Make a new account
We're about as close as we get in America to political street battles, and the President is doing calm web videos. I'm just not sure that's quite right.
The hardest thing about this debate (for me) is that I am opposed to any of the reforms as they are now constituted as none of them really address Universal Health care, but are simply payoffs to the insurance companies, and other players in the health care industry. This puts me on the same side as those who are disrupting these town hall meetings etc., and I am not comfortable in this position, but I also will not be blackmailed into supporting the current plans because there are "jaw dropping stupid" people who also oppose the plans. [ Parent ]
I firmly believe the DNC wants you to be reluctant to be lumped in with the crazy right-wingers at town halls - they want to be able to say that ONLY these crazy conservatives oppose "the plan." [ Parent ]
I thought he was supposed to be another Great Communicator. So far, he squandered a prime time presser on health care by concluding it with a whack at the Gates affair, which, of course, was all that the media blared the next day, effectively drowning out anything Obama had to say about health care reform. And all of his commentary on the issue, while good, sinks. The deathers and birthers have the floor.
Maybe we are just too stupid to get this done. [ Parent ]
Of course, I'm mystified by a lot of things.
Do I need more coffee? [ Parent ]
In Washington we have Group Health, which, as I said yesterday, has been much maligned over the years by those in the program. ("Group Death" is how it is often referred to.) The only other co-op model I am aware of is Health Partners, started in Minnesota.
Does anyone actually have experience with that system?
I would love to hear more before we get stuck with an unknowable, untested plan that is so far from the kind of public option most people want. [ Parent ]
I first heard the "political feasibility" argument from members of a Minnesota health care reform commission in the spring and summer of 1990 when the coalition for which I was working, the Health Care Campaign of Minnesota, started visiting commission members to drum up support for single-payer legislation. I remember very clearly hearing the political feasibility argument on a hot summer day in 1990 in the office of Senator Linda Berglin, a commission member who also chaired the Senate health committee. Berglin, who was and still is from the safest Democratic-Farmer-Labor district in Minnesota, said she wouldn't support single-payer because "we can't beat the insurance industry" (or words almost exactly like those). A year later she was claiming that legislation that relied on HMOs to contain cost would have a much greater chance of passing in Minnesota and that's what she was going to focus on. Over the years 1992 through 1994, Minnesota's legislature did in fact pass a series of bills (collectively referred to as "MinnesotaCare") that were supposed to achieve substantial cost containment by encouraging faster enrollment in HMOs, and thus establish universal health insurance by July 1, 1997. Of course, it all fell apart, beginning in 1995. Minnesota is no closer to universal health insurance today than it was in 1990 when I was first advised by my betters about how politically infeasible single-payer is and how politically feasible the HMO approach would be.
Over the years 1992 through 1994, Minnesota's legislature did in fact pass a series of bills (collectively referred to as "MinnesotaCare") that were supposed to achieve substantial cost containment by encouraging faster enrollment in HMOs, and thus establish universal health insurance by July 1, 1997. Of course, it all fell apart, beginning in 1995. Minnesota is no closer to universal health insurance today than it was in 1990 when I was first advised by my betters about how politically infeasible single-payer is and how politically feasible the HMO approach would be.
You might try e-mailing the Minnesota chapter at pnhpminnesota@gmail.com; I have a feeling they may be able to give you all kinds of info on the Minnesota co-op. [ Parent ]
Otherwise rational individuals can be easily stampeded into panic by agitators on the right.
Weak leadership in the White House hasn't helped. An opportunity to spell out a clear, simple, easy to understand, efficatious health care plan was declined at the outset allowing the right to dictate the terms of "debate."
A clear effective plan laid out at the start would have rendered the right ineffective and perhaps hesitant to launch much resistance.
They've been handed an opening and now they believe they can kill two birds with one stone, wrest power from the Democrats and kill reform.
The foolish attempt to bring them into the process revealed a weakness they could pounce upon. [ Parent ]
All of which will lead to non-reform, or an even more labyrinthian system which cuts an even sweeter deal for private insurers. I believe the "leadership" anticipated and pre-ordained that outcome from the outset. [ Parent ]
We need a bubba who "feels our pain" not a detatched lecturing academic. [ Parent ]
There's no measurable passion, or compassion, here - not even when he's referring to his own mother's life-end struggles with health insurance companies. That may be because Obama wasn't particularly involved with his mother's year long battle with cancer - which, unfortunately, coincided with the time (1995) when he was campaigning for the Illinois Senate, while his mother was in Hawaii being taken care of by her parents.
I'm not saying any of that necessarily makes him a bad person or a bad son. It may just limit his range of personal empathy on these particular matters. [ Parent ]
Link [ Parent ]
Honestly, if I were a senior on Medicare, I would have rather had part D as passed than nothing at all. [ Parent ]
AARP (Novelli) supported BUSH's bill. And the way it all came down was pretty shady, if I recall. The Democrats were blindsided by the sudden turn of support. [ Parent ]
That's a lesson people on our side have to learn too, IMO. [ Parent ]
Just as Part D was mostly a boon to Pharma, this will be mostly a boon to the insurance industry.
Better to have no bill at all. [ Parent ]
The endorsement was wrong, corrupt, I'd even say. [ Parent ]
Medicaid varies so much across the country that he doesn't really have to take much responsibility for it. [ Parent ]
Maybe a good place to be is with this:
"A key pillar of a new foundation is health insurance reform."
I didn't do a count, but did he even mention the CARE aspect of reform nearly as often as he coupled "health" with "insurance?" I mean, even in the obvious place, where he could have said that the reform would put people in charge of their own health care, he said it would put people in charge of their health insurance.
He mentions the promises of providers to bring down costs, and make drugs more affordable; these are things industry providers could have been doing all along, but they haven't been. Why would they make that promise now? What are they getting, what have they been promised that Obama fails to mention?
Invoking the AMA - the organization that opposed Meicare - and making it sound like virtually every doctor and nurse in the country is a member, and that health professionals are nearly universally behind this particular effort is manipulative and misleading. It just is not so.
Notice, when he gets there, that he doesn't mention that there will be no cuts to Medicare. I won't be the only one who notices that.
He still does not tell people what their options are if they have health insurance, through an employer, and don't like it. Obama says people will be in charge of their own health insurance, but does that mean that they will be able to opt out of an employer-based plan for something better, and less expensive?
He never discussed how it would be paid for.
He says insurance companies will not be able to deny people for pre-existing conditions, but did not explain whether acceptance would come with an affordable price tag. The companies won't be able to drop people when they get sick, but will they be able to raise their premiums? Obama didn't say.
Not one word about "the public option."
Not one word about when reform will be implemented, but saying that we will be "getting it done by the end of this year" is going to make a lot of people think it will start in 2010. The news that it won't begin until over three years from now is going to make a lot of people feel bamboozled, I think.
The really misleading part of the address concerned Obama's claims that this particular reform effort will be the antithesis of the status quo, in terms of cost and the effect on the economy and in the health of the people affected. For sure, insurance companies will be getting millions more people to collect premiums from, but Obama is perpetuating the myth that having insurance means you have CARE. It doesn't: too many people NOW have insurance, but cannot take advantage of it because they still cannot afford the co-pays and deductibles associated with getting care.
I'm still trying to get my head around the fact that Obama made no secret of the fact that we are no longer talking about putting people in charge of their CARE, but in charge of their insurance; will anyone who has had to deal with insurance companies really believe that we are going to be in charge?
This is not leadership; it's failureship.
You are never goign to get the same insurance cheaper than you get it through your employer due to "group pricing" or volume pricing.
I'm sure that in the bill is the requirement that insurance companies drop the preexisiting condition requirement. However, you can bet your bottom dollar that people will be charged out the ying yang if they do have a preexisting condition therefore really doing nothing to solve the problem unless the person can afford several thousand dollar a month insurance premiums. And yes, the insurance companies will be able to raise premiums.
From everything I've been reading about "obamacare" it's pretty much little more than a bailout for the insurance companies. Instead of letting them put themselves out of business, the Obama administration is going to prop them up for a while longer. [ Parent ]
Now that it appears the public option is morphing into co-ops and exchanges, I think there will still be a "group" element, which could make it less expensive, but Obama is not being honest in explaining that if you have employer-based insurance, you may be stuck with it, unless your employer chooses to drop the plan, or you change jobs and are fortunate enough to land with a company that still provides a group plan and it is better than the one you had before.
I'm still trying to understand the innovativeness of sticking with an employer-based model that handcuffs people to their jobs; if Obama is looking to turn the status quo on its head, insisting on this model isn't going to help do it.
But, he isn't really interested in abandoning the status quo, so it's a moot point. [ Parent ]
but Obama is perpetuating the myth that having insurance means you have CARE. It doesn't: too many people NOW have insurance, but cannot take advantage of it because they still cannot afford the co-pays and deductibles associated with getting care.
...not to mention that the insurance companies can still deny you coverage, still do things like delay coverage until the insuree dies. As far as I know the plan does nothing to address "death by spreadsheet". [ Parent ]
People who think we'd be seeing something along the lines of a more enlightened, just approach to policy if any of the other nominees were in Obama's place are seriously deluded, IMO. [ Parent ]
I don't think so. [ Parent ]
I'd just like the Democrats to tell me when I'll get my Medicare card in the mail and how much they want in taxes, so you know, I can actually have basic health care like my counterparts in every other industrialized nation.
and anyone who wants to make money can do it, lol... [ Parent ]
He has never explained how bending the cost curve requires another 100 billion in taxes each year. He only expounds on the benefits of reform as if it only means choosing between two pills that do the same thing and all we have to do is choose the cheaper one. Having spent 20 years in HR and employee benefits I know it's not that easy.
I always had the feeling during the primaries that Obama only cared about health care reform as a chance to differentiate himself from HRC and her plan. If her plan did not require mandatory insurance he would have proposed a plan that did.
Now he's stuck defending a 1,000 page bill he didn't write and the people that wrote it have trouble selling. [ Parent ]
If that isn't telling, I don't know what is.
Are seniors the only citizens needing drug costs lowered?
Drug companies have agreed. Yes. They cut a deal with the White House. The insurance companies didn't, so we'll get insurance reform...reform that will only give them more clients to screw over and bigger profits to hand out bonuses and campaign funds.
This is criminal.
Not that it's any surprise after the primary battles re healthcare. If you didn't see this coming, you weren't paying attention.
It doesn't address so many concerns, including the ones I put above here.
Too big to regulate. [ Parent ]
Thank you very much for abiding by the rules of the site.
As politically well-connected liberal Bob Shrum signaled the other day with his unhesitating embrace of the co-op compromise, the Obama admin appears to be willing to settle just for something right now. If so, that would be quite a disappointing outcome for a 60 Dem Congress and alleged anti-incrementalist president.
The rather complicated "reconciliation" alternative, requiring only a bare majority, also seems less likely today, if one is to believe former cong'l aide Lawr O'Donnell as he backed Sen Conrad's skeptical view. Apparently only small pieces of the overall reform package could go through by this method, and beyond that would still need 60 votes to overcome opposition on a given aspect of the bill.
Depressing to hear, if this is in fact an accurate assessment of the process.
Dude, she must be allergic to the truth.
Here is the clip.
http://progressnotcongress.org/?p=2440