Except For The Mandate And No Public Option, HCR Is Exactly Like What Obama Promised

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Mon Dec 21, 2009 at 09:57:58 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Ezra humor for the day (and here is Marcy Wheeler laughing with me):

The health-care bill that looks likely to clear the Senate this week [. . .] is very close to the health-care bill that Barack Obama promised. [. . .] [T]here are, to be sure, some differences. The public option did not survive the Senate. The individual mandate, which Obama campaigned against, was added [. . .] Drug reimportation was defeated, and a vague effort to have government pick up some catastrophic costs was never really mentioned.

But other than that, EXACTLY the same. From the guy who spent the summer attacking Howard Dean for supposed "flip-flopping," this is damned funny. Look, the Senate bill will stand and fall on it own merits. And campaign promises are not worth the paper they are written on (NAFTA renegotiation anyone?) But this type of silly stuff does no one any good - not Obama, not Ezra, and not anyone else.

Speaking for me only

< The Political Deal: Who Succeeded And Who Failed | Health Bill: The "No Change" You Can Believe In >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Except For The Mandate And No Public Option, HCR Is Exactly Like What Obama Promised | 26 comments (26 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Dog eat Dog (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by SOS on Mon Dec 21, 2009 at 10:14:04 AM EST

It's dog eat dog ain't it Flim Flam man
Dog eat dog you can lie cheat skim scam
Beat' em any way you can

Other than that (none / 0) (#1)
by mmc9431 on Mon Dec 21, 2009 at 10:00:55 AM EST

Mr. Lincoln, How did you like the play!

This has to be one of the most pathetic defenses of the fiasco yet.

Who will be the first (none / 0) (#2)
by Steve M on Mon Dec 21, 2009 at 10:01:08 AM EST

to make the tired Mrs. Lincoln joke?

: Not you ;-) (5.00 / 2) (#3)
by andgarden on Mon Dec 21, 2009 at 10:03:03 AM EST

: I don't know about "first," but (none / 0) (#26)
by Anne on Mon Dec 21, 2009 at 10:18:22 PM EST

I made it last week...
I don't know how it doesn't come to mind.

Will (none / 0) (#4)
by Ga6thDem on Mon Dec 21, 2009 at 10:03:42 AM EST

anyone take Ezra serioulsy ever again? I hope not.

Well, he's begging the question (none / 0) (#5)
by andgarden on Mon Dec 21, 2009 at 10:04:44 AM EST

Either you think that the public option is a really big, essential part of this package, or you don't.

that too (none / 0) (#6)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Dec 21, 2009 at 10:07:13 AM EST

But the whole post is ridiculous.

In a way, I'm glad he did write it as I am looking to discredit him as a "progressive" on HCR.

And he gave me a lot of ammo. He looks to all the world an Obama apologist here.


I do not know what Ezra thinks (none / 0) (#18)
by Politalkix on Mon Dec 21, 2009 at 10:44:51 AM EST

but I thought that the public option was an essential part of Obama's primary campaign. Actually, I liked Obama's health care plan more than HRC's or JE's plan because (1) there was no coercion involving mandates (2) a public option was available (which I thought would be open to everyone who wanted it) and (3) the focus was on cost control.
Unfortunately, all HCR arguments during the primaries revolved around mandates or the lack of it and whether "universal coverage" could be obtained without it or not. It would have been beneficial for everyone had arguments during the primaries focussed as much on the detailed nature of public options that each candidate was proposing as they did on the subject of "universal coverage".
After the primaries got over, I understood that the mandates had become a part of the Obama/Biden plan. I did not like it, but understood that all national democrats were in agreement about mandates.
The public options that were touted after Obama became a President were disappointing. My attitude towards the public option became lukewarm after I learned that it would be open to a very small fraction of people.
In my mind, the public option was an essential part of Obama's health care package during the primaries; however it lost a lot of its appeal in the present debate and became a non-essential item after they closed its availability to the vast majority of people.
I think even the people who are protesting the most about the lack of public option in the present Senate bill are doing so only because they see it as a camel's snout under the tent, not because of what would be available as soon as the bill took effect had a public option been inserted.


: You have to be card carrying (5.00 / 1) (#24)
by Salo on Mon Dec 21, 2009 at 05:22:14 PM EST

Goof if you thought Obama was offering a real plan or anything like a coherent position. His entire campaign schtick was SICK on this topic.

He also (none / 0) (#7)
by andgarden on Mon Dec 21, 2009 at 10:07:58 AM EST

says, "[w]e're not changing our health-care system very much at all, in fact."

Good news by Ezra's standards? (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by MO Blue on Mon Dec 21, 2009 at 10:15:28 AM EST

We have an admittedly dysfunctional health care system in America. So it is good news that the powers that be have decided to maintain the staus quo? Hell, let's all strike up the band and celebrate that we can keep our 'merican system and pay 2 to 3 time more for less coverage than other countries.


Thanking $500 billion out of Medicare (none / 0) (#23)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 21, 2009 at 12:45:32 PM EST

is not maintaining the status quo.


: You are right about that, Jim (none / 0) (#25)
by MO Blue on Mon Dec 21, 2009 at 10:02:13 PM EST

He's right about that (none / 0) (#8)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Dec 21, 2009 at 10:08:40 AM EST

Of course he is, but the White House needs (none / 0) (#10)
by andgarden on Mon Dec 21, 2009 at 10:10:40 AM EST

its "biggest healthcare reform EVAR" moment.


: Well (5.00 / 2) (#13)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Dec 21, 2009 at 10:15:50 AM EST

I assume they aren't hiring Ezra for the speech.

Do you think...? (none / 0) (#9)
by jbindc on Mon Dec 21, 2009 at 10:10:14 AM EST

Since this wonderful bill is exactly what Obama promised, then he will take this idea to heart, since he promised so much to the LGBT community too? Think the reconiciliation bill will contain something like this?

(Disclaimer - one of the authors, Jason Rahlan, is a friend of mine).

Krugman Explains to non-wonks the cost controls (none / 0) (#14)
by Dan the Man on Mon Dec 21, 2009 at 10:20:53 AM EST

in the health care bill.

"Against that you have to set the fact that this reform makes the first serious effort, ever, to rein in costs. It's not at all hard to believe that after a few years this will lead to lower, not higher, spending."

I misssed the explanation part (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Dec 21, 2009 at 10:30:42 AM EST

"The theory of the reform is as illustrated above."

I saw a graph. The explanation of the graph was lacking.

It was an assertion, not an explanation. to be honest, the more Krugman speaks on this, the more nervous I get about it PRECISELY BECAUSE he never actually explains why there is cost containment. a very smart man should be able to articulate why there will be cost containment.


: Yup (none / 0) (#16)
by andgarden on Mon Dec 21, 2009 at 10:33:59 AM EST

I think it's not real, personally.

It's not at all hard to believe (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by ruffian on Mon Dec 21, 2009 at 10:37:25 AM EST

that it won't lead to lower spending either.

He's gonna have to do better than that. Though honestly I just don't believe any spending projections. It's gonna cost what the health care industrial complex says it will cost.


LOL (5.00 / 1) (#22)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Dec 21, 2009 at 11:45:42 AM EST

Yep, it reigns in healthcare spending because people won't have money for healthcare because they're spending it on premiums for high-deductible insurance or to pay a tax.


God, someone stop me from throwing (none / 0) (#19)
by Militarytracy on Mon Dec 21, 2009 at 10:51:51 AM EST

this effing computer in the lake! He is the WORST WANK I've ever had the experience of inhaling the fumes off of! I just can't believe what an idiot....I'll never know how much quality of life he removed from my son by how he chose to use the platform that God granted him but I do know this, he did not help my son's ability to have quality of life one IOTA! NOT ONE IOTA! Rock on Wanker!

It aint over till it's over (none / 0) (#20)
by mmc9431 on Mon Dec 21, 2009 at 11:04:01 AM EST

I've decided to not allow myself to get upset over this bill. The Republicans are going to use repealing this "reform" as their platform in 2010 and 2012. Between their base being fired up and Democrats feeling they've been shafted, there's a real possibility Republicans will succeed.


: Never thought of it that way (none / 0) (#21)
by Militarytracy on Mon Dec 21, 2009 at 11:09:03 AM EST

Nothing like a new mandated worthless to any quality of life tax. That is so cynical, but that's what happens when you deal with junkies who won't clean up. You become cynical, they hit bottom, they either seek to lead a more responsible ethical life or they die.