home

Is The Starter Home Health Bill Safe From GOP Hurricanes?

What we are buying here is a modest home, not a mansion. What we are getting here is a starter home. Itís got a good foundation. Think about it that way. -- Tom Harkin

At Balloon Juice, Tim F. writes:

I pimped the hell out of [the health] bill, and I certainly did not think the bill was perfect. I pimped it because no national politician can bring back rescissions or pre-existing condition exemptions and expect to keep his seat. Weaker points can get ironed out later (or made worse), but major protections that affect large percentages of the public are a one-way ratchet. They quickly get fixed in the national character and people move on to fight about other things. Republicans always knew this. Thatís why they fought it so hard. The good things got fixed so fast that even the GOPís half-baked pledge promises to keep them. More will come later. Even if it doesnít weíre a far sight better off than the status quo ante.

"More will come later?" How? By whom? What's the plan? Will this "starter house" bill survive a GOP hurricane? It's funny because Democrats have insisted on demanding loud clapping for the most progressive achievement in 40 years. That is the natural impulse of a politician - to take credit. In this case, the better approach would have been more of a "stay the course" strategy, and treat the the passage of a health bill as the first step in a longer journey. But apparently Dems have decided to play the "Stop Whining" card instead. Yeah, that'll work.

Speaking for me only

< Birthday Blues No More | Obama's Scolding Dems Strategy >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    President Obama continuing the (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by MO Blue on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 09:45:05 AM EST
    blame the voters campaign. AP on Rolling Stone interview

    "People need to shake off this lethargy. People need to buck up," Obama told Rolling Stone in an interview to be published Friday. The president told Democrats that making change happen is hard and "if people now want to take their ball and go home, that tells me folks weren't serious in the first place."
    ...
    The idea that we've got a lack of enthusiasm in the Democratic base, that people are sitting on their hands complaining, is just irresponsible.

    The health insurance legislation that Obama has on his check list as "passed" tells me that Obama was not serious about providing universal health care. Feeding the health insurance companies, pharma, and medical industries sharks 30 millions victims rather than providing affordable health care is IMO irresponsible.

    So are you OK wth having it all rolled back? (none / 0) (#3)
    by Manuel on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 09:49:33 AM EST
    IMO it will not be rolled back (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by MO Blue on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 10:03:18 AM EST
    The insurance companies will find enough loopholes to disregard many of the rescissions or pre-existing condition exemptions and other so called regulations. Republicans will starve it or the subsidies will not be sustainable  due to the drastic increase in costs and the number of people who will qualify for them. What will remain are the cuts to Medicare, the raise to 10% (from 7.5%) of income prior to being able to deduct medical expenses, the excise tax on good employer health plans, the ability to sell insurance across state lines and any other negative provision of the legislation.

    Parent
    And of course (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by hookfan on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 11:03:42 AM EST
    the obligatory mandates, to be coupled with the reduced or eliminated subsidies, with no hope for any real regulation (like in civilized countries), or an honest, viable public option.
      Where's the Camel? All we get is the whisker from its rotting nose left under the tent as the camel died?

    Parent
    Of course it's not safe; do you (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Anne on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 10:39:09 AM EST
    think it was designed to be?  Because I kind of think that when you put something together that you water down from Day One, that takes years to implement, and you don't build into it rigorous regulation, you're pretty much admitting that all you were going for was the headline and the applause.  I'd even hazard a guess that there was more effort spent in back rooms strategizing the messaging and optics so they could check off another "accomplishment" on Obama's - and their own - resumé, and use it as a re-election tool than there was in putting together the best plan from a policy standpoint.

    By the time it gets cannibalized and carved up and various pieces and parts are litigated, what we will end up with may be worse than what we started with, and there will be no will to give it another go because of how badly it was handled this time.

    Insurance companies will keep and strengthen the upper hand, the incompetent and craven politicians who created this mess will keep their seats or move on to high-paying jobs in the private sector, and the rest of us will be left to ask, "please sir, may I have another?"

    I would love to be wrong about how this is going to go, but I just don't see how it's possible that it will get better, not worse.

    Before I make a comment that will (none / 0) (#1)
    by Anne on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 09:13:40 AM EST
    disappear, it looks like you have two copies of the post...