home

Blue Dog Mike Ross Opposes Medicare

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 10:32:46 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

While this is not surprising, it is worth noting. Via Steve Benen:

Key Blue Dog Democratic Rep. Mike Ross (Ark.) [said] "[a] government-run public option is the wrong direction for health reform in this country and I will oppose it in the U.S. Congress[.]"

Benen goes on to detail Ross' negotiation with Henry Waxman on the issue and the fact that Ross actually has already voted for a public option. But no one who was thinking could believe he would vote for it in a final bill. But the larger point should be made - Mike Ross opposes Medicare.

Speaking for me only

< What Will They Say When The Baucus Bill Is Gutted? | Who Are The Dems Against A Public Option In The House? >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Blue Dog Mike Ross Opposes Medicare | 24 comments (24 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Unreal (none / 0) (#1)
    by andgarden on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 10:41:36 AM EST
    "He voted for it before he voted against it."

    I'm beginning to hope this is the end of the discussion. "Do anything" really does not seem attractive as an alternative.  

    Medicare and public option are NOT the same! (none / 0) (#2)
    by lambert on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 10:47:53 AM EST
    If you want to see a real "Conservatives Oppose Medicare" takedown, see Anthony Weiner here. Make sure to keep playing until the "I dare ya! I double dare ya!" part.

    Medicare is single payer for the over-65, which is precisely what the public option is not. When public option advocates conflate the two they mislead the public -- and what's worse, they put Medicare's branding at risk, just as Bush did with the privatized and NOT single payer Medicare Part D.

    Pfft (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 10:50:33 AM EST
    He does not oppose the OPTION. He opposes the government run health insurance part.

    Don't be an idiot.

    Parent

    Really? (none / 0) (#26)
    by lambert on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 06:21:36 PM EST
    Your quote doesn't show that.

    Parent
    Did you see Weiner's latest (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by nycstray on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 10:52:22 AM EST
    at Huff?

    Parent
    It's good (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 11:30:37 AM EST
    and a GREAT Defense of the camel's nose under the tent, implicit imo.

    There is a reason Weiner will vote for a public option - because he believes it leads to single payer.

    Parent

    Really? (none / 0) (#28)
    by lambert on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 06:37:27 PM EST
    I just read the article, which is excellent, by the way, and I see no defense of incrementalism -- at least the sort that you are advocating -- in it. The closest I find is this:

    The truth is that the United States already uses single-payer systems to cover over 47% of all medical bills through Medicare, Medicaid, the Veterans Administration, the Department of Defense and the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

    Understanding that these single-payer health programs are already a major part of our overall health care system should help us visualize what an actual public plan would look like. These institutions also provide health care to millions of satisfied customers in every community who would heartily agree that the government can build and run programs that work quite well.

    Medicare also provides us with a case study in the hypocrisy of our Republican friends who have built their party on a 44-year record of undermining this popular program. And now their Chairman sees no irony in ripping "government run" healthcare while publishing an op-ed opposing changes to Medicare.

    If Medicare has been such a success, why not extend it? Why not have single-payer plans for 55 year olds? Why not have one for young citizens who just left their parents or college coverage?

    So far, the answers we hear to these questions have simply not been very convincing.

    At one town meeting the President responded that that he was worried about its "destructiveness."

    Really? Americans would still go to the same doctor and the same neighborhood hospital. Sure, they would be able to delete the 1-800 number of their insurance company from their cell phones. And doctors would have to get rid of all those file cabinets full of paperwork while their assistants who spend time fighting with insurance companies would be able to actually speak to patients.

    But everyone would adjust, I'm sure.


    First, my reading is that we've already had our incrementalism -- the plethora of single payer systems in existence now, to which Weiner alludes. There is no "actual public plan" on offer, not HELP, not HR3200, not anything, exactly because what's on offer -- the health markets, the co-ops -- can't be shown to people to work, unlike the examples he cites.

    Second, I'll repeat my original response to the "camel's nose" talking point:

    I like my camels, noses and all, to be real, and not imaginary;

    I like my camels, noses and all, to be really camels, and not skunks or weasels.

    If I let what I think is a camel get its nose under my tent, and it turns out to be a skunk or a weasel, then I'm going to be very cautious about letting anything like a camel get its nose under my tent again

    Show me that HR3200 is anything like Medicare, or the VA.


    Parent

    Tell that to Weiner then lambert (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 11:31:08 AM EST
    This is nonsense from you.

    Parent
    Speaking of idiocy... (none / 0) (#27)
    by lambert on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 06:25:33 PM EST
    The claim:

    Blue Dog Mike Ross Opposes Medicare

    The evidence:
    "[a] government-run public option is the wrong direction for health reform in this country and I will oppose it in the U.S. Congress[.]"

    Only way those statements can both be true, given the evidence on offer, is of Medicare == "a government-run public option."

    So who's the idiot? The guy who doesn't want to confuse Medicare branding with public option branding, or the quy whose headline doesn't match his quote?


    Parent

    More to the point (none / 0) (#4)
    by Slado on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 10:51:41 AM EST
    he opposed the "expansion" of Medicare.  Whether deep down he opposed actual Medicare is not important.

    He is of the majority view that we can't afford the system we already have (Medicare and Medicaid are broke) so how can we afford expanded coverage through expansion of government provided healthcare.

    This is the view that conforms with the reality predicted by the CBO.

    Standing on some sort of moral high ground and claiming that he opposes Medicare is not fair.  He opposed expansion of a current program that is not fiscally viable.

    Two different animals.

    Parent

    It doesn't take a rocket scientist (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by andgarden on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 10:53:33 AM EST
    to figure out that the way to fix Medicare funding is by expanding access to healthier premium payers.

    Unless, of course, your ideology gets in the way.

    Parent

    If we had best comment for (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by MO Blue on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 10:58:25 AM EST
    the day, yours would be the winner IMO.

    Parent
    Should (none / 0) (#10)
    by Wile ECoyote on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 11:11:29 AM EST
    we fix medicare before taking on the entire health care system?

    Parent
    You could (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by cawaltz on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 11:15:45 AM EST
    do both at the same time. I mean I don't see why millions of people should continue to go without healthcare while we root out inefficiencies. Furthermore, the fees or taxes extracted to expand coverage might actually provide a fix to the system. As someone aptly pointed out adding a healthier pool who doesn't use as much care could drive costs down.

    Parent
    We would not need to root out (none / 0) (#20)
    by Wile ECoyote on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 12:16:20 PM EST
    the inefficiencies if we just taxed more, correct?

    Parent
    We still should if they exist (none / 0) (#22)
    by cawaltz on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 12:25:42 PM EST
    and according to this administration they Do exist.

    Parent
    Part and parcel (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by andgarden on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 11:18:02 AM EST
    Really the only "fix" for Medicare that I'm willing to entertain in isolation is to expand it to more people.

    Parent
    Should they (none / 0) (#21)
    by Wile ECoyote on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 12:17:21 PM EST
    be able to choose?

    Parent
    Of course not (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 12:37:32 PM EST
    We Democrats are for forcing people to pay less for  health insurance, whether they like it or not.

    Parent
    Define (none / 0) (#25)
    by Wile ECoyote on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 01:36:43 PM EST
    pay.

    Parent
    My goal (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by andgarden on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 12:37:56 PM EST
    is to eventually make people a healthcare offer they can't refuse.

    Parent
    We can't afford the system we already have (none / 0) (#7)
    by cawaltz on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 10:58:02 AM EST
    because the system we already have is a for profit model.

    Medicare and Medicaid costs are tied to the for profit system.

    If you look at the other countries that have national health care systems it is even more readily apparent then the CBOs "projections" that a national health care system can cut costs and increase longetivity.

    Parent

    Today the IHT reports French (none / 0) (#15)
    by oculus on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 11:25:49 AM EST
    Gov't may raise co pay for hosp and OTC drugs to help contol gov't costs for national health care.

    Parent
    They'd have to double costs (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by cawaltz on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 11:39:49 AM EST
    to be as inefficient as our system. In 2000 the WHO rated them as the most efficient system. I figure tweaking their system is probably just going to keep it viable.

    Parent
    Blue Dog Mike Ross Opposes Medicare | 24 comments (24 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment