quote:Originally posted by Kwea: I doubt that as well. It may not pass, but it's still pretty important. Even if MA just borked us on it in the long run.
The irony is we voted for guy that says he'll vote against a system that the state of MA already has (and no one is really complaining about).
Posts: 7021 | Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: This seems like a good opportunity to improve the heath care bill...
How? The health care bill is the way it is because of all the compromises that had to be made to get Senators who don't want health care reform to vote for it*. How is having another Senator who doesn't want health care reform an opportunity?
*Not vote for it really. We (people who want health care reform) have plenty of votes to pass it. What we lack is enough votes to keep the anti-health care Senators (a minority) from preventing the bill to come to a vote at all.
Brown has said he supports Health Care Reform (as do many Republican Senators), just not the reform in the current bill.
My hope is the Democratic leadership is sufficiently humble to jettison the bloated, inefficient bill they've written and look to the only proposal with real bipartisan support: the Wyden-Bennett Healthy Americans Act.
No offense, but even before Brown's election, lending swagger to Republicans, there have been several attempts at compromise with Republicans, only to end up with them saying, "Eh, on second thought, never mind. Sorry for wasting your time." The Baccus compromise talks come to mind specifically.
EDIT: See also the bit at the end of the wiki page you linked too. It's unclear how much hard support there is for the bill, particularly from the Republicans, but considering how certain members of the Democratic caucus (*cough* Lieberman, Nelson *cough*) will argue for something to change, and then still threaten to vote against the "improved" bill, Democratic hard support is easily questioned as well.
I would support that bill, assuming substantive arguments against didn't show up. I'd certainly pick it over the current bill, if I was forced to.
Posts: 7021 | Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well, here's , here's one thing I know and I just want to make sure that this is off the table. The Senate certainly shouldn't try to jam anything through until Scott Brown is seated. People in Massachusetts spoke. He's got to be part of that process.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: How is the administration going to get House Democrats to vote for the Senate version of the health care bill as is? Democrats across the country have to be running terrified--not just scared. It would be political suicide for Representatives up for election this November to vote for a bill that the large majority of Americans are opposed to, and clearly was one of the major factors in Scott Brown taking the senate seat that used to belong to Ted Kennedy away from the Democrats.
The administration is not looking very influential these days. Despite the president's efforts on behalf of Democratic candidates, his party lost in upsets by large margins in special elections in three states now. What will happen in November when all House seats and 36 Senate seats are up for re-election? Democratic candidates may not even want the president to appear in their states to speak on their behalf.
Honestly, it's suicidal to run away at this point, as voters will be left to vote for Republicans, or people who move right towards the Republicans, so why not elect the real thing?
From the rumors on the State of the Union, we may see a more combative White House (and hopefully Democratic Congress). One that is willing to at least get shot in the chest when showing just how obstructionist the Congressional Republicans have been the past year, in the hopes that the public will see this and like the things Democrats will be advocating, versus getting shot in the back, as is the current situation.
Posts: 7021 | Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: No offense, but even before Brown's election, lending swagger to Republicans, there have been several attempts at compromise with Republicans, only to end up with them saying, "Eh, on second thought, never mind. Sorry for wasting your time." The Baccus compromise talks come to mind specifically.
EDIT: See also the bit at the end of the wiki page you linked too. It's unclear how much hard support there is for the bill, particularly from the Republicans, but considering how certain members of the Democratic caucus (*cough* Lieberman, Nelson *cough*) will argue for something to change, and then still threaten to vote against the "improved" bill, Democratic hard support is easily questioned as well.
I would support that bill, assuming substantive arguments against didn't show up. I'd certainly pick it over the current bill, if I was forced to.
(to Alcon and Tom, too) You may be right that Republican leadership really wouldn't be willing to negotiate a real bipartisan solution. Mostly I just feel Wyden-Bennett is far superior to the current bill and so have a hope that it would succeed. Ron Wyden managed to get Bob Bennett's name on the bill (whereas in the past he's been the sole primary sponsor), which indicates to me that there's at least some interest in the GOP camp.
I think the early bipartisan effort with regards to the current bill (other than within the finance committee) was largely facade; I don't think there was any willingness or motivation within the Dem leadership (again, other than in the finance committee) to fundamentally compromise on the structure of the bill, only on the bells and whistles. The only reason they did end up compromising on the structure (toward the Baucus' exchanges rather than a public option) was because moderates within their own party compelled them to, not because they were trying to incorporate Republican ideas or criticisms. They compromised just enough to get to 60 which isn't bad but isn't, to my reading, a sign of real bipartisanship.
As for the Ezra Klein bit at the end of the wiki, he has his own reasons for wanting to maintain focus on the current bill. He's a good writer worth reading, but certainly isn't unbiased (but then, who is).
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
The "ping-pong" option where the House passes the Senate's bill seems quite unlikely in the face of Rep. Stupak's vow not to vote for it. Maybe Pelosi et al can whip the Stupak bloc into line, but I doubt it.
Which really leaves, to my mind, only one branch on the tree that Lyrhawn laid out. They need to craft a compromise in reconciliation that can garner both 60 Senate votes and a majority in the House. Mostly that means finding a way to get Snowe or Collins on board, while keeping Nelson, Lieberman and also not losing Dems like Burris who've threatened not to vote for a watered down bill. That's a pretty weak branch; I wouldn't put much weight on it.
Politically, though, I still think it's in the Dems' interest to push through a healthcare bill (and in the interest of the country). But I think the only way they'll be able to do it is to jettison the months of work on the current bill and start fresh.
Luckily HAA is just sitting there waiting to be fleshed out! Keep hope alive!
<edit>I realized I didn't address the reconciliation option. The problem with reconciliation, as Lyrhawn partially points out, is the bill would have to be changed rather dramatically in the process. The budgetary requirements are also much more stringent, and, as I understand it, many of the provisions in the bill would not be able to survive the strictures of such a process. Certainly an option, but not to my mind a good one.
Also, one other that I don't think Lyrhawn mentioned, was to force the filibuster and rely on maintaining a simple majority throughout. I don't know who would come out on top in that fight (inasfar as public opinion is concerned), and a lot of damage would be done in the interim both to the nation and the Senate, but it's at least an option.</edit>
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The reason they were held captive by the moderates in the party, IMO, is because the Republicans were simply going to continue to criticize and vote no. There would always be something the Republicans didn't like in the bill, but rather than saying "okay," and truly negotiating, they just stopped playing the game.
After all, the bill, as it is, is very similar to ideas for a bill proposed by Gingrich, et al., 15 years ago.
Just to show you how far the goalposts have shifted in that time.
Posts: 7021 | Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: Politically, though, I still think it's in the Dems' interest to push through a healthcare bill (and in the interest of the country). But I think the only way they'll be able to do it is to jettison the months of work on the current bill and start fresh.
Yeah, I agree with this. There hasn't been enough transparency with this process and I think there's a lot of perception out there that the bill is bloated and going to be ineffective. And with the huge cost of it--and I'm sure it'll end up going over the budget they allot for it-- people have to be really convinced to support it, and there's just too much negative drama associated for that to happen right now. The idea of "starting fresh" might appeal to people, along with some more transparency.
Posts: 241 | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps, with a bit of luck, the Democrats will learn from this debacle and try to do incremental reforms, instead of One Big Bill that has to be larded up with pork just to pass their own party.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well, here's , here's one thing I know and I just want to make sure that this is off the table. The Senate certainly shouldn't try to jam anything through until Scott Brown is seated. People in Massachusetts spoke. He's got to be part of that process.
Were the roles switched, there is no way the Republicans would let their bill die. They'd pass it, and worry about selling it after the fact.
I'm a healthy twenty-something who'd have to pay hundreds of dollars out of pocket for a decent plan, which, inevitably, I would use only a few times a year for checkups. Instead I have a crappy catastrophic plan because it's something. And, frankly, I'm lucky - because at the end of all that, I'm healthy.
But, apparently, changing 1% of the senate makes the work of months and months before null and void. And this is the more "democratic" option somehow.
Democrats: You jam it through, somehow, and then come November, you say: "I voted to pass health care reform the way I did because I thought it would be a shame and a tragedy to allow it to die simply because Ted Kennedy couldn't fight off cancer for a few more months."
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: That said, I'd be surprised if the results weren't certified by Friday. Monday at the latest.
The law in Massachusetts states that no certificate of election can be issued until at least ten days following a special election.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Notice the talk today. No vote on health care until he is seated is the primary response from BOTH sides of the aisle, as well as the President.
I doubt Bush would have said the same if the situation had occurred during his Presidency.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm fine with either getting rid of the filibuster, or changing it to the way it used to be so that the party of disruption has to actually visually and vocally hold the floor during the process. I know that at some point in the future Republicans will have a 50 plus 1 majority, but I'm so sick of gridlock over important issues, that I'm find with taking some in the teeth occasionally if it actually means getting stuff done. If people don't like what Republicans are doing, they'll get voted out and Democrats can hopefully fix it. And if people don't hate it, maybe it means they did it right.
Isn't that how things are supposed to work? At present, the system is designed to be systematically counterproductive to good legislation, and certainly to efficient legislation. To get 60 votes, so many side deals have to be made, which means more cost, more compromises, not always for the best, and by the end, if anything can be passed at all, it's full of so many loopholes and addendum that it's virtually useless. The current bill is a mess. It was much less of a mess in its original form. It would be much less of a mess if it hadn't been watered down a dozen different ways to appease a dozen different people.
I'm all for compromise, as it can often either weed out bad ideas, or bring more support to a measure, which itself can be valuable. But compromise that kills the most vital, and sometimes most controversial elements, of a bill, is counterproductive. And that's what I think the current rules lead to. As things are, the party of opposition can stop the process in anonymity, and don't have to be on television being shown as obstructionist. It makes it so neither side has to really answer questions as to what they're trying to do.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: Notice the talk today. No vote on health care until he is seated is the primary response from BOTH sides of the aisle, as well as the President.
I doubt Bush would have said the same if the situation had occurred during his Presidency.
Obama is cool. I like him. Posts: 241 | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Perhaps, with a bit of luck, the Democrats will learn from this debacle and try to do incremental reforms, instead of One Big Bill that has to be larded up with pork just to pass their own party.
I would love to see this. Let's open up the rules about buying plans across state lines, provide some seed money for non-profit insurance co-ops, and give tax incentives to insurance companies and doctors to revise their payment schedules to encourage and focus on maintaining good health instead of waiting until things deteriorate (like the usual example of hospitals getting more money to cut off a diabetic's leg than the doctor does to keep him from needing an amputation) for starters. And if I could get a rule that makes the hospitals do their own bookkeeping instead of expecting me to keep track of all their subcontractors and procedures while my loved one is in the hospital, that'd be gravy.
Juxtapose, I'm curious about this:
quote: I'm a healthy twenty-something who'd have to pay hundreds of dollars out of pocket for a decent plan, which, inevitably, I would use only a few times a year for checkups. Instead I have a crappy catastrophic plan because it's something. And, frankly, I'm lucky - because at the end of all that, I'm healthy.
Why do you consider a plan that would do things you don't need it to to be "decent" and a plan that covers your expenses in an emergency to be "crappy"? If you can afford the $100 a year to see the doctor out of pocket, why spend hundreds to only pay a $20 copay? Unless I'm missing something, and I easily could be, it sounds like you have the appropriate level of insurance for your needs. You just need something in case bad things happen. Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by King of Men: Perhaps, with a bit of luck, the Democrats will learn from this debacle and try to do incremental reforms, instead of One Big Bill that has to be larded up with pork just to pass their own party. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would love to see this.
When I suggested that same thing I had many replies about how the only thing we should do is a massive change and incremental changes will not work. I believe that was mostly from people who want free government care or nothing.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Don't generalize too much. I support a sudden, massive change over the incremental process, and I'm willing to pay for it. In my humble opinion, an incremental process will not work; it's more likely to stall out before any significant progress is made.
Posts: 1813 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm looking for a reference, DK. If I don't post again, assume that is a retraction of the point.
Posts: 7021 | Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: In my humble opinion, an incremental process will not work; it's more likely to stall out before any significant progress is made.
As I have said before, I really think that something like electronic health records can and should be done as a separate bill. I do believe that incremental changes that show improvements would be passed easier than a massive bill that you need to bribe senators to vote for ever will.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: The reason they were held captive by the moderates in the party, IMO, is because the Republicans were simply going to continue to criticize and vote no. There would always be something the Republicans didn't like in the bill, but rather than saying "okay," and truly negotiating, they just stopped playing the game.
I think, for all its faults, the bill is quite moderate. But it isn't bipartisan, mainly because there aren't enough moderate Republicans left in the Senate or House who could support a moderate bill in the face of leadership opposition. The last two election cycles have pretty well purged the ranks of the moderate Republicans and swelled the ranks of the moderate Democrats; as a result, any bill that could win bipartisan approval will, of necessity, actually be more conservative than in the past and any Democratic-partisan bill will be forced toward moderation.
None of this is really here or there; just an interesting dynamic that will (it seems to me) tend to produce legislative parity over time. Cognitively people seem to like the idea of bipartisanship and punish parties acting in a partisan fashion, even if those actions are moderate in nature.
posted
I see your point, but I think it still misses (and this is probably just a difference of opinion) that the Republicans want nothing changed with the status quo, so there is no bipartisanship possible. It requires both sides willing to enact change.
DK, I retract my point since I can't find anything on the web about the older plan, only links to Gingrich's more recent plans.
Posts: 7021 | Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why do you consider a plan that would do things you don't need it to to be "decent" and a plan that covers your expenses in an emergency to be "crappy"? If you can afford the $100 a year to see the doctor out of pocket, why spend hundreds to only pay a $20 copay? Unless I'm missing something, and I easily could be, it sounds like you have the appropriate level of insurance for your needs. You just need something in case bad things happen.
Well, getting a yearly physical would be a good start. Having my checkups with the eye doctor covered would be even better. Getting cleanings at the dentist covered as well would be fantastic.
At present I'm only actually doing one of those three. Ironically, they would be pretty easily affordable if I weren't shelling out each month for my coverage.
As a side note, I do realize that part of what I'm paying is subsidizing someone who's coverage is monumentally unaffordable. I don't mind that. I was trying, in my last post, to give a brief example of how ridiculous the system is. My situation, as I said, is actually pretty good, but when I saw people saying that passing the bill now would be undemocratic, I thought a reminder of why we needed the bill in the first place was in order.
posted
I'm in favour of people being allowed to use as much money as they like on political ads, but I'm not convinced it's in our interest to allow them to do so through their ownership in a corporation, because of the good old agent/principal problem. The corporation's managers will presumably try to advance the interests of their stockholders as stockholders, that is, maximising the profits of the corporation. But the stockholders also have interests as citizens, which may well clash with their interests as stockholders.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
A critique that mostly applies, if to anything, to public corporations, and maybe the small number of private corporations held by a large number of individuals.
Not, notably, to the corporation in this court case, or to most corporations in existence.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Perhaps, with a bit of luck, the Democrats will learn from this debacle and try to do incremental reforms, instead of One Big Bill that has to be larded up with pork just to pass their own party.
Can you suggest a sequence of incremental reforms that you think would have been passable?
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Harry Reid has said that there will be no vote in the Senate on health care until after Scott Brown has been seated. Nancy Pilosi has admitted that she does not have enough votes to get the House to approve the Senate version without change.
Scott Brown campaigned on the promise that if he were elected, he would stop the Obama health care plan. It was not just "Tea-baggers" who elected him in Massachusetts.
Democrats now have no choice but to wake up to take cognizance of the real will of the people. The November elections are coming, and the prospect is looking more and more like Armageddon to Democrats who stand for re-election. They tried to shrug off or explain away big losses in special elections in New Jersey and Virginia. But Massachusetts cannot be shrugged off or explained away. Forget the silly excuses about the administration "blowing it," or about Coakley running a "lackluster campaign." The win by Brown in Massachusetts was decisive, not close, in a state (commonwealth) that is as Democratic as any state in the union. Even Hyannisport, the home of the Kennedy family compound, went for Brown (according to FNC)!
The Obama administration needs to give up its war against Fox News (and against Freedom of the Press), and start listening to FNC's accurate reporting, and to the will of the people.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Perhaps, with a bit of luck, the Democrats will learn from this debacle and try to do incremental reforms, instead of One Big Bill that has to be larded up with pork just to pass their own party.
Can you suggest a sequence of incremental reforms that you think would have been passable?
Step 1: Allow insurance to be sold across state lines. Step 2: Remove the tax exemption on employer-provided health insurance, starting at a future date to give people time to adjust.
Just these two steps would help the situation vastly.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
My concern with #1, KoM, involves the consolidation of insurers into states with more lenient laws and regulations. I think you'd need consistent federal laws on insurers as step #1 before you took this step, even though I think this step is a good idea.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Perhaps, with a bit of luck, the Democrats will learn from this debacle and try to do incremental reforms, instead of One Big Bill that has to be larded up with pork just to pass their own party.
Can you suggest a sequence of incremental reforms that you think would have been passable?
Step 1: Allow insurance to be sold across state lines. Step 2: Remove the tax exemption on employer-provided health insurance, starting at a future date to give people time to adjust.
Just these two steps would help the situation vastly.
For 1) to be a positive I think you need to do what Tom said. For a significant improvement I think the removal of the anti-trust protection that the insurance industry currently enjoys is also necessary.
I might be missing something though. If these reforms were enacted how do you think the health care landscape would change for example, in terms of reining in costs, expanding coverage, and dealing with pre-existing conditions?
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Private health insurance cannot deal with pre-existing conditions; this is not insurance, it's redistribution. (I don't say on these grounds that it should not be done; just that it should not be done by regulating private, for-profit insurers.) If you want that, you need state insurance. So for my initial incremental reforms, I'm just throwing that out; can't be done this year, sorry.
As for reining in costs and expanding coverage, what do you think happens when fifty little markets are suddenly consolidated into one big one? You get hella more competition, is what. Competition drives down costs.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with KoM on this. Take it slow. Pass some things to see how it goes, then worry about more later.
While I do not believe taxes on healthcare solve anything, being able to buy insurance across state lines (if done correctly) would be great.
Juxtapose said that he is a healthy young man that simply does not need the health plan that costs hundreds of dollars. Thats great!
My healthcare costs me around $260 a month. We have a higher plan would cost me $60 more a month but decrease my co-pays by $10 a visit. Emergency coverage is the same on both plans, it is covered 100%. I am 28 and my wife is 22.
I have a brother that is 24 years old, and the only person him and his wife have on their health plan is their 2 year old daughter. I asked him why he didn't get health coverage and he simply replied "I don't think I need it, so it is a waste of money for me."
Thing is, there is a lot of people like this. It is true that there are those that work at places that simply do not offer it or do not have jobs, but there are a lot others that do not feel they need it. In college very few people I knew got the student health plans.
I think the part of the bill mandating that everyone buy healthcare turned off a lot of people. With a lack of the public option, the bill looked like it would be a big boost for insurance companies. The republicans then swept in and said "We are against this bill because they want to force you to buy health coverage!"
I think that is the main reason it has lost so much support.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Private health insurance cannot deal with pre-existing conditions; this is not insurance, it's redistribution. (I don't say on these grounds that it should not be done; just that it should not be done by regulating private, for-profit insurers.) If you want that, you need state insurance. So for my initial incremental reforms, I'm just throwing that out; can't be done this year, sorry.
As for reining in costs and expanding coverage, what do you think happens when fifty little markets are suddenly consolidated into one big one? You get hella more competition, is what. Competition drives down costs.
In theory, sure. First, without the additional reforms I and Tom mentioned earlier, you will end up with a race to the bottom i.e. people will buy insurance originating in states with little to no state-mandated consumer protection, as these plans are cheaper. These plans are often not very good when you actually need them.
California is pretty huge. Yet it has high rates of uninsured. Likewise Texas, which is even worse (actually the worst) in this regard. [Disclaimer I don't know if the poll restricts to residents/legal immigrants]. I would be interested in seeing a comparison of health care expenditure between states.
The point of all this being that I am skeptical that simply making the insurance market national will have any meaningful effect without additional reforms (such as removing the anti-trust exemption).
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Juxtapose: As a side note, I do realize that part of what I'm paying is subsidizing someone who's coverage is monumentally unaffordable. I don't mind that. I was trying, in my last post, to give a brief example of how ridiculous the system is. My situation, as I said, is actually pretty good, but when I saw people saying that passing the bill now would be undemocratic, I thought a reminder of why we needed the bill in the first place was in order.
I respect that. Personally, I'm still holding out hope that the government will go back to funding the county health departments to handle routine care for the poor. Why give my money to some guy to give to the insurance company to give to the doctor if my taxes can just go straight to the doctor instead?
quote:Well, getting a yearly physical would be a good start. Having my checkups with the eye doctor covered would be even better. Getting cleanings at the dentist covered as well would be fantastic.
At present I'm only actually doing one of those three. Ironically, they would be pretty easily affordable if I weren't shelling out each month for my coverage.
As a side note, I've never seen dental covered by medical insurance. It's always been seperate and about as much in monthly payments as paying for the two cleanings. I might be saving the $25 extra for my X-rays.
Last year I bought the plan that would give me 20% off cosmetic work, but by the time I'd had it the year I needed we'd switched plans. If my husband didn't need some work done, I'd have cancelled the coverage. If you're not prone to cavities, dental is rarely worth it, in my opinion.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If they vote it in prior to Brown's swearing in, the vast majority of Dems will lose reelection in the fall.
If they wait and resort to the reconciliation process, the same result will occur. Reconciliation is reserved for spending bills....the Dems do not want to set this precedent. Even Repubs have avoided using this process. If they do, do not complain when the other side rams through whatever they want with a simple majority. Using legal loopholes sets a very bad precedent.
They need to wake up.....In Mass, Dems outnumber Repubs 3 to 1. Brown won because he gained the votes of Dems and Independents. Obama, Pelosi and Reid want this to be a R vs D argument but in fact it is a Conservative VS Progressive one. They are pushing an extreme left "progressive" agenda.... many Democrats will vote R to stop the progessive agenda. Brown's campaign ads channeled JFK. Brown's ads included video footage of JFK. As I've said before, JFK would be a Republican today. Brown hasn't taken a Kennedy seat, he returned it to the principles of the original Kennedy.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
You know that the most popular aspect of the health care bill is the public option. Check the polling data. Now what aspect of the health care bill is most vehemently opposed by conservatives?
People aren't against the ideas the left has, they're just against this particular manifestation of them. That's in part because of right wing propaganda, and in part because Democrats really did put together a Frankenstein mishmash bill of crap. It has some good stuff, maybe even a lot, but it seems weighed down by the bad. If they went back and drew up their dream plan, I have a feeling much of the country would likewise support it, but it would never pass, and Republicans would call them partisan and call it a closed, secretive process, and because of process alone, it would die.
That's not a war of ideas. It's smoke and mirrors.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not going to defend the Kennedy family. They represent everything America should be against. Same thing goes for the most recent Bush. Just because his daddy was president doesn't mean he is capable or deserving. Same thing goes for Hillary running for president or being our current secretary of state. Being first lady does not make you qualified to be senator of a state you've never lived in or secretary of state. The nepotism of the Kennedy's is hopefully dead but the nepotism is never dead. We founded this nation to escape royals but maybe the worship of royals is in our nature.
I may vote R but if Jebb Bush runs for president, I'm going to puke. Plenty of stupid people will vote for him due to his last name though....like Hillary or Kennedy.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:In theory, sure. First, without the additional reforms I and Tom mentioned earlier, you will end up with a race to the bottom i.e. people will buy insurance originating in states with little to no state-mandated consumer protection, as these plans are cheaper. These plans are often not very good when you actually need them.
Does your theory explain why this does not happen with auto insurance, renter's insurance, and fire insurance? Alternatively, do you assert that it does?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Does your theory explain why this does not happen with auto insurance
Auto insurance must meet certain legally mandated minimum standards of coverage. It's not really possible to get a "not very good" auto insurance plan, though you can elect to have a higher deductible in exchange for lower premiums.
Because of these minimum standards, auto insurance companies generally compete on price and customer service rather than on the actual insurance services provided.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: You know that the most popular aspect of the health care bill is the public option.
And yet it's the part they should most vehemently oppose. The guy making the rules for the product should not be selling it. It's a conflict of interest, period.
Telling people they have to buy insurance and only offering expensive plans is not good business. Even helping people buy the plans is just throwing money down a hole if we can't rein in the costs. The public option sounds like the answer to those problems, until you watch the government run an insurance pool.
Enter Citizen's Property Insurance. The state would step in and serve as insurance of last resort for people whose homes were being dropped by private insurance. Sounds great, right? Except they're apparently not bounds by the same actuarial rules as everyone else because we recently had a big fight down here with people begging the Legislature to let State Farm raise rates and not leave the state.
quote: The reasons, the company said, were the unrealistic restrictions on rates following a series of hurricanes and competition from the state-run insurance company of last resort, which in most cases was lower than commercial companies.
Our Governor was disappointed when the rate increase passed. Even though it was decided Citizen's needed a 40% rate hike to stay solvent.
I've seen the government get their fingers in the insurance pie, and I don't want to see them play with my health insurance. I'd much rather see the non-profit co-ops. I've worked for a bank; I now work for a credit union. I can't stress enough the difference in culture when the focus is on educating people to make better choices instead of making money for the shareholders.
As long as people think a government option is the only alternative to big corporate insurance, I'm sure they'll continue to support it. That doesn't make it either the only option or the best one.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, no offense, but I think the insurance situation in Florida is screwed regardless. Build that many homes near the coast in an area prone to frequent hurricane hits is a disaster waiting to happen, and the rates will always be high, until you guys start adopting some sort of building standards that equate to California's with regards to earthquakes. Instead, either storm surge or high winds cause immense damage, yearly, and everyone feigns shock when the rates jump. You're a special case. Much of the Gulf Coast is, but Florida in particular.
quote: Telling people they have to buy insurance and only offering expensive plans is not good business. Even helping people buy the plans is just throwing money down a hole if we can't rein in the costs. The public option sounds like the answer to those problems, until you watch the government run an insurance pool.
And I don't buy your premise. Who said that they had to buy only expensive plans? Who said the government plan would be more expensive than other options? Who said private insurance will rein in costs?
I'd like to see, if not national health care, non-profit co-ops become far more prevalent as well. But I still think there needs to be a government set minimum standard of coverage. A non-profit can screw someone just like any other company without it.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lyrhawn, the Republicans have put forward their own health care plan. So far Democrats have completely ignored it.
What everyone objects to is the behind-closed-door meetings that result in bribes to certain senators to get their votes, completely unfair to the rest of the country, and the continual effort from the very beginning by the administration to try to get everyone to vote to approve their bill without even reading it.
The people in Massachusetts already have their own health care plan that is said to cover 98% of citizens. So they had extra reasons to reject a national health care plan that they believed would be inferior, or result in them paying extra taxes to keep their present plan.
As for the various provisions of the "public option," there have been many serious criticisms. By this time, the criticisms are not "smoke and mirrors." The public option is simply not passing public scrutiny. It is failing the vetting process.
Scott Brown said that as a state (commonwealth) legislator, he voted in favor of Massachusetts' health care plan--so it is not impossible for a conservative or progressive (non-collectivist) Republican to vote in favor of a public health care plan. It has to be done right, and the nation is not going to let Democrats do it any old way they please.
The public punished the arrogance of Democrats in New Jersey, in Virginia, and now in Massachusetts. Democrats had better start listening seriously to the Republicans and to the public, and stop trying to dismiss their critics as "Tea-baggers." And the Obama administration had better call off its war against Fox News and Freedom of the Press, or the ratings for Fox News are going to go higher still. (They already exceed those of any two other cable news networks put together.)
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
