Oh that makes more sense but I thought that chart was old. Everything I do is contract work so no insurance. I don't know if the help will apply or if it will be enough if it does apply.
It may well be, I'm just quoting Speaker. I'm sure we'll get more up to date info from the people whose job it is to read these things and make useful charts out of the data by the time cloture gets invoked. Plus subsidy levels seems like something that will likely get tweaked (to the better) in conference, unlike other parts of the bill.
I'm trying to work out the numbers here. I have a hard time even counting in some magic number like 5k/year in case of dire emergency of making 20k per year on coverage, unless a basic doctors/dentists appointment runs at 500 bucks and includes a complimentary BJ
Robman on
0
Options
Der Waffle MousBlame this on the misfortune of your birth.New Yark, New Yark.Registered Userregular
Isn't it great? We spend more on healthcare per family than some countries with better health care make in gdp per capita
That's the cost of shouldering the crucial burden of paying for the pharmaceutical companies' advertising budgets so the rest of the world doesn't have to. 8-)
I'm trying to work out the numbers here. I have a hard time even counting in some magic number like 5k/year in case of dire emergency of making 20k per year on coverage, unless a basic doctors/dentists appointment runs at 500 bucks and includes a complimentary BJ
You're forgetting the cost of paying the researchers who try to deny claims and the gold plated toilets in the executive bathroom.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
I'm trying to work out the numbers here. I have a hard time even counting in some magic number like 5k/year in case of dire emergency of making 20k per year on coverage, unless a basic doctors/dentists appointment runs at 500 bucks and includes a complimentary BJ
You're forgetting the cost of paying the researchers who try to deny claims and the gold plated toilets in the executive bathroom.
Don't be silly, there are only 3 golden toilets in existence and they're all in Asia.
Now, Renaissance era tapestries as shower curtains...
But let us not forget that the real reason the systems are broken and the insurance companies are shafting consumers is because the Government has prevented the insurance industry from offering different business plans and deals!
The one serious issue now is that the bill has no allure to people on the left or the indies, and a whole bunch of left-wing voices are still stuck in the kind of mode where they would rather posture against the bill than help build enthusiasm for 2010. They think that not complaining is bad for the spirit - well you know what else is bad for the spirit? Losing a chamber of congress. Rather a party that feels OK with unpleasant compromises than a party that can't ever be happy about anything.
Basically, if there is one lesson that can be learned here, it's that the White House needs to work harder and deeper and that Reid needs to go. Turning an important bill that was supposed to be a bulwark in 2010 to an albatross just because you wanted the best bill ever and didn't get it is... Not too clever.
Eh, it looks to me like there's been some movement today towards accepting it and destroying Nelson and Lieberman out of spite.
Sen. Lincoln didn't make too many friends for her re-election bid next November though.
EDIT: For example, only half the rec list at Daily Kos is hating the Democratic Party today. There's even one "yay, this bill!" diary there. Progress!
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
0
Options
mojojoeoA block off the park, living the dream.Registered Userregular
edited December 2009
Hi. Filthy republican here. I think the public option is horrifying. I don't care for an argument over it. That statement is to give context for my honest question-
Ok, so the left has the 60. But I read what the bill they have 60 for entails. No public option, no Medicare buy in, cross state insurance, kids cant be denied, some more reforms to insurance that are not bad, some sort of deficit reduction, fancy new taxes, and lots of pork.
WTF is the point of this? I mean. If they passed the public option- at least we'd all get health care. Now all we get is a little bit of reform (reform that seems sensible) on the insurance companies and taxes?
Is this really a win for the left?
And I mean joe average guy with a leftist sensibility. Nothing wrong with an opinion. Its nuts how you cant lean one way or the other these days without someone hating you for it.
mojojoeo on
Chief Wiggum: "Ladies, please. All our founding fathers, astronauts, and World Series heroes have been either drunk or on cocaine."
So since this thing is just about graven in stone now, I'd like to sort of pose some retrospective hypothetical questions.
Lets rewind the clock to Nov 4th, 2008. What could Obama and the progressive wing of the Democratic party done to get a more comprehensive health reform bill than they did? I'm not talking about what would be in such a bill, more like what they would have had to do to achieve it. reconciliation, more political pressure on certain senators, assassinate harry reid, whatever.
Put more generally: could we ever have gotten comprehensive health care reform from nov 4, 2008 till end of 2009 given the realities of our political situation (the particular senators in office, the way the filibuster works)? Was comprehensive health care reform a nonstarter from the beginning or was it buried along the way? I'm feeling like this is the best we could have accomplished what I'm wondering is why that is. Why couldn't we have done better? Why couldn't we have gotten the comprehensive health care reform this country needs?
You forgot the biggie, which is the individual mandate + subsidies so it's (more) affordable. What the left gets, in theory, is (near) universal coverage. Next step is to actually make it affordable, when your party stops being obnoxious.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Well the answer to that question really won't be apparent until we see the full reaction from the insurance industry to this bill. If rates skyrocket, then a public option will slam into place so that Senators don't go home to guillotines.
So since this thing is just about graven in stone now, I'd like to sort of pose some retrospective hypothetical questions.
Lets rewind the clock to Nov 4th, 2008. What could Obama and the progressive wing of the Democratic party done to get a more comprehensive health reform bill than they did? I'm not talking about what would be in such a bill, more like what they would have had to do to achieve it. reconciliation, more political pressure on certain senators, assassinate harry reid, whatever.
Abolish the filibuster when they rewrote/approved the Senate Rules or turn cloture requirements into a simple majority. Otherwise it was always resting on the 5 'centrist' Dems (and, back then Specter, Snowe, or Collins) being less sociopathic than they apparently are.
Eh, it looks to me like there's been some movement today towards accepting it and destroying Nelson and Lieberman out of spite.
Sen. Lincoln didn't make too many friends for her re-election bid next November though.
But still, the bill now sounds really bad to the public and the left isn't really feeling any elation even though they should (and definitely should focus their anger and disappointment on deserving targets rather than don eyeshadow, download My Chemical Romance and then go hug a fucking pillow), and all this because the White House felt that it was too good to do any hard marketing work. It's rather very important that the focus now is on properly learning a few lessons and not go apathetic. 2010 is going to be bad - it shouldn't be unprecedentedly so, considering there are more issues than HC to deal with, and there is no way in hell you want any of the 2012 GOP candidates to have more than a girl's chance in Afghanistan, considering what horrible, stupid people they are.
So since this thing is just about graven in stone now, I'd like to sort of pose some retrospective hypothetical questions.
Lets rewind the clock to Nov 4th, 2008. What could Obama and the progressive wing of the Democratic party done to get a more comprehensive health reform bill than they did? I'm not talking about what would be in such a bill, more like what they would have had to do to achieve it. reconciliation, more political pressure on certain senators, assassinate harry reid, whatever.
Put more generally: could we ever have gotten comprehensive health care reform from nov 4, 2008 till end of 2009 given the realities of our political situation (the particular senators in office, the way the filibuster works)? Was comprehensive health care reform a nonstarter from the beginning or was it buried along the way? I'm feeling like this is the best we could have accomplished what I'm wondering is why that is. Why couldn't we have done better? Why couldn't we have gotten the comprehensive health care reform this country needs?
We had this argument for like 20 pages in the last thread. The left would say they needed to provide some kind of leverage on the moderate assholes. Easiest one would be to threaten reconciliation if the Senators pushed too far. Alternately, threaten to withhold DNC funding for Nelson, tell Lieberman they'll stay out of the Connecticut Senate race (the netroots would take him down anyway, funding wise so not much of a sacrifice), give Nelson whatever he wants farm bill wise, just something other than: we need your vote, we'll do anything to get it.
It would have been nice if someone in the Democratic caucus led a coup to unseat Reid like Waxman did to unseat Dingell in the House. But that wasn't terribly likely.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
On the subject of health care plans: it is vastly cheaper for someone that regularly exercises and eats right to wait until shit gets terrible and then go visit an urgent care clinic or an ER rather than pay for insurance.
Preventive care seems to not even be on the radar though it is so much cheaper and more productive to have someone not be sick in the first place.
Well the answer to that question really won't be apparent until we see the full reaction from the insurance industry to this bill. If rates skyrocket, then a public option will slam into place so that Senators don't go home to guillotines.
There IS a clause that if they do this they're banished from the exchanges in the bill and don't get all the tasty new forced customers.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Eh, it looks to me like there's been some movement today towards accepting it and destroying Nelson and Lieberman out of spite.
Sen. Lincoln didn't make too many friends for her re-election bid next November though.
But still, the bill now sounds really bad to the public and the left isn't really feeling any elation even though they should (and definitely should focus their anger and disappointment on deserving targets rather than don eyeshadow, download My Chemical Romance and then go hug a fucking pillow), and all this because the White House felt that it was too good to do any hard marketing work. It's rather very important that the focus now is on properly learning a few lessons and not go apathetic. 2010 is going to be bad - it shouldn't be unprecedentedly so, considering there are more issues than HC to deal with, and there is no way in hell you want any of the 2012 GOP candidates to have more than a girl's chance in Afghanistan, considering what horrible, stupid people they are.
Yeah, the sales job sucked. They should have pushed Baucus' stupid ass to move faster too, now that I think about it. He was negotiating with Sen. Enzi, for God's sake. that was never going to happen.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
So since this thing is just about graven in stone now, I'd like to sort of pose some retrospective hypothetical questions.
Lets rewind the clock to Nov 4th, 2008. What could Obama and the progressive wing of the Democratic party done to get a more comprehensive health reform bill than they did? I'm not talking about what would be in such a bill, more like what they would have had to do to achieve it. reconciliation, more political pressure on certain senators, assassinate harry reid, whatever.
Put more generally: could we ever have gotten comprehensive health care reform from nov 4, 2008 till end of 2009 given the realities of our political situation (the particular senators in office, the way the filibuster works)? Was comprehensive health care reform a nonstarter from the beginning or was it buried along the way? I'm feeling like this is the best we could have accomplished what I'm wondering is why that is. Why couldn't we have done better? Why couldn't we have gotten the comprehensive health care reform this country needs?
We had this argument for like 20 pages in the last thread. The left would say they needed to provide some kind of leverage on the moderate assholes. Easiest one would be to threaten reconciliation if the Senators pushed too far. Alternately, threaten to withhold DNC funding for Nelson, tell Lieberman they'll stay out of the Connecticut Senate race (the netroots would take him down anyway, funding wise so not much of a sacrifice), give Nelson whatever he wants farm bill wise, just something other than: we need your vote, we'll do anything to get it.
It would have been nice if someone in the Democratic caucus led a coup to unseat Reid like Waxman did to unseat Dingell in the House. But that wasn't terribly likely.
Stop calling the blue dogs moderates - they're nothing of the sort. There are almost no true moderates in American politics, the "leftist" democrats are pretty much the only true moderates you guys have. Even within the scope of possibility in America, moderates don't blindly advocate a single viewpoint. That's what a fanatic does.
So since this thing is just about graven in stone now, I'd like to sort of pose some retrospective hypothetical questions.
Lets rewind the clock to Nov 4th, 2008. What could Obama and the progressive wing of the Democratic party done to get a more comprehensive health reform bill than they did? I'm not talking about what would be in such a bill, more like what they would have had to do to achieve it. reconciliation, more political pressure on certain senators, assassinate harry reid, whatever.
Put more generally: could we ever have gotten comprehensive health care reform from nov 4, 2008 till end of 2009 given the realities of our political situation (the particular senators in office, the way the filibuster works)? Was comprehensive health care reform a nonstarter from the beginning or was it buried along the way? I'm feeling like this is the best we could have accomplished what I'm wondering is why that is. Why couldn't we have done better? Why couldn't we have gotten the comprehensive health care reform this country needs?
We had this argument for like 20 pages in the last thread. The left would say they needed to provide some kind of leverage on the moderate assholes. Easiest one would be to threaten reconciliation if the Senators pushed too far. Alternately, threaten to withhold DNC funding for Nelson, tell Lieberman they'll stay out of the Connecticut Senate race (the netroots would take him down anyway, funding wise so not much of a sacrifice), give Nelson whatever he wants farm bill wise, just something other than: we need your vote, we'll do anything to get it.
It would have been nice if someone in the Democratic caucus led a coup to unseat Reid like Waxman did to unseat Dingell in the House. But that wasn't terribly likely.
Stop calling the blue dogs moderates - they're nothing of the sort. There are almost no true moderates in American politics, the "leftist" democrats are pretty much the only true moderates you guys have. Even within the scope of possibility in America, moderates don't blindly advocate a single viewpoint. That's what a fanatic does.
Yeah, sorry, forgot my quote marks. I should just call them Broderist assholes.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Hi. Filthy republican here. I think the public option is horrifying. I don't care for an argument over it. That statement is to give context for my honest question-
Ok, so the left has the 60. But I read what the bill they have 60 for entails. No public option, no Medicare buy in, cross state insurance, kids cant be denied, some more reforms to insurance that are not bad, some sort of deficit reduction, fancy new taxes, and lots of pork.
WTF is the point of this? I mean. If they passed the public option- at least we'd all get health care. Now all we get is a little bit of reform (reform that seems sensible) on the insurance companies and taxes?
Is this really a win for the left?
And I mean joe average guy with a leftist sensibility. Nothing wrong with an opinion. Its nuts how you cant lean one way or the other these days without someone hating you for it.
This is from a little while back, but I don't think any of them have been impacted too much by the horse trading to overcome the new found supermajority requirement for all major legislation.
No Discrimination for Pre-Existing Conditions
Insurance companies will be prohibited from refusing you coverage because of your medical history.
No Exorbitant Out-of-Pocket Expenses, Deductibles or Co-Pays
Insurance companies will have to abide by yearly caps on how much they can charge for out-of-pocket expenses.
No Cost-Sharing for Preventive Care
Insurance companies must fully cover, without charge, regular checkups and tests that help you prevent illness, such as mammograms or eye and foot exams for diabetics.
No Dropping of Coverage for Seriously Ill
Insurance companies will be prohibited from dropping or watering down insurance coverage for those who become seriously ill.
No Gender Discrimination
Insurance companies will be prohibited from charging you more because of your gender.
No Annual or Lifetime Caps on Coverage
Insurance companies will be prevented from placing annual or lifetime caps on the coverage you receive.
Extended Coverage for Young Adults
Children would continue to be eligible for family coverage through the age of 26.
Guaranteed Insurance Renewal
Insurance companies will be required to renew any policy as long as the policyholder pays their premium in full. Insurance companies won’t be allowed to refuse renewal because someone became sick.
Plus the existence of exchanges that are required to meet OPM requirements that will be seemingly be akin to FEHB standards. And supposedly some aspect of Wyden's great ideas are incorporated so maybe the exchanges won't be so idiotically picky right out of the gate as first seemed to be the case.
Hi. Filthy republican here. I think the public option is horrifying. I don't care for an argument over it. That statement is to give context for my honest question-
Ok, so the left has the 60. But I read what the bill they have 60 for entails. No public option, no Medicare buy in, cross state insurance, kids cant be denied, some more reforms to insurance that are not bad, some sort of deficit reduction, fancy new taxes, and lots of pork.
WTF is the point of this? I mean. If they passed the public option- at least we'd all get health care. Now all we get is a little bit of reform (reform that seems sensible) on the insurance companies and taxes?
Is this really a win for the left?
And I mean joe average guy with a leftist sensibility. Nothing wrong with an opinion. Its nuts how you cant lean one way or the other these days without someone hating you for it.
The point is have you heard of GM? That health care company that makes cars too? That's what the US already is. We spend a ridiculous amount of money on health care compared to other first world nations who have better health care than us.
So we pay more and we get less. Why would you as a Republican, who is supposed to be for fiscal responsibility, want to continue on this path?
Hi. Filthy republican here. I think the public option is horrifying. I don't care for an argument over it. That statement is to give context for my honest question-
Ok, so the left has the 60. But I read what the bill they have 60 for entails. No public option, no Medicare buy in, cross state insurance, kids cant be denied, some more reforms to insurance that are not bad, some sort of deficit reduction, fancy new taxes, and lots of pork.
WTF is the point of this? I mean. If they passed the public option- at least we'd all get health care. Now all we get is a little bit of reform (reform that seems sensible) on the insurance companies and taxes?
Is this really a win for the left?
And I mean joe average guy with a leftist sensibility. Nothing wrong with an opinion. Its nuts how you cant lean one way or the other these days without someone hating you for it.
First off, what are your main sources of information about this? Depending upon the case, you may need to strongly reevaluate them and their accuracy.
What the left really wanted (the real left, not simply all Democrats) was a single payer system, which would basically be Medicare but for everybody instead of those 65 and older. Their preferred approach probably would have been just to expand Medicare and reform it a bit, then adjust taxation or have people pay premiums directly into it. There's already a way to pay premiums into Medicare to get it now if you haven't paid enough times into payroll taxes, but it still has an age limit.
Single payer was preemptively compromised away for the public option at the beginning of the process, which basically would have been a government run insurance company. So it would do the same thing as an insurance company, take in premiums and pool them together to pay out claims, but it would be answerable to government administration instead of a private board of directors or shareholders. Since a lot of health insurers operate more or less as a monopoly and have exemption from anti-trust laws, one of the big motivators for this was that the public option would provide competition to the for-profit insurers that could not be easily railroaded or taken over. That got chopped down bit by bit so that only a small slice of the population could buy into it, and in the end Lieberman put a full and final dagger into the heart of it in the Senate compromises.
So parts of left have been in more or less open revolt over this bill. It still has some good stuff, like community rating and subsidies, but a lot of the left is pissed that there will be mandates to buy health insurance with no option to buy it from the government instead of the private health insurers. And there's plenty of good reason for this fear, as the private health insurers have been doing some rather despicable things. If you've ever seen the movie the Rainmaker, it's sorta like that but the health insurance companies win.
If this bill passes in its current form, it might end up working out and being ok, but I wouldn't really call it a huge victory for the left. It's much closer to the Swiss system than something like the Canadian system, much less the full on socialized healthcare of Great Britain. Basically, I think this bill should be about what the GOP would offer if they hadn't gone so completely batshit insane as of late.
Savant on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
Hi. Filthy republican here. I think the public option is horrifying. I don't care for an argument over it. That statement is to give context for my honest question-
Ok, so the left has the 60. But I read what the bill they have 60 for entails. No public option, no Medicare buy in, cross state insurance, kids cant be denied, some more reforms to insurance that are not bad, some sort of deficit reduction, fancy new taxes, and lots of pork.
WTF is the point of this? I mean. If they passed the public option- at least we'd all get health care. Now all we get is a little bit of reform (reform that seems sensible) on the insurance companies and taxes?
Is this really a win for the left?
And I mean joe average guy with a leftist sensibility. Nothing wrong with an opinion. Its nuts how you cant lean one way or the other these days without someone hating you for it.
mandate + subsidies = massively expanded coverage (a big win for the left)
elimination of rescision and pre-existing condition considerations a big win for everyone who relies on health insurance
funding through very progressive tax structures is a big win for the left
the public option was only useful for cost containment and creeping socialism. at the end, it was so castrated as to be useless anyways
so overall a pretty good bill I would say, though it is not the single payer system that a lot of people on the left would like to see. it does chip away at some of the industry dominance though, and we might see more inroads in future iterations.
how do you supporters of the bill square your position with the fact that a majority of americans oppose it in its current form? you do realize that the democrats are committing political suicide by passing such a neutered bill, right?
i'm just curious, because as a committed leftist the bill seems to be nothing but corporate welfare and a betrayal of the public trust.
how do you supporters of the bill square your position with the fact that a majority of americans oppose it in its current form? you do realize that the democrats are committing political suicide by passing such a neutered bill, right?
Politics is the art of the possible.
They're squaring off against a group that will stonewall the will of the public no matter what, and the public won't (some would argue rightfully) pass the blame on to the minority element.
how do you supporters of the bill square your position with the fact that a majority of americans oppose it in its current form? you do realize that the democrats are committing political suicide by passing such a neutered bill, right?
It's quite possible! We'll see what happens when it starts taking effect.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
how do you supporters of the bill square your position with the fact that a majority of americans oppose it in its current form? you do realize that the democrats are committing political suicide by passing such a neutered bill, right?
How much support was there for Medicare back when? I agree a lot of political capital has been lost, but the is that once the media moves on to something new, many in the ADD public will forget that it's supposed to be cranky.
how do you supporters of the bill square your position with the fact that a majority of americans oppose it in its current form? you do realize that the democrats are committing political suicide by passing such a neutered bill, right?
It's quite possible! We'll see what happens when it starts taking effect.
In 2028.
Oh fuck now some a y'all have rubbed off your whiny BS on me.
Kastanj on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
how do you supporters of the bill square your position with the fact that a majority of americans oppose it in its current form? you do realize that the democrats are committing political suicide by passing such a neutered bill, right?
Eh I am not all that worried. The opposition is almost entirely reflexive and ideological and to almost no degree has anything to do with the actual substance of the bill.
Left wingers oppose it because they want UHC and don't want insurance companies to make money.
Right wingers oppose it because... well, I guess the democrats proposed it? Because they don't like he government doing anything? I don't really know any good reasons that right wingers shouldn't like it.
Anyways the point is right-wingers are going to vote for republicans anyways and left-wingers don't really have anywhere to go. It might depress turnout if liberals are super-unhappy, but honestly there is really no way to prevent that.
The biggest deal is where turnout is depressed. Hopefully, Connecticut voters will be pissed and come out to keep their good Senator, for example. If it's depressed where I am, on the other hand... Dingell still wins.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
how do you supporters of the bill square your position with the fact that a majority of americans oppose it in its current form?
A majority of Americans understand the bill?
you do realize that the democrats are committing political suicide by passing such a neutered bill, right?
In comparison to what, exactly?
wow this board moves fast
first of all, you play into the stereotype of the elitist liberal when you claim that people don't support the bill because they don't understand it. they know there will be a mandate, and subsidies for some, but no real competition from the public sector.
how do you supporters of the bill square your position with the fact that a majority of americans oppose it in its current form? you do realize that the democrats are committing political suicide by passing such a neutered bill, right?
Some of the revolt on the left is attributable to this. A lot of people, myself included, have lost faith in the White House's ability to negotiate on behalf of the American public. They've been captured by the completely idiotic beltway mindset, which gets into the Broderism stuff enlightenedbum is talking about.
The bill still might be worth passing even if it is unpopular and comes at a political cost, but it's still a bit too early to tell because the House still has some say in the process in conference committee. It might be easier to get this done now then add good stuff later bit by bit. I think a public option would be a lot easier to push through a la carte after the next election if it doesn't go too negatively for the Democrats, as they could just go straight to reconciliation without too much worry.
If anything, this process has shown those who are paying attention just how broken our legislative institutions are at the moment, and by that I mean the Senate is totally fucked up. Also, the Democrats really need to do some housecleaning. Come election time, no more of bending over backwards for blue-dog "moderates" who are a bunch of whores rather than actual ideological moderates. Moderates with some intellectual honesty that don't do what they can to fuck everything up should be kept though. If the White House balks and Rahm Emmanuel cries foul then nuts to them.
how do you supporters of the bill square your position with the fact that a majority of americans oppose it in its current form?
A majority of Americans understand the bill?
you do realize that the democrats are committing political suicide by passing such a neutered bill, right?
In comparison to what, exactly?
wow this board moves fast
first of all, you play into the stereotype of the elitist liberal when you claim that people don't support the bill because they don't understand it. they know there will be a mandate, and subsidies for some, but no real competition from the public sector.
how do you supporters of the bill square your position with the fact that a majority of americans oppose it in its current form? you do realize that the democrats are committing political suicide by passing such a neutered bill, right?
Some of the revolt on the left is attributable to this. A lot of people, myself included, have lost faith in the White House's ability to negotiate on behalf of the American public. They've been captured by the completely idiotic beltway mindset, which gets into the Broderism stuff enlightenedbum is talking about.
The bill still might be worth passing even if it is unpopular and comes at a political cost, but it's still a bit too early to tell because the House still has some say in the process in conference committee. It might be easier to get this done now then add good stuff later bit by bit. I think a public option would be a lot easier to push through a la carte after the next election if it doesn't go too negatively for the Democrats, as they could just go straight to reconciliation without too much worry.
If anything, this process has shown those who are paying attention just how broken our legislative institutions are at the moment, and by that I mean the Senate is totally fucked up. Also, the Democrats really need to do some housecleaning. Come election time, no more of bending over backwards for blue-dog "moderates" who are a bunch of whores rather than actual ideological moderates. Moderates with some intellectual honesty that don't do what they can to fuck everything up should be kept though. If the White House balks and Rahm Emmanuel cries foul then nuts to them.
Except most of the Blue Dogs and such exist pretty much BECAUSE they are ConservaDems. It's how they got elected. If they get replaced, it'll be by someone similar or a Republican in most (all?) cases.
how do you supporters of the bill square your position with the fact that a majority of americans oppose it in its current form?
A majority of Americans understand the bill?
you do realize that the democrats are committing political suicide by passing such a neutered bill, right?
In comparison to what, exactly?
wow this board moves fast
first of all, you play into the stereotype of the elitist liberal when you claim that people don't support the bill because they don't understand it. they know there will be a mandate, and subsidies for some, but no real competition from the public sector.
in comparison to the senate deal that was leaked last week, the one that had a medicare buy-in for those 55 and older
No, they don't now what's in the bill. NOBODY knew what was in the bill till like ... today.
People dislike a phantom bill the media has conjured in their minds.
This was best illustrated by the poll a few months ago which found a seventeen point gap between "Obama's bill" and a theoretical bill pitched to the respondent by the pollster which described... the bill Obama was looking for.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
how do you supporters of the bill square your position with the fact that a majority of americans oppose it in its current form? you do realize that the democrats are committing political suicide by passing such a neutered bill, right?
Some of the revolt on the left is attributable to this. A lot of people, myself included, have lost faith in the White House's ability to negotiate on behalf of the American public. They've been captured by the completely idiotic beltway mindset, which gets into the Broderism stuff enlightenedbum is talking about.
The bill still might be worth passing even if it is unpopular and comes at a political cost, but it's still a bit too early to tell because the House still has some say in the process in conference committee. It might be easier to get this done now then add good stuff later bit by bit. I think a public option would be a lot easier to push through a la carte after the next election if it doesn't go too negatively for the Democrats, as they could just go straight to reconciliation without too much worry.
If anything, this process has shown those who are paying attention just how broken our legislative institutions are at the moment, and by that I mean the Senate is totally fucked up. Also, the Democrats really need to do some housecleaning. Come election time, no more of bending over backwards for blue-dog "moderates" who are a bunch of whores rather than actual ideological moderates. Moderates with some intellectual honesty that don't do what they can to fuck everything up should be kept though. If the White House balks and Rahm Emmanuel cries foul then nuts to them.
Except most of the Blue Dogs and such exist pretty much BECAUSE they are ConservaDems. It's how they got elected. If they get replaced, it'll be by someone similar or a Republican in most (all?) cases.
There are a decent number of them in D+3 or more districts. Someone light the Gosling signal.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Posts
It may well be, I'm just quoting Speaker. I'm sure we'll get more up to date info from the people whose job it is to read these things and make useful charts out of the data by the time cloture gets invoked. Plus subsidy levels seems like something that will likely get tweaked (to the better) in conference, unlike other parts of the bill.
That's the cost of shouldering the crucial burden of paying for the pharmaceutical companies' advertising budgets so the rest of the world doesn't have to. 8-)
You're forgetting the cost of paying the researchers who try to deny claims and the gold plated toilets in the executive bathroom.
Don't be silly, there are only 3 golden toilets in existence and they're all in Asia.
Now, Renaissance era tapestries as shower curtains...
The one serious issue now is that the bill has no allure to people on the left or the indies, and a whole bunch of left-wing voices are still stuck in the kind of mode where they would rather posture against the bill than help build enthusiasm for 2010. They think that not complaining is bad for the spirit - well you know what else is bad for the spirit? Losing a chamber of congress. Rather a party that feels OK with unpleasant compromises than a party that can't ever be happy about anything.
Basically, if there is one lesson that can be learned here, it's that the White House needs to work harder and deeper and that Reid needs to go. Turning an important bill that was supposed to be a bulwark in 2010 to an albatross just because you wanted the best bill ever and didn't get it is... Not too clever.
Sen. Lincoln didn't make too many friends for her re-election bid next November though.
EDIT: For example, only half the rec list at Daily Kos is hating the Democratic Party today. There's even one "yay, this bill!" diary there. Progress!
Ok, so the left has the 60. But I read what the bill they have 60 for entails. No public option, no Medicare buy in, cross state insurance, kids cant be denied, some more reforms to insurance that are not bad, some sort of deficit reduction, fancy new taxes, and lots of pork.
WTF is the point of this? I mean. If they passed the public option- at least we'd all get health care. Now all we get is a little bit of reform (reform that seems sensible) on the insurance companies and taxes?
Is this really a win for the left?
And I mean joe average guy with a leftist sensibility. Nothing wrong with an opinion. Its nuts how you cant lean one way or the other these days without someone hating you for it.
Lets rewind the clock to Nov 4th, 2008. What could Obama and the progressive wing of the Democratic party done to get a more comprehensive health reform bill than they did? I'm not talking about what would be in such a bill, more like what they would have had to do to achieve it. reconciliation, more political pressure on certain senators, assassinate harry reid, whatever.
Put more generally: could we ever have gotten comprehensive health care reform from nov 4, 2008 till end of 2009 given the realities of our political situation (the particular senators in office, the way the filibuster works)? Was comprehensive health care reform a nonstarter from the beginning or was it buried along the way? I'm feeling like this is the best we could have accomplished what I'm wondering is why that is. Why couldn't we have done better? Why couldn't we have gotten the comprehensive health care reform this country needs?
Abolish the filibuster when they rewrote/approved the Senate Rules or turn cloture requirements into a simple majority. Otherwise it was always resting on the 5 'centrist' Dems (and, back then Specter, Snowe, or Collins) being less sociopathic than they apparently are.
But still, the bill now sounds really bad to the public and the left isn't really feeling any elation even though they should (and definitely should focus their anger and disappointment on deserving targets rather than don eyeshadow, download My Chemical Romance and then go hug a fucking pillow), and all this because the White House felt that it was too good to do any hard marketing work. It's rather very important that the focus now is on properly learning a few lessons and not go apathetic. 2010 is going to be bad - it shouldn't be unprecedentedly so, considering there are more issues than HC to deal with, and there is no way in hell you want any of the 2012 GOP candidates to have more than a girl's chance in Afghanistan, considering what horrible, stupid people they are.
We had this argument for like 20 pages in the last thread. The left would say they needed to provide some kind of leverage on the moderate assholes. Easiest one would be to threaten reconciliation if the Senators pushed too far. Alternately, threaten to withhold DNC funding for Nelson, tell Lieberman they'll stay out of the Connecticut Senate race (the netroots would take him down anyway, funding wise so not much of a sacrifice), give Nelson whatever he wants farm bill wise, just something other than: we need your vote, we'll do anything to get it.
It would have been nice if someone in the Democratic caucus led a coup to unseat Reid like Waxman did to unseat Dingell in the House. But that wasn't terribly likely.
Preventive care seems to not even be on the radar though it is so much cheaper and more productive to have someone not be sick in the first place.
There IS a clause that if they do this they're banished from the exchanges in the bill and don't get all the tasty new forced customers.
Yeah, the sales job sucked. They should have pushed Baucus' stupid ass to move faster too, now that I think about it. He was negotiating with Sen. Enzi, for God's sake. that was never going to happen.
Stop calling the blue dogs moderates - they're nothing of the sort. There are almost no true moderates in American politics, the "leftist" democrats are pretty much the only true moderates you guys have. Even within the scope of possibility in America, moderates don't blindly advocate a single viewpoint. That's what a fanatic does.
Yeah, sorry, forgot my quote marks. I should just call them Broderist assholes.
This is from a little while back, but I don't think any of them have been impacted too much by the horse trading to overcome the new found supermajority requirement for all major legislation.
Plus the existence of exchanges that are required to meet OPM requirements that will be seemingly be akin to FEHB standards. And supposedly some aspect of Wyden's great ideas are incorporated so maybe the exchanges won't be so idiotically picky right out of the gate as first seemed to be the case.
The point is have you heard of GM? That health care company that makes cars too? That's what the US already is. We spend a ridiculous amount of money on health care compared to other first world nations who have better health care than us.
So we pay more and we get less. Why would you as a Republican, who is supposed to be for fiscal responsibility, want to continue on this path?
First off, what are your main sources of information about this? Depending upon the case, you may need to strongly reevaluate them and their accuracy.
What the left really wanted (the real left, not simply all Democrats) was a single payer system, which would basically be Medicare but for everybody instead of those 65 and older. Their preferred approach probably would have been just to expand Medicare and reform it a bit, then adjust taxation or have people pay premiums directly into it. There's already a way to pay premiums into Medicare to get it now if you haven't paid enough times into payroll taxes, but it still has an age limit.
Single payer was preemptively compromised away for the public option at the beginning of the process, which basically would have been a government run insurance company. So it would do the same thing as an insurance company, take in premiums and pool them together to pay out claims, but it would be answerable to government administration instead of a private board of directors or shareholders. Since a lot of health insurers operate more or less as a monopoly and have exemption from anti-trust laws, one of the big motivators for this was that the public option would provide competition to the for-profit insurers that could not be easily railroaded or taken over. That got chopped down bit by bit so that only a small slice of the population could buy into it, and in the end Lieberman put a full and final dagger into the heart of it in the Senate compromises.
So parts of left have been in more or less open revolt over this bill. It still has some good stuff, like community rating and subsidies, but a lot of the left is pissed that there will be mandates to buy health insurance with no option to buy it from the government instead of the private health insurers. And there's plenty of good reason for this fear, as the private health insurers have been doing some rather despicable things. If you've ever seen the movie the Rainmaker, it's sorta like that but the health insurance companies win.
If this bill passes in its current form, it might end up working out and being ok, but I wouldn't really call it a huge victory for the left. It's much closer to the Swiss system than something like the Canadian system, much less the full on socialized healthcare of Great Britain. Basically, I think this bill should be about what the GOP would offer if they hadn't gone so completely batshit insane as of late.
mandate + subsidies = massively expanded coverage (a big win for the left)
elimination of rescision and pre-existing condition considerations a big win for everyone who relies on health insurance
funding through very progressive tax structures is a big win for the left
the public option was only useful for cost containment and creeping socialism. at the end, it was so castrated as to be useless anyways
so overall a pretty good bill I would say, though it is not the single payer system that a lot of people on the left would like to see. it does chip away at some of the industry dominance though, and we might see more inroads in future iterations.
i'm just curious, because as a committed leftist the bill seems to be nothing but corporate welfare and a betrayal of the public trust.
A majority of Americans understand the bill?
In comparison to what, exactly?
Politics is the art of the possible.
They're squaring off against a group that will stonewall the will of the public no matter what, and the public won't (some would argue rightfully) pass the blame on to the minority element.
It's quite possible! We'll see what happens when it starts taking effect.
How much support was there for Medicare back when? I agree a lot of political capital has been lost, but the is that once the media moves on to something new, many in the ADD public will forget that it's supposed to be cranky.
In 2028.
Oh fuck now some a y'all have rubbed off your whiny BS on me.
Eh I am not all that worried. The opposition is almost entirely reflexive and ideological and to almost no degree has anything to do with the actual substance of the bill.
Left wingers oppose it because they want UHC and don't want insurance companies to make money.
Right wingers oppose it because... well, I guess the democrats proposed it? Because they don't like he government doing anything? I don't really know any good reasons that right wingers shouldn't like it.
Anyways the point is right-wingers are going to vote for republicans anyways and left-wingers don't really have anywhere to go. It might depress turnout if liberals are super-unhappy, but honestly there is really no way to prevent that.
NOT passing a bill would be far worse.
first of all, you play into the stereotype of the elitist liberal when you claim that people don't support the bill because they don't understand it. they know there will be a mandate, and subsidies for some, but no real competition from the public sector.
http://act.boldprogressives.org/cms/sign/natpollresults121809/ perhaps a biased source but still
in comparison to the senate deal that was leaked last week, the one that had a medicare buy-in for those 55 and older
Some of the revolt on the left is attributable to this. A lot of people, myself included, have lost faith in the White House's ability to negotiate on behalf of the American public. They've been captured by the completely idiotic beltway mindset, which gets into the Broderism stuff enlightenedbum is talking about.
The bill still might be worth passing even if it is unpopular and comes at a political cost, but it's still a bit too early to tell because the House still has some say in the process in conference committee. It might be easier to get this done now then add good stuff later bit by bit. I think a public option would be a lot easier to push through a la carte after the next election if it doesn't go too negatively for the Democrats, as they could just go straight to reconciliation without too much worry.
If anything, this process has shown those who are paying attention just how broken our legislative institutions are at the moment, and by that I mean the Senate is totally fucked up. Also, the Democrats really need to do some housecleaning. Come election time, no more of bending over backwards for blue-dog "moderates" who are a bunch of whores rather than actual ideological moderates. Moderates with some intellectual honesty that don't do what they can to fuck everything up should be kept though. If the White House balks and Rahm Emmanuel cries foul then nuts to them.
No, they don't now what's in the bill. NOBODY knew what was in the bill till like ... today.
People dislike a phantom bill the media has conjured in their minds.
Except most of the Blue Dogs and such exist pretty much BECAUSE they are ConservaDems. It's how they got elected. If they get replaced, it'll be by someone similar or a Republican in most (all?) cases.
This was best illustrated by the poll a few months ago which found a seventeen point gap between "Obama's bill" and a theoretical bill pitched to the respondent by the pollster which described... the bill Obama was looking for.
There are a decent number of them in D+3 or more districts. Someone light the Gosling signal.
And these leaks happened ... when?
Shit, the bill just changed less then a week ago.
You can't fall back on populism when the populace doesn't know wtf is even going on.
People following this shit religiously barely know wtf is going on.
Most people don't pay that much attention. And the media gets shit wrong, all the time.