think of the most heavily regulated industries, the two that pop into my head are banking and health care. Both of which seem to be running fabulously.
Two, I'd prefer change that isn't so easily removed, i.e. someone comes along and decides deregulation can improve things.
August 5, 2009 9:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
You actually point to the two industries with "regulations" that have proved ineffective yet were never modified.
In the case of the banking industry, we had them heavily regulated for sixty years and it worked just fine. It wasn't until a democratic president relaxed many of those rules on the heals of a republican president who started the trend and a corporate culture that was prepared to take advantage of both.
I don't see the lack of effective regulation of those industries as a reason to nationalize them considering the fact that the government was part of the failure to begin with.
August 5, 2009 9:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
The ones I'm thinking of, Hill, are telecommunications and utilities. We have been able to slap regulations on them, and as far as I can tell, I still have electricity and a telephone, and there are programs in place in both instances to make sure that the poor can have access.
I am not one who wants to see the insurance/pharma companies ridden out of town on a rail. They employ a good many people in this country, and to just wipe them out in these economic times would be foolish. But to regulate the bejeezus out them and require them to provide coverage to everyone, or face the government going into competition with them, seems reasonable. Sort of an ultimatum..."you cover them, or we will...take your pick."
When you look at the gazillions of dollars of profits these companies are making, on top of the multimillion dollar salaries of the CEOs, it is just frickin' illogical to believe they can't be covering more people for less money and still survive. Then factor in all the waste and outright fraud that is going on, the whole health care industry (including medicare and medicaid) is seriously overdue for an overhaul, and when better than RIGHT NOW?
And, for my money, anyone defrauding the government ought to be prosecuted for treason!
These clowns are so good at passing laws, if there isn't one that allows for that, MAKE ONE!
August 5, 2009 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm with Jason, Fred, in that if we reform the insurance and pharmaceutical industries correctly, the need for a public option will be obsolete. In most cases, I prefer that private industry rather than the government run business. But when we are talking about things that are absolute necessities of life, we need to have government regulation in order to keep these "have to haves" available for all. We've pretty much done it with utilities, we can do it with health care.
In a perfect world, these businesses would regulate themselves. We don't live in a perfect world. If the threat of a public option is enough to get the industries in line, then threaten it. If the public option is the only way to get health insurance for all, then that is what we should do.
There was an interesting show on CNBC about the health care mess. On it Jennifer Granholm said we need to come up with a uniquely American program based on the positive parts of other countries programs and what will work for Americans.
Frankly, I find it sad that we need to be in such a hurry to get something, anything done. But, we've waited so long, now it has become a crisis. We HAVE to act quickly, before any more people fall through the cracks. Hopefully whatever we do will be flexible enough that we can tweak it and make improvements as time goes by, and eventually come up with a world class health care system.
I think we CAN, I just don't know if the %^%$#*&% politicians can put all the b.s. aside and do what needs to be done.
August 4, 2009 11:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, like this one.
Turn all the government plans into a single plan and call it Americare. It will cover everyone currently on government health insurance in some way, shape or form and also allow anyone who is uninsured, runs a small business or is self employed to buy in at a rate commiserate with their taxable income.
At the same time, regulate the insurance industry to within an inch of its life. Like we did to the meatpacking or telecommunications industries in the past. Show them we are serious and able to install Americare in their place if they don't straighten up.
I could see Americare becoming very similar to the German or Dutch or Swiss system, in which private, nonprofit insurance companies vie to cover as many Americans as they can, but with a lot of publicly-owned medical infrastructure at the VA and DoD that reminds me of the UK.
In order for Obama and the democratic Congress to be successful, single payer cultists need stop positioning the public option as a Trojan horse.
August 5, 2009 8:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Like we did to the meatpacking or telecommunications industries in the past.
It seems to me that the critical part of your proposal is that we have the governemnt regulate things. Have we learned nothing from the past eight years? What happened to the miners with all those unenforced mining regulations? The financial industry had regulations, but the government abrogated its responsibilities The only real answer is to have healthcare run by the government, but I can accept it will take time to bring people around to the idea their insurance provider wishes to only provide coverage to the healthy.
August 5, 2009 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
If we can't trust them regulate health care how can we trust them to run it?
August 5, 2009 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good question!
August 5, 2009 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's more likely that a government official would get press about abandonment of those responsibilities then a disgruntled employee. I think the MSM is less likley to challenge the private sector then they are the government. I don't trust either one. I just feel more confident we can change government then we can change a corporation.
August 5, 2009 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess I have to repeat it a different way. The entire US government is out of control as it is and riddled with fraud, waste and abuse at all levels.
It makes more sense, at least to me, to make them perform the duties we already require and pay them to do without adding a whole new set of tasks that they will most likely fuck up in some way, given the structural issues with government in general. We need to fix government, I agree, but not at the expense of fixing our health care system first.
I am all for a strong public option. I think it should have actually been built by combining all the current government plans into one and then adding the uninsured and uninsurable. It would have sought to fix the problems that exist rather than ignoring that new problems are sure to be introduced in such a drastic shift.
I would have figured you would be more a fan of smart and incremental change - though potentially exponential with the right execution - over a series of years and adjusted as needed. Work smarter and not harder and certainly don't throw buckets of money at institutions that have not proven themselves capable for a very long time.
August 5, 2009 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it can be done with smart, incremental change rather then a sudden switch, but I have a serious distaste for health insurers, any and all. That system is intrinsically flawed in that monies that could go for more treatment or management go to profits. The only voice that needs to be heard in the pursuit of healthcare should be that of the patient and their provider, not some corporatist with their hand out.
August 5, 2009 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
No argument. At this point, the legislation is so confused by partisan bickering, I can't even begin to assess the actual bills being discussed. I have to reserve final judgment on its efficacy once it comes out of Conference Committee for a final roll call vote in the House and Senate.
August 5, 2009 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Better yet, put your efforts where your mouth is and work harder to accompish what you want."
What do you know about how hard I work my causes?
August 4, 2009 6:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just a guess...most people here who are working on projects let the rest of us know what they are up to...If you ARE working on anything, we'd love to hear about it. And if you DO have projects going to advance the cause...good on you!
August 4, 2009 9:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think that Stilli's on the right track. I'm starting to think that if we want politicians who will change things, then we have to make the primaries matter. Work for the opposition candidates. Advertise that the primaries are actually important.
I'm kind of interested in what's going to happen in the Sestak/Specter contest, for example.
August 4, 2009 6:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought the legislature was responsible for crafting health care reform, not the President. Did "Schoolhouse Rock" steer me wrong?
August 4, 2009 8:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
If it were only up to Congress, why did Obama run on a specific health care plan? Remember the debates in the primaries?
August 4, 2009 9:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is only up to Congress.
If you think that has changed, please cite the Constitutional Amendment that applies.
Thnkx
August 4, 2009 9:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure of the point here. Coming from a person as smart as you, I assume you're just looking for a way to dump on me and the post.
Obviously, the Congress technically creates the bill under the constitution, though plenty of bills have been partly written by such entities as industry, insurance companies, and other corporate interests. The President has to sign the bill.
More importantly, if the President plays no role, what the hell were the differences on health care plans between Clinton and Obama about? Did they not know the constitution?
August 5, 2009 6:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh come on. There's a reason the President is referred to as the Chief Legislator.
Article I, Section 7: "every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approves it he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections."
Article II, Section 3: “ He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient."
I think it's somewhat safe to assume that everyone here understands the process by which laws are made, as well as the restraints of executive power. But from the federal budget to meeting with Congress to the bully pulpit, the President unquestionably plays a role in the legislative agenda. I do not think that blame for failures in this realm falls solely on his shoulders, as I have plenty of anger to go around all of Congress.
But throughout the primaries and election, I strongly believed one of the reasons Obama would make a good leader, at this time, is because he inspired action, on the part of the people. And sadly, I don't think Obama is using the bully pulpit the way he could.
August 5, 2009 10:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
See, we can agree on something! I think the bully pulpit could have been used much more effectively to build on the gains made moderate republicans and independents.
August 5, 2009 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, the guy with the old Teddy Roosevelt avatar celebrates the bully pulpit! Who say that coming?!? LOL.
I was missing the old Rough Rider as I read her comment too!
August 5, 2009 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well said.
August 5, 2009 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Congress fails, I still would like the modest health reforms that would pass, like banning exclusions for preexisting conditions and ending the practice of "recission". This is evil shit from sleazy, murderous health insurance cartels. ("Killing for profit") And real people will suffer/die in the decades until we finally get HCR. It would be unconscionable to veto this "on principle" because we didn't get our big plan.
In the choice between symbolic gesture and letting that old lady with the bad kidney live another year, I choose the latter. Banning abuses must past no matter what.
(Clinton's reforms AFTER the failed HCR, as modest as they were, are still better than nothing -- HIPAA portability, COBRA (expensive, but still, better than zip), and lookback limits on preexisting)
August 4, 2009 10:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
60 House Democrats have written a letter to Pelosi sating that they will not support a bill without a public option. There is strong sentiment among progressive Democrats to block a bill.
August 5, 2009 6:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Liberal democrats may support a veto without a public option, but not real progressives. Progress is made via compromise and consistency and by putting one foot in front of the other, not by lines drawn in the sand and immovable ideology.
August 5, 2009 8:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Get back to us when you've read American history.
August 5, 2009 9:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Show me a single progressive change in this country that was delivered whole-cloth from the womb of ideological musings.
Civil Rights? Nope, took place over two decades. Medicare? Took ten years. Changes in labor laws? Decades. Suffrage? Achieved over a period of fifty years between the end of the Civil War and the signing of the 19th Amendment. Ironically enough, it followed the Amendment that curtailed our inalienable rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
Check back with me when you have read up on American history. Nothing has ever changed in this country based solely on the rage and anger of ideologues. It took pragmatists like MLK and LBJ and FDR to actually get things done.
August 5, 2009 9:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Pragmatists on the backs of radicals who drew lines in the sand with blood. That came first. Oh, I have to run out and get a picture of LBJ so I can give perpetual thanks.
August 5, 2009 9:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
MLK was hardly a radical. He changed this country through the consistent application of truth and empathy and over a period of years. The radicals of the movement - the Black Panthers and Nation of Islam - actually accomplished very little.
America has had to step over the blood in the sand to order to reach a new destination beyond the battle lines. Progress in this country has been defined by a dance between our pragmatic and logical selves in conflict with our more excitable and intractable fringes to reach compromise solutions that work for all.
I think you are a bit mistaken in your reading of American history.
August 5, 2009 10:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sorry. Did I say that MLK was a radical? Can you make your point without making up things that I've posted?
August 5, 2009 10:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
You said it was pragmatists, like LBJ, on the backs of radicals. I assumed you meant MLK since he was the one most responsible for creating the environment in which LBJ could be successful. Not making anything up, just trying to follow your train of thought, such as it is.
August 5, 2009 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink