US Healthcare Reform

[Park Life 71]

I notice you ignore my questions about why he needs to lean on his party. Thats because his party, upon whom he relies completely to affect any sort of change whatsoever, are made up of socially democratic yet fiscally conservative members. Which for me characterises the real issues facing Obama everyday. Its through this prism that i look at the leftist credentials of his policies. It may appear like i'm being an apologist but i was one of the few suggesting tempered expectations before he got elected.

 

Also we misread what liberal left really means in the States. All three of us for instance would be regarded as wide left by an American.

[ChezGiven 0]

I notice you ignore my questions about why he needs to lean on his party. Thats because his party, upon whom he relies completely to affect any sort of change whatsoever, are made up of socially democratic yet fiscally conservative members. Which for me characterises the real issues facing Obama everyday. Its through this prism that i look at the leftist credentials of his policies. It may appear like i'm being an apologist but i was one of the few suggesting tempered expectations before he got elected.

 

Also we misread what liberal left really means in the States. All three of us for instance would be regarded as wide left by an American.

 

And yet i'm a right wing, fascist, corporatist cunt in France.

 

Funny old world.

[Meenzer 14136]

I notice you ignore my questions about why he needs to lean on his party. Thats because his party, upon whom he relies completely to affect any sort of change whatsoever, are made up of socially democratic yet fiscally conservative members. Which for me characterises the real issues facing Obama everyday. Its through this prism that i look at the leftist credentials of his policies. It may appear like i'm being an apologist but i was one of the few suggesting tempered expectations before he got elected.

 

Also we misread what liberal left really means in the States. All three of us for instance would be regarded as wide left by an American.

 

And yet i'm a right wing, fascist, corporatist cunt in France.

 

Funny old world.

That's why safe old middle-of-the-road Britain is best. Here you're just a cunt.

[Happy Face 29]

Democrats perpetrate the same scam over and over on their own supporters, and this illustrates perfectly how it's played:

 

Politics Daily, October 4, 2009:

 

 

Jay Rockefeller on the Public Option: "I Will Not Relent"

 

Jay Rockefeller has waited a long time for this moment. . . . He's [] a longtime advocate of health care for children and the poor -- and, as Congress moves toward its moment of truth on health care, perhaps the most earnest, dogged Senate champion of a nationwide public health insurance plan to compete with private insurance companies.

 

"I will not relent on that. That's the only way to go," Rockefeller told me in an interview. "There's got to be a safe harbor."

 

President Obama often says a public option is needed to drive down costs and keep insurance companies honest. To Rockefeller, it's both more basic and more vital: The federal government is the only institution people can count on in times of need.

 

 

The Huffington Post, yesterday:

 

 

Rockefeller Not Inclined To Support Reconciliation For The Public Plan

 

Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.V.) threw a wrench into Democratic efforts to get a public option passed through reconciliation, saying that he thought the maneuver was overly partisan and that he was inclined to oppose it. . .

 

"I don't think the timing of it is very good," the West Virginia Democrat said on Monday. "I'm probably not going to vote for that" . . . In making his sentiment known, Rockefeller becomes perhaps the most unexpected skeptic of the public-option-via-reconciliation route. The Senator was a huge booster of a government run insurance option during the legislation drafting process this past year.

 

In other words, Rockefeller was willing to be a righteous champion for the public option as long as it had no chance of passing (sadly, we just can't do it, because although it has 50 votes in favor, it doesn't have 60). But now that Democrats are strongly considering the reconciliation process -- which will allow passage with only 50 rather than 60 votes and thus enable them to enact a public option -- Rockefeller is suddenly "inclined to oppose it" because he doesn't "think the timing of it is very good" and it's "too partisan." What strange excuses for someone to make with regard to a provision that he claimed, a mere five months ago (when he knew it couldn't pass), was such a moral and policy imperative that he "would not relent" in ensuring its enactment.

 

The Obama White House did the same thing. As I wrote back in August, the evidence was clear that while the President was publicly claiming that he supported the public option, the White House, in private, was doing everything possible to ensure its exclusion from the final bill (in order not to alienate the health insurance industry by providing competition for it). Yesterday, Obama -- while having his aides signal that they would use reconciliation if necessary -- finally unveiled his first-ever health care plan as President, and guess what it did not include? The public option, which he spent all year insisting that he favored oh-so-much but sadly could not get enacted: Gosh, I really want the public option, but we just don't have 60 votes for it; what can I do?. As I documented in my contribution to the NYT forum yesterday, now that there's a 50-vote mechanism to pass it, his own proposed bill suddenly excludes it.

 

This is what the Democratic Party does; it's who they are. They're willing to feign support for anything their voters want just as long as there's no chance that they can pass it. They won control of Congress in the 2006 midterm elections by pretending they wanted to compel an end to the Iraq War and Bush surveillance and interrogation abuses because they knew they would not actually do so; and indeed, once they were given the majority, the Democratic-controlled Congress continued to fund the war without conditions, to legalize Bush's eavesdropping program, and to do nothing to stop Bush's habeas and interrogation abuses ("Gosh, what can we do? We just don't have 60 votes).

 

The primary tactic in this game is Villain Rotation. They always have a handful of Democratic Senators announce that they will be the ones to deviate this time from the ostensible party position and impede success, but the designated Villain constantly shifts, so the Party itself can claim it supports these measures while an always-changing handful of their members invariably prevent it. One minute, it's Jay Rockefeller as the Prime Villain leading the way in protecting Bush surveillance programs and demanding telecom immunity; the next minute, it's Dianne Feinstein and Chuck Schumer joining hands and "breaking with their party" to ensure Michael Mukasey's confirmation as Attorney General; then it's Big Bad Joe Lieberman single-handedly blocking Medicare expansion; then it's Blanche Lincoln and Jim Webb joining with Lindsey Graham to support the de-funding of civilian trials for Terrorists; and now that they can't blame Lieberman or Ben Nelson any longer on health care (since they don't need 60 votes), Jay Rockefeller voluntarily returns to the Villain Role, stepping up to put an end to the pretend-movement among Senate Democrats to enact the public option via reconciliation.

 

Basically, this is how things have progressed:

 

 

Progressives: We want a public option!

 

Democrats/WH: We agree with you totally! Unfortunately, while we have 50 votes for it, we just don't have 60, so we can't have it. Gosh darn that filibuster rule.

 

Progressives: But you can use reconciliation like Bush did so often, and then you only need 50 votes.

 

Filbuster reform advocates/Obama loyalists: Hey progressives, don't be stupid! Be pragmatic. It's not realistic or Serious to use reconciliation to pass health care reform. None of this their fault. It's the fault of the filibuster. The White House wishes so badly that it could pass all these great progressive bills, but they're powerless, and they just can't get 60 votes to do it.

 

[Month later]

 

Progressives: Hey, great! Now that you're going to pass the bill through reconciliation after all, you can include the public option that both you and we love, because you only need 50 votes, and you've said all year you have that!

 

Democrats/WH: No. We don't have 50 votes for that (look at Jay Rockefeller). Besides, it's not the right time for the public option. The public option only polls at 65%, so it might make our health care bill -- which polls at 35% -- unpopular. Also, the public option and reconciliation are too partisan, so we're going to go ahead and pass our industry-approved bill instead . . . on a strict party line vote.

 

This is why, although I basically agree with filibuster reform advocates, I am extremely skeptical that it would change much, because Democrats would then just concoct ways to lack 50 votes rather than 60 votes -- just like they did here. Ezra Klein, who is generally quite supportive of the White House perspective, reported last week on something rather amazing: Democratic Senators found themselves in a bind, because they pretended all year to vigorously support the public option but had the 60-vote excuse for not enacting it. But now that Democrats will likely use the 50-vote reconciliation process, how could they (and the White House) possibly justify not including the public option? So what did they do? They pretended in public to "demand" that the public option be included via reconciliation with a letter that many of them signed (and thus placate their base: see, we really are for it!), while conspiring in private with the White House (which expressed "sharp resistance" to the public option) to make sure it wouldn't really happen.

 

The only thing I wonder about is whether Washington Democrats are baffled about the extreme "enthusiasm gap" between Democratic and Republican voters, which very well could cause them to lose control of Congress this year. By "enthusiasm gap," it is meant that the very people who worked so hard in 2006 and 2008 to ensure that Democrats became empowered are now indifferent -- apathetic -- about whether they keep it. Even as crazed and extremist as the GOP is, is it remotely possible that the Democratic establishment fails to understand not only why this "enthusiasm gap" exists, but also why it's completely justifiable?

 

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_gr...rats/index.html

[ChezGiven 0]

Its not about the public option, its about finance. Deficits, recessions, long term tax forecasts and health care spending trends etc. If the US doesnt address these, it is truly fucked financially. That is the impetus for reform, not a public option. In fact, if you ask me, this is the worst time since the 1930s for an economy to introduce a large bureaucratic drain on dwindling tax revenues.

 

Maybe reality is just a bit more complicated than leftist idealism appreciates.

[Happy Face 29]

Its not about the public option, its about finance. Deficits, recessions, long term tax forecasts and health care spending trends etc. If the US doesnt address these, it is truly fucked financially. That is the impetus for reform, not a public option. In fact, if you ask me, this is the worst time since the 1930s for an economy to introduce a large bureaucratic drain on dwindling tax revenues.

 

Maybe reality is just a bit more complicated than leftist idealism appreciates.

 

So the democratic promise of a public option, which they used as a platform to get elected, was a lie.....which is all the article is saying. No comment is made on the rights or wrongs of that public option.

[AgentAxeman 86]

Its not about the public option, its about finance. Deficits, recessions, long term tax forecasts and health care spending trends etc. If the US doesnt address these, it is truly fucked financially. That is the impetus for reform, not a public option. In fact, if you ask me, this is the worst time since the 1930s for an economy to introduce a large bureaucratic drain on dwindling tax revenues.

 

Maybe reality is just a bit more complicated than leftist idealism appreciates.

So the democratic promise of a public option, which they used as a platform to get elected, was a lie.....which is all the article is saying. No comment is made on the rights or wrongs of that public option.

 

 

Come on Happy. its not like the 1st time its ever happened is it?

[Happy Face 29]

Its not about the public option, its about finance. Deficits, recessions, long term tax forecasts and health care spending trends etc. If the US doesnt address these, it is truly fucked financially. That is the impetus for reform, not a public option. In fact, if you ask me, this is the worst time since the 1930s for an economy to introduce a large bureaucratic drain on dwindling tax revenues.

 

Maybe reality is just a bit more complicated than leftist idealism appreciates.

So the democratic promise of a public option, which they used as a platform to get elected, was a lie.....which is all the article is saying. No comment is made on the rights or wrongs of that public option.

 

 

Come on Happy. its not like the 1st time its ever happened is it?

 

No, but a lot of people still seem to have faith in Obama for some reason.

[AgentAxeman 86]

Its not about the public option, its about finance. Deficits, recessions, long term tax forecasts and health care spending trends etc. If the US doesnt address these, it is truly fucked financially. That is the impetus for reform, not a public option. In fact, if you ask me, this is the worst time since the 1930s for an economy to introduce a large bureaucratic drain on dwindling tax revenues.

 

Maybe reality is just a bit more complicated than leftist idealism appreciates.

So the democratic promise of a public option, which they used as a platform to get elected, was a lie.....which is all the article is saying. No comment is made on the rights or wrongs of that public option.

 

 

Come on Happy. its not like the 1st time its ever happened is it?

No, but a lot of people still seem to have faith in Obama for some reason.

 

 

 

didnt you know?? he the new messiah!!!

 

(cue all the "he's not the messiah, he's a very naughty boy" gags)

 

[ChezGiven 0]

Its not about the public option, its about finance. Deficits, recessions, long term tax forecasts and health care spending trends etc. If the US doesnt address these, it is truly fucked financially. That is the impetus for reform, not a public option. In fact, if you ask me, this is the worst time since the 1930s for an economy to introduce a large bureaucratic drain on dwindling tax revenues.

 

Maybe reality is just a bit more complicated than leftist idealism appreciates.

 

So the democratic promise of a public option, which they used as a platform to get elected, was a lie.....which is all the article is saying. No comment is made on the rights or wrongs of that public option.

 

They ran on 'healthcare reform' not 'a public option'. There was probably a lot of discussion of a public option but pre-election rhetoric was about lowering healthcare costs for families. He did use some language around 'universal healthcare' but i dont recall a public option (which is essentially saying an NHS for low income families).

[ChezGiven 0]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/health-care-meeting/proposal

[Happy Face 29]

Its not about the public option, its about finance. Deficits, recessions, long term tax forecasts and health care spending trends etc. If the US doesnt address these, it is truly fucked financially. That is the impetus for reform, not a public option. In fact, if you ask me, this is the worst time since the 1930s for an economy to introduce a large bureaucratic drain on dwindling tax revenues.

 

Maybe reality is just a bit more complicated than leftist idealism appreciates.

 

So the democratic promise of a public option, which they used as a platform to get elected, was a lie.....which is all the article is saying. No comment is made on the rights or wrongs of that public option.

 

They ran on 'healthcare reform' not 'a public option'. There was probably a lot of discussion of a public option but pre-election rhetoric was about lowering healthcare costs for families. He did use some language around 'universal healthcare' but i dont recall a public option (which is essentially saying an NHS for low income families).

 

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/issues/HealthCareFullPlan.pdf

 

 

Mentions the "new public plan" repeatedly.

 

Providers who see patients enrolled in the new public plan, the National Health Insurance Exchange, Medicare and FEHB will be rewarded for achieving performance thresholds on physician-validated outcome measures.

 

The Obama-Biden plan provides new affordable health insurance options by:

(1) guaranteeing eligibility for all health insurance plans;

(2) creating a National Health Insurance Exchange to help Americans and businesses purchase private health insurance;

(3) providing new tax credits to families who can't afford health insurance and to small businesses with a new Small Business Health Tax Credit;

(4) requiring all large employers to contribute towards health coverage for their employees or towards the cost of

the public plan

;

(5) requiring all children have health care coverage;

(5) expanding eligibility for the Medicaid and SCHIP programs; and

(6) allowing flexibility for state health reform plans.

 

any American will have the opportunity to enroll in the new public plan or an approved private plan

 

Their plan will work toincrease use of generic drugs in the new public plan

 

I agree that he didn't run on "The public option" alone, but the essence of the article is how much democrats have voiced their preference for a public option as part of the reform they ran on as long as it looked like a pipe dream, and how unwilling they are to put it into action given the opportunity to do so.

Edited February 24, 2010 by Happy Face

[ChezGiven 0]

"If you don’t have health insurance, you will have a choice of new, affordable health insurance options."

 

That is not a 'public option'.

[ChezGiven 0]

By that i mean 'free healthcare' without any premiums. A public plan is an insurance plan run by the government, not 'free healthcare'.

[Park Life 71]

Its not about the public option, its about finance. Deficits, recessions, long term tax forecasts and health care spending trends etc. If the US doesnt address these, it is truly fucked financially. That is the impetus for reform, not a public option. In fact, if you ask me, this is the worst time since the 1930s for an economy to introduce a large bureaucratic drain on dwindling tax revenues.

 

Maybe reality is just a bit more complicated than leftist idealism appreciates.

 

So the democratic promise of a public option, which they used as a platform to get elected, was a lie.....which is all the article is saying. No comment is made on the rights or wrongs of that public option.

 

That fat bloke has a new film out that explains how all this works.

[Park Life 71]

Always money to bail out the banks tho eh?

[Happy Face 29]

By that i mean 'free healthcare' without any premiums. A public plan is an insurance plan run by the government, not 'free healthcare'.

 

Is there going to be an insurance plan run by the government like?

[ChezGiven 0]

By that i mean 'free healthcare' without any premiums. A public plan is an insurance plan run by the government, not 'free healthcare'.

 

Is there going to be an insurance plan run by the government like?

 

There are already 2 of them, Medicare and Medicaid.

[Happy Face 29]

By that i mean 'free healthcare' without any premiums. A public plan is an insurance plan run by the government, not 'free healthcare'.

 

Is there going to be an insurance plan run by the government like?

 

There are already 2 of them, Medicare and Medicaid.

 

Yes, and fine things they are too. But those limited schemes are already listed above in addition to the "new public plan".

[Park Life 71]

[ChezGiven 0]

By that i mean 'free healthcare' without any premiums. A public plan is an insurance plan run by the government, not 'free healthcare'.

 

Is there going to be an insurance plan run by the government like?

 

There are already 2 of them, Medicare and Medicaid.

 

Yes, and fine things they are too. But those limited schemes are already listed above in addition to the "new public plan".

 

Which he (today) is proposing to extend to low income families.

 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/health-care-meet...orking-families

 

Beginning in April of this year, States will be allowed to expand Medicaid eligibility to more individuals. Starting on January 1, 2014, all low-income, non-elderly and non-disabled individuals will be eligible for Medicaid. This includes unemployed adults and working famlies – all people with income below $29,000 for a family of four (133% of poverty).

 

The Federal Government will support States by providing 100% of the cost of newly eligible people between 2014 and 2017, 95% of the costs between 2018 and 2019, and 90 percent matching for subsequent years.

[Happy Face 29]

Yep, those expansions are good things too. They don't expand across the board though. They aren't new public plans that give every American the choice of avoiding private insurance (and the massive overheads they have in comparison to medicare or medicaid) by taking up a government plan where more of every dollar they spend can go on healtchcare rather than shareholder dividends.

 

The middle class paying for what little change there is going to be, thanks to the wealthiest people having lobbyists fighting to ensure they make a profit out of reform.

Edited February 24, 2010 by Happy Face

[Happy Face 29]

 

Did you mean to post the Sicko trailer

 

I've still not seen Capitalism like.

[Park Life 71]

 

Did you mean to post the Sicko trailer

 

I've still not seen Capitalism like.

 

It's good. One of the best bits is when Reagan is making a speech and the bloke standing next to him (chairman of Merrill Lynch) tells him to "speed up"...Spine chilling how controlled he was by the bankers and money men. Of course the biggest de-regulator of all time Reagan. Err it's available from the usual sources now.

Edited February 24, 2010 by Park Life

[Happy Face 29]

It's good. One of the best bits is when Reagan is making a speech and the bloke standing next to him (chairman of Merrill Lynch) tells him to "speed up"...Spine chilling how controlled he was by the bankers and money men. Of course the biggest de-regulator of all time Reagan. Err it's available from the usual sources now.

 

Just like Larry Hagman in Nixon