TOPICS:
DEC 15, 2009 07:29 AM
The Democrats clearly did not correctly gauge the anger over CURRENT high health costs.
And that's why polls today say 25% of Dems won't vote in the next election.
They fucked up. Big time.
DEC 15, 2009 07:32 AM
corsair said:
Why don't they understand that the existing system is based on big profits and big salaries,
Oh, they completely understand it, because the healthcare industry has lots of money to throw at lobbyists. They also know how to throw around scare tactics and make Joe Moron in middle America afraid of change. Haven't you seen all the people who are on Medicare protesting against government controlled healthcare?
If nothing else has shown it, the last few elections have shown what gullible morons Americans are:
Birthers
Teabaggers
Gun nuts (Obama's gunna take R gunz!)
need I go on? Democracy has failed in the country thanks to big business and their "buying" of our elected officials.
DEC 15, 2009 08:46 AM
A majority of Congress does understand what's at stake. Sadly, the whole process is being held up by a couple douchebag "moderates." The sad thing is that we'll probably get more by compromising with Olympia Snowe than with Joe Lieberman, who apparently just wants to see hippies squirm.
DEC 15, 2009 12:12 PM
Win
If Democrats manage to pull off efforts to reform the US healthcare system and ensure coverage for millions who are currently without insurance, the new system -- by design -- will likely still leave tens of thousands to die without insurance before reforms kick in.
A Raw Story analysis, based on a recent Harvard Medical School study, estimates that 135,000 American citizens and over 6,600 US veterans will die due to a lack of health insurance before current proposed healthcare reform measures would take effect.
DEC 15, 2009 12:44 PM
Shit can it! The plan has been so watered down and too many concessions granted to insurance companies the plan is not worth it.
Obama gets an "F" for this initiative.
DEC 15, 2009 01:10 PM
IDGAS said:
Shit can it! The plan has been so watered down and too many concessions granted to insurance companies the plan is not worth it.
Obama gets an "F" for this initiative.
I'll give him a D and our political system an F. At least Obama pushed a lot harder initially than Clinton did when he tried to reform healthcare. I'm not sure if it is that I'm just noticing it now, or we are seeing the worst obstructionistic politics this country has ever seen.
DEC 15, 2009 04:22 PM
mydogfarted said:
IDGAS said:
Shit can it! The plan has been so watered down and too many concessions granted to insurance companies the plan is not worth it.
Obama gets an "F" for this initiative.
I'll give him a D and our political system an F. At least Obama pushed a lot harder initially than Clinton did when he tried to reform healthcare. I'm not sure if it is that I'm just noticing it now, or we are seeing the worst obstructionistic politics this country has ever seen.
I wish I could say this was new. The Republican Opposition to joining the League of Nations basically started because Henry Cabot Lodge Sr. hated Woodrow Wilson's guts (I'm not fond of the man either, but...)
A lot of the scaremongering was over Article 10 in the League of Nations Treaty: the GOP interpreted the policy of Mutual Assistance to mean the US would have to fight Europe's wars.
A reductio ad absurdum, I guess.
DEC 15, 2009 05:18 PM
mydogfarted said:
IDGAS said:
Shit can it! The plan has been so watered down and too many concessions granted to insurance companies the plan is not worth it.
Obama gets an "F" for this initiative.
I'll give him a D and our political system an F. At least Obama pushed a lot harder initially than Clinton did when he tried to reform healthcare. I'm not sure if it is that I'm just noticing it now, or we are seeing the worst obstructionistic politics this country has ever seen.
I actually think the reason this "reform" bill is such a disaster is because Obama just didn't push hard enough. Total failure as a leader. Take a look at what Bush did with his controversial bills - the tax bills, medicare D, and he was out leading, speaking and basically kicking ass. At this point, Bush looks like a far better leader than Obama. Not my kind of leader, but the dude is head and shoulders above Mr. Sit Around.
And this:
The Senate has narrowly rejected a plan to allow Americans to import low-cost prescription drugs from Canada and other countries.
The amendment by North Dakota Democrat Byron Dorgan failed on a 51-48 vote. Sixty votes were needed to prevail.
Is completely on Obama's head. He made the sweethart deal last summer with drug companies. And now it's going to cost American's BILLIONS.
Oh, and when he was a Senator, he sponsored a bill that would have allowed Americans to import low cost drugs from other countries. So, he's a huge sell out fuck.
DEC 15, 2009 06:14 PM
From what I heard on the news last night, Lieberman was actually the one who brought up expanding Medicare just a few months ago.... and now he's yelling "NO WAY!"
What the fuck?! Seriously?? Not that it's all THAT surprising I suppose coming from him... but STILL.... Grrrrrr!!!! 
DEC 15, 2009 06:18 PM
SLCjingles said:
From what I heard on the news last night, Lieberman was actually the one who brought up expanding Medicare just a few months ago.... and now he's yelling "NO WAY!"
What the fuck?! Seriously?? Not that it's all THAT surprising I suppose coming from him... but STILL.... Grrrrrr!!!!
He's just doing it because he's mad at liberals. He's getting even. And quite a few people will die because of it.
Adroitbeing
I'm lost
September 2003
DEC 17, 2009 09:44 AM
FearTheReaper said:
I actually think the reason this "reform" bill is such a disaster is because Obama just didn't push hard enough. Total failure as a leader. Take a look at what Bush did with his controversial bills - the tax bills, medicare D, and he was out leading, speaking and basically kicking ass. At this point, Bush looks like a far better leader than Obama. Not my kind of leader, but the dude is head and shoulders above Mr. Sit Around.
This is the ugly truth we will face next election. The cool guy we all voted for has #EPIC #FAIL written all over him and this wholly tepid effort. This was the defining topic to wade in, roll up his sleeves, caucus with supporters and deriders, and evolve the current fucking mess we politely label "Healthcare." He did not and so we will not reform this stupid mess.
Worse, his failure to lead on this topic will fuel his opposition. He has, through his complete lack of spine, unnecessarily emboldened the likes of Palin, Teabaggers, Birthers, Limbaughs, and the like. I am not only saddened by this outcome, I am pissed off about his apparent unwillingness to show some resolve.
On a personal note, emboldened by their lobbying efforts, my healthcare provider notified me that my premium will increase by 22% on January 1. The average increase in our firm (we are all individual plans) is 27%. The biggest increase of 35% is for a family of three.
Happy Holidays!
DEC 17, 2009 12:13 PM
I'm not entirely unconvinced that the real Obama isn't locked up in Glen Beck's basement, with just a very good lookalike now running the joint.
The Obama that got elected isn't the same one that fucked up this health care bill, surely?
DEC 17, 2009 03:17 PM
I think people got way too starry-eyed about Obama. It was clear to me that he was just a moderate compromiser all along. Change and hope and all that are just slogans. When you look at what he said he was going to do, he has mostly acted in line with it.
If Obama was the kind of guy who was going to radically change our nation's warmongering ways or socialize health care, he never would have gotten elected anyway. There is no way to for the gov't to do anything that is against huge, entrenched financial interests anymore. They own it.
DEC 17, 2009 03:47 PM
anatomist1 said:
I think people got way too starry-eyed about Obama. It was clear to me that he was just a moderate compromiser all along. Change and hope and all that are just slogans. When you look at what he said he was going to do, he has mostly acted in line with it.
If Obama was the kind of guy who was going to radically change our nation's warmongering ways or socialize health care, he never would have gotten elected anyway. There is no way to for the gov't to do anything that is against huge, entrenched financial interests anymore. They own it.
Yeah, this is an entirely different argument. Anyone who read my articles knows that is not how I felt and I can tell you the majority on these boards did not feel that way. We thought he was better than a Republican. He's not. We thought he would stand by the laws of our country and the Geneva convention. He did not and he is fighting in court not to do so. And most importantly, we thought he would use the power given to him by a huge election victory to push his agenda. He did not.
These things have nothing to do with being "starry eyed."
It's simple leadership 101 he has failed at.
Not the same thing at all.
DEC 17, 2009 03:48 PM
Ezra Klein:
Herewith, a partial list of the cost controls in the Senate bill:
1) Bundled payments: A lot of the focus has been on cost controls that work through the insurance system. But costs aren't rising because insurance is expensive. They're rising because health care is expensive. The experiments with bundled payments are an attempt to begin addressing those drivers directly. Right now, hospitals get paid for each procedure they conduct. If you come in with symptoms of a stroke, they get one check for the diagnostic, one check for the stroke medication, one check for the surgery, etc. And if you have to come back in two weeks, they get more money for that, too.
Under bundled payments, the hospital would receive one check for everything related to your stroke over a single period of time. That means they make more money from doing less, rather than more money from doing more. It also gives them an incentive to coordinate care when you're out of the hospital, as it's cheaper to get a nurse to call and make sure you're taking your medicine than it is to have you in for a follow-up procedure. For more on the bundled payments system, and Sen. Mark Warner's efforts to strengthen it, see this post, or this article.
2) Prudent purchasing: Howard Dean gave this prominent play in his op-ed this morning, and he was right to do so. The only problem is that he said it's not in the bill, and it is.
Prudent purchasing means that insurers can't enter, or stay, in the exchanges unless regulators are satisfied that they're doing a good job. That works both to ensure a good product, but also to hold costs down. If an insurer wants to hike premiums, for instance, they have to submit a justification to the exchanges and post that justification publicly on their Web site. If the exchange isn't convinced, that insurer can be dropped from the exchange, losing all customers and profits they were making.
Do this to one or two insurers, one or two times, and the message will be pretty strong. Moreover, it will go a ways towards countering the status quo bias that current infects insurance purchasing, wherein people don't change because, well, it's a pain to change insurers, and so insurers aren't forced to provide products as good as a competitive market would ordinarily demand. It also gives regulators a way to tamp down destructive marketing (an insurer can be dropped for using their marketing to try and cherrypick healthy customers -- say, by advertising exclusively in Runner's Monthly) and seed quality reforms.
3) The Medicare Commission: One reason there's so much packed into this iteration of health-care reform is because it's so hard to overcome the status quo outside of a massive reform effort. Common-sense delivery system reforms don't attract sufficient interest to muscle pass interest group opposition. The Medicare Commission streamlines the reform process, forcing a panel of independent experts to suggest a package of reforms in years when spending growth is too rapid and forcing Congress to vote on the package -- no amendments, and no filibuster.
The Medicare Commission enjoys a catalytic interaction with other elements of the bill, as it offers a process to take small programs and convert them into systemwide reforms. A pilot program that's working well, for instance, might be included in the next year's reform package, making it a policy that makes Medicare work better. This policy could be made a lot better if the Senate passes the Rockefeller-Lieberman-Whitehouse amendment.
4) The excise tax on high-value health insurance: This is, essentially, a tax on the unchecked growth in premiums. The key here is that the threshold at which premium dollars begin getting taxed at 40 percent doesn't rise as quickly as premiums costs generally rise. Now imagine two insurers: One holds costs down quite well, and one holds costs down quite poorly. Within a couple of years, the costlier insurer's plan is $3,000 over the threshold, while the cheaper insurer remains under it. The tax amplifies the difference between the two. The costlier insurer is suddenly $4,200 more than the cheaper insurer. In this way, plans with more successful cost-control mechanisms get an even larger market advantage. This makes the insurance market even more competitive in terms of price. For a longer explanation, read this post.
5) The individual mandate: In the last few days, an odd argument has arisen. The individual mandate, people say, must be sacrificed on the altar of cost control. The truth is quite the opposite. First, the individual mandate lowers average premium costs by bringing healthy people into the system. If the only people buying insurance are the people who expect to need to use it, the average cost will be prohibitively high. But second, the individual mandate is the political spur for future cost controls.
In a world without a universal health-care structure and an individual mandate, premium increases are a shame, but not much of a political problem. In a world with an individual mandate, large premium increases are Congress' problem. It focuses the mind on cost control. Given a choice between passively letting people become uninsured and taking on providers and insurers, Congress will choose the path of inaction. But given a choice between voting to take people's insurance away and taking on providers and insurers? That's a harder decision. Right now, the pressure in the political system comes from organized interests. The mandate levels the playing field. More on that here.
And that's not all, of course. There's the interaction of comparative effectiveness review and health information technology. There's the hope that regulations on insurers force them to innovate on price and quality, rather than on denying coverage to sick people. There are the good points Jon Gruber makes in this interview.
Will it all work? Define work. Will it be enough? Almost certainly not. Is it more than we've ever done before? Absolutely. And does it do more for cost control than the continuation of the status quo? Again, absolutely.
Now, it sounds to me like this reform comes down to regulation and market forces. Hmmm. How has that been working lately?
DEC 17, 2009 05:10 PM
FearTheReaper said:
Yeah, this is an entirely different argument. Anyone who read my articles knows that is not how I felt and I can tell you the majority on these boards did not feel that way. We thought he was better than a Republican. He's not. We thought he would stand by the laws of our country and the Geneva convention. He did not and he is fighting in court not to do so. And most importantly, we thought he would use the power given to him by a huge election victory to push his agenda. He did not.
These things have nothing to do with being "starry eyed."
It's simple leadership 101 he has failed at.
Not the same thing at all.
I just want to pull one statement out of all of this and respond to it, but I wanted to leave everything else in the quote for context.
We thought he was better than a Republican. He's not.
Bullshit. He's not the progressive champion many people hoped he was (and he didn't exactly campaign as one, to be honest). But this is pure hyperbole and it's utter and complete bullshit. For one thing, it hasn't even been a year yet. For another thing, he's done a whole lot of truly laudable things that no Republican in the White House would have even tried to do.
The incomplete list of good things Obama has done in his first year in office so far:
- Launched a new White House web site, allowing unprecedented insight into Executive Orders and Memoranda
- Ended the global gag rule, which Bush introduced
- Ordered the EPA to reconsider their denial of California's emissions regulation plans (which the Bush administration had notoriously overruled EPA scientists on)
- Announced the Open Government Directive, which is finally starting to get off the ground.
After that first week he:
- signed the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act
- began the process of ending the Iraq War
- ended the Bush ban on stem cell research
- appointed Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court (not an obvious progressive win, but clearly better than anyone a Republican President would have appointed)
- expanded Pell Grants and other forms of student financial aid as part of the stimulus bill (and plans to go further)
- expanded federal programs for funding R&D in universities as part of the stimulus
- ...lots of other awesome things the stimulus never would have contained under a Republican President
You can bitch about what he's done not being good enough, or that he hasn't done this or that, but the notion that he's not better than any Republican who might be in office in his place is utter and complete nonsense. That's the same sort of thinking that kept many progressives away from the polls in 2000 and 2004: the idea that both parties are equally bad. Let me remind you what Bush did in his first year in office (besides ignoring intelligence which, if acted upon, might have prevented 9/11):
Hell, just look here. This is all stuff his base was happy about. I don't think I need to remind you what Bush did the other 7 years he was in office.
I don't know a whole lot of people who are tremendously happy with Obama right now. But I'd still take "not going far enough" over "destroying or systematically dismantling everything I love in this world" any day.
DEC 17, 2009 06:56 PM
bean said:
FearTheReaper said:
Yeah, this is an entirely different argument. Anyone who read my articles knows that is not how I felt and I can tell you the majority on these boards did not feel that way. We thought he was better than a Republican. He's not. We thought he would stand by the laws of our country and the Geneva convention. He did not and he is fighting in court not to do so. And most importantly, we thought he would use the power given to him by a huge election victory to push his agenda. He did not.
These things have nothing to do with being "starry eyed."
It's simple leadership 101 he has failed at.
Not the same thing at all.
I just want to pull one statement out of all of this and respond to it, but I wanted to leave everything else in the quote for context.
We thought he was better than a Republican. He's not.
Bullshit. He's not the progressive champion many people hoped he was (and he didn't exactly campaign as one, to be honest). But this is pure hyperbole and it's utter and complete bullshit. For one thing, it hasn't even been a year yet. For another thing, he's done a whole lot of truly laudable things that no Republican in the White House would have even tried to do.
The incomplete list of good things Obama has done in his first year in office so far:
- Launched a new White House web site, allowing unprecedented insight into Executive Orders and Memoranda
- Ended the global gag rule, which Bush introduced
- Ordered the EPA to reconsider their denial of California's emissions regulation plans (which the Bush administration had notoriously overruled EPA scientists on)
- Announced the Open Government Directive, which is finally starting to get off the ground.
After that first week he:
- signed the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act
- began the process of ending the Iraq War
- ended the Bush ban on stem cell research
- appointed Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court (not an obvious progressive win, but clearly better than anyone a Republican President would have appointed)
- expanded Pell Grants and other forms of student financial aid as part of the stimulus bill (and plans to go further)
- expanded federal programs for funding R&D in universities as part of the stimulus
- ...lots of other awesome things the stimulus never would have contained under a Republican President
You can bitch about what he's done not being good enough, or that he hasn't done this or that, but the notion that he's not better than any Republican who might be in office in his place is utter and complete nonsense. That's the same sort of thinking that kept many progressives away from the polls in 2000 and 2004: the idea that both parties are equally bad. Let me remind you what Bush did in his first year in office (besides ignoring intelligence which, if acted upon, might have prevented 9/11):
Hell, just look here. This is all stuff his base was happy about. I don't think I need to remind you what Bush did the other 7 years he was in office.
I don't know a whole lot of people who are tremendously happy with Obama right now. But I'd still take "not going far enough" over "destroying or systematically dismantling everything I love in this world" any day.
Thank you for putting things into perspective. I'm really pissed about this, but I don't think for a second that McCain would have done better, and Obama HAS accomplished some good. I just really want him to be aggressive with healthcare reform.
DEC 17, 2009 07:19 PM
bean said;
I just want to pull one statement out of all of this and respond to it, but I wanted to leave everything else in the quote for context.
We thought he was better than a Republican. He's not.
Bullshit. He's not the progressive champion many people hoped he was (and he didn't exactly campaign as one, to be honest). But this is pure hyperbole and it's utter and complete bullshit. For one thing, it hasn't even been a year yet. For another thing, he's done a whole lot of truly laudable things that no Republican in the White House would have even tried to do.
He's violating the Constitution every single day with his continuation of torture and illegal imprisonment of foreigners. He's increasing the bombings of the soviegn nation of Pakistan. He's completely and totally abandoned gay rights. His actions on the economic crisis are about as Wall Street friendly as it gets. The health care bill is a giant handout to the insurance and drug industry (The second being 100% Obama's doing).
And fuck the bullshit about "It's only been a year." That is the most horseshit excuse that I keep hearing. Guess what? He knew what kind of a mess he was inheriting, we all did and he had to hit the ground running. I've seen enough in the year to horrify me. You can keep comparing him to Bush, but you know that's a fucked up argument. Congrats on not being the worst president ever, but you're still sucking in your own right.
The Democrats had one choice to retain the majority. Pass a health care reform bill with a good public option tied to medicare. At the very least, they could have passed a fake public option not tied to medicare and fooled everyone. But they aren't even that smart. They fucked up. They will be crushed in the next two election. Crushed. They, and Obama, completely deserve it.
But, yeah, congrats on your Democratic pro torture president. So very not Republican.
DEC 17, 2009 07:22 PM
I was deeply impressed with the bill the Obama White House presented to congress. Later how Obama and his team got out and sold the public on health care reform. Obama regularly standing before overflowing crowds in stadium and townhalls correcting the lies that the Republicans and teabaggers spread like the death panels. Oh, and the hardball politics Obama on his own party to drive health care through the Congress. And all of that for an unimportant issue to Obama and his campaign.
Damn! I forgot he didn't do any of that.
DEC 17, 2009 08:20 PM
I've been reading the debates on the liberal blogosphere, and have decided to join those who want to accept this bill as an imperfect yet satisfactory solution. It provides immense subsidies for lower-income people, offers universal coverage, and reduces the deficit. I still would like a public option, but taking this into reconciliation could mean sacrificing some of the other important aspects of this bill. If in fact the senate has the votes to pass a public option in reconciliation, they can pass that separately in another bill, without sacrificing the benefits of this bill. Also, as Matt Yglesias points out, this bill is actually more progressive than the health plan Howard Dean campaigned on in 2004, so his current chicken little attitude is a bit puzzling.
DEC 17, 2009 08:31 PM
I'm not sure the Obama admin has been that negligent. I think he has made an effort to go against health care sector money with this, but that money is just too entwined with big media ownership, big oil, big corn, and big everything else for it to make any difference. In the bizarro world of the mainstream media and public opinion, a 'public option' is now about as plausible as switching to communism, just like the last time an idealistic Presidential initiative threatened the big money in this sector. A sort of soft totalitarianism has developed, based on mass deception and concentrated media ownership I think Obama is about as good as a President can be at this point, and we are seeing just how impotent that is in this age.
DEC 17, 2009 10:17 PM
anatomist1 said:
I'm not sure the Obama admin has been that negligent. I think he has made an effort to go against health care sector money with this, but that money is just too entwined with big media ownership, big oil, big corn, and big everything else for it to make any difference. In the bizarro world of the mainstream media and public opinion, a 'public option' is now about as plausible as switching to communism, just like the last time an idealistic Presidential initiative threatened the big money in this sector. A sort of soft totalitarianism has developed, based on mass deception and concentrated media ownership I think Obama is about as good as a President can be at this point, and we are seeing just how impotent that is in this age.
Really?
I don't think we should defeat the bill. It's carcass will be more effective than nothing, but it is Healthcare Part D and no one should expect anything less.
Dean is doing his job, which is to express the liberal anger. Obama and Congress shouldn't get a free ride. They should be pressured and harrassed and fucked all the way until that thing passes.
DEC 18, 2009 05:54 PM
So legally required health care insurance, which is a huge win for the insurance companies, nothing to bring the cost of health care down, and people with pre-existing conditions can still be discriminated against by being charged 50% more. Even if this is the first step towards improved health care I really I can't imagine any congress or president will want to touch health care change again for many years to come at best, meaning there won't be any follow up to make the bill functional or worth while. So how does this really help prevent the looming implosion of our health care system.
I honestly don't understand how this is a real world win, it seems that the democrats are worried that no bill means complete defeat for them, while I do understand their point and even agree with them to a point do you think this is really worth just pushing through a flawed bill? I'm not trying to be snarky I just don't understand why this is a bill we should be supporting at this point, even if killing it means putting the democratic party at risk.
By the by I'm also a few drinks into my lazy Friday night so I apologize for any strange sentence fragments.
DEC 18, 2009 06:38 PM
MisterGone said:
So legally required health care insurance, which is a huge win for the insurance companies, nothing to bring the cost of health care down, and people with pre-existing conditions can still be discriminated against by being charged 50% more. Even if this is the first step towards improved health care I really I can't imagine any congress or president will want to touch health care change again for many years to come at best, meaning there won't be any follow up to make the bill functional or worth while. So how does this really help prevent the looming implosion of our health care system.
I've suspected for some time that was the plan all along. Make it look like they're trying to do something, botch it horribly, and provide a reason to never touch it again. "We tried health care reform; remember how badly it failed?"
corsair
Greer, SC
July 2004
DEC 15, 2009 06:43 AM