I'm skeptical that R&D would dry up, but even if you're right, why should the American public subsidize drugs for the rest of the world?

WOW, just wow. Palin goes from being 'nuts' to being a possible leader in the movement.

GOP backs away from end-of-life counseling - Yahoo! News

It's a very delicate matter. Once again the focus is on "Sarah Palin is insane", and the attempt there is to invalidate any opposition, but I think one can have reasonable concerns about this part of the bill.

The goal of Section 1233 is to pull the plug a little sooner on more people. There's no doubt about that. I have no problem with that in theory. And it does also does provide a "service", making sure people know more about their options. But the potential for abuse is there, and I definitely understand how this can freak some reasonable minds out (who unfortunately will be lumped in with Palin, whose continued relevance escapes my comprehension).

I think this is a pretty good article that separates the right-wing hysteria that many liberals are trying to make the center of this issue from the real concerns. It's too bad that the real concerns have so little place in this discussion. It's all fear-mongering and then responses to the fear-mongering.

Charles Lane - House Health-Care Reform Bill Oversteps on End-of-Life Issues - washingtonpost.com

no its not, it is to allow end of life discussions, on a voluntary basis chosen by the patient and their family, to be covered as opposed to waiting until it is too late, like it was for my grandfather who died no semblance of the man I knew, in his awful painful sleepless night (I hope he got a few hours of real sleep) in a fight against pneumonia which was simply the last straw in a steep decline from a hip injury that saw him literally fight to recover eventhough the writing was on the wall. He was miserable, hated every second of it, but was in the machine and thus went through the rigors until the horrible, painful end.


yes there is


please dont throw quotes around service to diminish it.

And those concerns could easily be handled in the language of the bill if that was a real goal, but the people pushing the forced euthanasia line have no interest in actually solving any language problems in the bill. Don't blame the "hysteria" on liberals. When several Senators and Representatives make the death panel argument it's not the fault of a smelly guy in a coffee bar that has a Bush=Nazi sticker on his MacBook.

Agreed. I called it fear-mongering. You might have missed that. Some liberals take advantage of the right's fear-mongering to frame it as THE opposition, which is completely unfair to those who have legitimate concerns. You have to go along with this, you can't have concerns, because if you do, you're no better than Sarah Palin. It's kind of creepy. It's a way to suppress dissenting speech. I agree that those concerns could potentially (I wouldn't say easily) be handled in the language of the bill, but that's not where the debate is. You're either for justice and against suffering people, or you're a right-wing crazy. There's no voice in this debate for reasonable concerns. They're just not allowed to be acknowledged - I get the same response from your or Flash as if I was talking about death counsels.

No, you can have concerns and they can be addressed, but those in a position to actually make decisions have no interest in working on the bill's language to make it better. Grassley is one of the lead negotiators for Republicans and he's been pushing the death panel idea. While you have legitimate concerns, the people making the decisions really aren't any better than Sarah Palin.

So what? Why is this always the response, what the Republican leaders are talking about? I'm not a supporter of Republican leadership. What about the people that will actually be subject to this bill? When I try to start a debate here about reasonable concerns, you keep throwing Palin, Palin, Palin, Palin, Republican leadership, Republican leadership, Republican leadership. That's a small but telling example of what's going on in this debate throughout the country.

Yes, if Republican leaders were smarter and cared more about the citizens and weren't only concerned with team politics, they'd turn down their rhetoric and express the concerns in a more reasoned way. But that ain't happening. So fuck the concerns, I guess. And for liberals who love responding to the right's rhetoric - as long as they can view is as the fault of the other side, as long as they feel like they're on the "winning team", they don't seem to be very sensitive to those concerns.

Nobody's called you out or lumped you in with all Republicans or Sarah Palin or whatever. The article Flasch posted was about elected officials and Republican leaders. When you posted concerns they were addressed without lumping you in with anyone else.

Ultimately what you think or I think has little relevance. In a representative democracy the most important opinions are those making the decisions. Of course we're going to talk about them.

yes.

Palin is forcing the people more like you in the GOP to slide her way and the fringe element is forcing the muting of the compromisers, maybe on both sides.

Blame and political points seem more important than getting a good bill. To everyone, leadership on both sides. That's why this thing is going to fail. (I don't know if I mean this health care bill or America)

I tried to call something of a truce of sanity here - to back away from Palin and highlight the real concerns, but people have no interest in that. They want to win! They want to feel superior to the other side!

and I will then point you back to my "millions" post

OR

it will get shoved down some people's throats, bad facets and all

OR

we will have to wait for either the pendulum to continue its swing further left or back to the right.

The losers will be us.

Again, your concern was addressed. But why isn't it a legitimate point to state that the minority party has no interest in making the bill better, but is instead focused on using whatever tactics are necessary to kill it? That's what is happening here and the legitimate concerns are being sidelined because they aren't as effective as the lies.

We can have a discussion about healthcare, and I think we have had a fairly productive discussion as long as Allah hasn't been involved. However, in the real world a very small group of people are going to be responsible for what does or doesn't get signed into law. To ignore the realities of the legislative process is to ignore the realities of our system.

...and I was thinking about it. Isnt that what the last facet of the debate in this thread was about (ignoring the Allah section)? The idea that the vocal are drowning out the middle? If it's happening in the news, happening in the talk shows, happening in here, isnt it incorrect for the parties in this thread before that tried to state that the town halls and the masses were lining up against this particular health care bill, when in reality it is as you say it is and the health care bill is truly secondary to many many real points of interest?

The irony in this mess is the people who who need health care reform the most are the ones against it.

Welcome to 2005 (and before) ;)

Amazon.com: What's the Matter with Kansas?: How Conservatives Won the Heart of America (9780805077742): Thomas Frank: Books

SI

I would be interested in some demographic breakdowns of who has and who doesn't have health care and what kind of jobs they have.

Does anybody have a good reference site for this stuff?

While I think you were just throwing that out anecdotally...if in fact mostly true...then that would mean that the people pushing this legislation do NOT need it.

So I'll ask the stupid question of the day...why do we need this bill?

I liken this to the Bush tax cuts where rich people on the left were speaking out about how they felt they needed to be discontinued. Economic reasons for pro and con aside(I dont mean to dismiss them, it just isnt the point)...why have we become a country that seemingly
(a) looks out for somebody else's immediate interests more than our own
(b) cannot trust ourselves to donate (or payback) money into the government where it is needed
(c) became an entire nation of philanthropers right under our own noses?

So much for focusing on the arguments and not the messenger. If it will help move this discussion, I will gladly admit that I have little faith in the republican party to provide any reasonable solution to the health care crisis.

But that doesn't mean I'm going to jump off the Obama ledge because "something needs to be done". All we can do is keep the debate going until a more reasonable solution appears (if that ever happens). In the meantime, I will guarantee that some on the left will sound like fools and the right will have its own set of oddballs.

If people want to focus on the "my D- is better than your F" political party comparison - enjoy. You'll have plenty to banter as you explain why you are the tallest person at the midget convention.

The argument isn't accurate from that messenger. It is a scare tactic.

I guess Im not sure if your comment was directed at me or the idea in general that Palin is the spotlight instead of the message carrying weight...

Flasch, you just don't get it. We don't care about the messenger. We want to hear the message from BOTH sides of the debate. You cannot make an informed decision just hearing from one side of the argument because they have less 'spin.' The fact is that both sides are spinning the hell out of this debate. It's how they get people to pay attention to their message, right or wrong.

Instead of listening to the arguments and discussing their merits, you attack the messenger, thus negating any credibility on your part. You become a part of the spin machine of the Democratic Party. If you claim to be so independent, act like it for once! Use the thing in your skull that separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom.

youre wrong...IMO, I do get it just fine.

I believe that Palin is grabbing more of the neutral people to her side (on a graph it might be an extra 3% or something I guess, but that adds up). Eventhough the message she has put out there is false it is that 'win' that Arles mentioned that has trumped the vision of a solution. That is a bad thing, to win by misinforming.

For example, the moderate GOP member who was pushing for this that called her a name at first is now backpedaling. Why? Because of the pressure that even spun arguments are causing. This is not good for you or me since it will make finding a solution that much harder.

I agree with you in that this is occurring, right or wrong. I believe wrongly if one uses a scare tactic, or hyperbole as you'd liken it, to take those that maybe aren't as well read on the topic at hand and push them into a corner. This is why you see the debate taking on all sorts of deeper facets about things that have nothing to do with health care or their costs.

Now you say we, but look back in this thread alone and see that the scare tactics do have an effect, just from links alone.

For some reason I think perhaps youre seeing the word "Palin" and insinuating something from the word alone. On the otherhand I view her as a leader not just of the GOP but of many people out there who look up to her for right or wrong, good or bad thus IMO she is being very untruthful in her statements but strategic and smart for her goal which is why I do believe in this case, due to her stature to her fans, the messenger is somewhat more important than average joe.

As my sales partner just said after a short re-read, "If celebrity backing didnt mean anything people wouldnt get paid millions to do it." and she's a Republican.

I think I get it just fine.

Is there one Democrat, on the planet earth (or at least FOFC) that has ANY concerns at all about this plan? Is there any Democrats that would change anything, or think that any of the plan is misguided? I haven't seen that here, and I haven't much of it anywhere else. It would seem that this plan is absolutely perfect in every way, in their view.

Any plan, anything that was devised, would be supported by the same old regular people. If we had an alternative reality where there was a different plan out there, it would still be supported by the same people. So how can the arguments of these supporters have any credibility?

Obviously, it's not everyone. There's certainly tons of Democrats I respect and it's easy to see whose opinion is worth something - they don't blindly support everything that their team spits out.

That's yet another problem with team politics. The plan doesn't have to be good. You can't question your team. You have to go along with your team, and attack the other team.

yes I have concerns. As I mentioned above in my "millions of people" post there are a million different concerns including their costs.


Unfortunately right now there isnt 1 bill I support in its entirety and there are a bunch of different facets of multiple bills being bantered about. I have great concerns over cost BUT I will say this, as Ive said before:

"If you dont trust the mouthpiece's words, than what is there to talk about?"

If Obama says it must be Self Sufficient and you scoff and say, "Well thats a pipe dream." than what is left to talk about? Same as during the campaigns, if you dont take someone for their word than you can tune out and just vote for the person you wanted to anyways. Same thing here.


That is unfortunate about the 'win' thing we have been talking about. I think whomever on both sides wants to see 'win' at all costs OR let the other 'team win' so that they'll fall on their sword and we can 'win' later, is really aborting the welfare of the people and our country.

I wish the Democrats didn't give a shit about appeasing the Republicans. The Democrats should be debating amongst themselves in Congress. That's where productive disagreement and improvement might be possible. But they're apparently too afraid. One Democratic voice v. One Republican voice sucks. We need the Democrats to start mixing it up in their own party.

Why are they giving Palin power at all? Everyone complains about her mouthing off, but how much power does she have? We're not bringing this plan to a general vote. Maybe some Republicans will complain that the bill isn't "bi-partisan" but who the fuck cares - isn't that why we have elections? I'd rather have a plan that involves Democrat disagreement and compromise than anything that's "bi-partisan". If they believe in the plan, they need to stake their political careers on it. If they're not willing do to that, then you have nobody to blame for Palin's influence.

What's the end game goal of this crusade by the Democrats - to get Palin to change her mind? To get Republicans to stop following her and start following them? I don't care how many websites they set up or town halls they have. People's feet are DUG IN on this. Even if you can convince someone that there won't be a "death counsel", there's not going to up and join your party the next day. They'll disagree on some other basis. This entire barnstorming for support strategy has been a disaster. It hasn't increased support, it's increased resistance. The fact that the resistance is perceived as "wrong" is irrelevant.

Well I think the debate is healthy if it stays on topic no matter the parties involved. I think the Blue Dogs have done a good job of being a concerned voice as well as some of the members of the GOP. I just hope the opposition is opposed to the bill based on the bill's pros and cons and not issues on the periphery or a broader 'win' strategy. If so than their voices should be heard. Fringe voices tend to get the headlines and thus more sheep but its the more moderate heads behind closed doors that'll get a solution put forth that people can then truly talk about. Honestly, I think talking about the bills now is somewhat of a fruitless endeavor. PS my GOP friend here agrees with that. :)

Since you added the death panel part let me answer in this edit my stance:

Im not trying to change anyone's mind on anything. I simply want the rhetoric to be truthful, that is all and leaders, be it in politics or not, to realize that their words carry more weight than average Flasch, or Molson, or MBBF and thusly they have a duty to be more deliberate in their choices. If she's read up on the topic and is against the bill than she should voice that opinion but simply leave out misinformation. That is all. If people disagree with a facet of the many bills being talked about based on that facet than I say more power to them. The resistance isnt "wrong" by any means as long as theyre resisting what is actually in the bill itself as opposed to the grander conversation or misinformation being spun. heck, dissent is what I was clamoring for for all the years of the Bush administration after I turned against the war in Iraq so I would be a hypocrite to be against it now. Dissent is good. Dissent that is based on lies (just like support based on lies) is dangerous.

On that note, I have heard some great cases both for and against the bills and their facets on CNBC since this started and rarely are the scare tactics involved. It can be done.

I don't know how you can argue that A and C are accurate. I think we overall are a country of individuals that looks out for their own interests much more than for others'. See the economic meltdown for evidence.

I see a lot wrong about the health care bill. We need a single-payer system like the rest of the world seems be able to make work, but that will never happen because it's (gasp!) "socialism."

If Democrats want to do that, and they're so sure it's going to work, they have the numbers to do it. I'd love to see a Democratic single-payer v. multi-payer debate be the center of this thing right now. Instead we have a debate over the existence of death counsels, and how best to mitigate Republican influence. Hey, I know how to do the latter - ignore them!

Why is everybody even complaining about Palin and town hall reactions if this thing is going to work? The Republicans are at their lowest point in decades, and they're still wielding all this power somehow.

But the Democrats aren't all the same. The Blue Dogs won't go for a single-payer system because their constituents won't let them (will not re-elect them if they support it).

Exactly - Democrats aren't the same. That's what I'm still hopeful for - I want to see them fight it out amongst themselves and come up with the best plan possible. Not lob missiles at Sara Palin.

Maybe there's not the support for a single-plan right now, but this is definitely the opportunity for the supporters of that idea to gain some ground.

Maybe this debate does go on behind the scenes, for all I know. But I'd love to see Democrats publicly disagreeing with Democrats, same with Republicans. That would warm my heart. Everyone's more concerned with having a unified front for some reason.

The problem is a lot more complicated than a simple numbers game. Look at Baucus. He's got enormous power in all of this because he's the chair of the Finance Committee and he's decided that instead of only worrying about how it's financed, he wants to have control of the bill. If the Dems didn't stick to seniority in committee assignments a bill would have gotten to a floor vote weeks ago.

But the general point that the Dems are too chickenshit won't get any argument from me. Despite your belief that I'm all for the Dems, that just isn't true. I have policy goals that often align with the Dems, but the elected officials often piss me off. That's why I don't give money to them.

Personally I think there's a lot wrong with the bills being discussed and the longer Grassley has veto power the shittier they get. I'll stick with what I've believed from the beginning, without real cost controls the final bill will likely be worse than doing nothing. Then we can revisit this in ten or fifteen years when Medicare is really busting the budget.

It's no secret that I normally vote republican, but I think this would be extremely interesting. I think that initial steps can be taken (as I've stated numerous times in this thread) and that the democrats are the only ones who have a chance at doing this.

It's fine to have an ultimate goal of a single-payer system, but even if I could wave a magic wand and make it happen - it would be a disaster. We don't have anything remotely close to a needed infrastructure for the medical needs, financial needs and patient needs for a single-payer system to work.

In fact, if I was an extremely cynical republican team-first guy - I'd be all in favor of a single-payer system passing. It will bomb horribly, the democrats will lose a ton of seats (and maybe the presidency in 2012) and the single-payer dream will be dead.

Instead, the democrats need to be smart if this is their goal. Do a bill that slowly improves on the infrastructure with tax incentives, setup a "poverty single-payer plan" for those under 30K, extend unemployment coverage for those who lose their jobs and provide additional tax incentives for small business owner to buy private health care. Leave the 70+% of people with solid employer-provided coverage alone. This won't cost a ton and there will be some small victories (more people covered, more protection for those that lose their job, improved infrastructure,...). Plus, it takes the boogie man argument away from the republicans.

They don't need the republicans to do any of this stuff, but for some reason it's either all or nothing with this crew in congress. It's almost like the attitude is that if we can't help all 30 people in a room without insurance, we will do nothing. Even if there's a very solid initial attempt that could help 18 of the 30, they want no part of it. All or nothing. The problem with this is even if you win, you lose as we are not capable of supporting such a shift if it's passed (esp before the next set of elections).

There is no movement in Congress for a single payer system. What's being proposed is a small step, largely what you've stated support for with the addition of a public option to force competition in the insurance market. All the talk of nationalized healthcare is going way beyond what's currently being discussed.

But again, the real problem is the rising costs of healthcare. If the curve isn't flattened to some degree we'll be in a real crisis in a couple of decades when the only options are large tax increases or severe cuts in Medicare. I don't think this bill will do enough to cover costs as too many Senators seem inflexible on any costs reductions, but that's the real problem. We could cover all the uninsured tomorrow if we wanted, but that still won't solve the impending budget crisis.

I think that that is a good thing. When the GOP was in office I was upset that they didnt listen to the Democratic minority to the point of changing the rules sometimes to keep them in the closet, so to speak. I dont want to trample on the GOP's voice either. FWIW, Im not complaining about Palin simply the verbiage she, and other people in role model positions, are using.

It's an odd setup in this country. I can understand people not liking this particular plan, but it seems like many on the right are just against health care reform.

I bring it up because the red states are for the most part the unhealthiest with the lowerst life expectancy. When you're life expectany is almost 5 years lower than someone living in another state or country, you'd think you'd be about getting some change.

That's the funny thing. I lived in Canada and no one really complained about their system. I think the biggest gripe I saw was that you'd sometimes have to go in at odd times to get tests done. I remember hearing about people having to go in at like 5am for MRIs.

There is no pressure in these other countries to reform health care and go back to a private system. I mean if all these other countries are happy with what they have and live longer, you'd think people here would take notice.

It's a different world than in 1935 or 1965. We also had the stomach for Normandy, World War I, dropping the bomb on Japan and numerous other actions that would not fly today. The extremely critical press combined with a 24 hour news cycle means one month passes like a year did in 1935.

Social Security and Medicare also provided options to people who didn't have any. 80% of US citizens have some form of health care, with many people having fairly cost-effective (for them) and quality plans provided by their employer. If these 80% start seeing longer waits, rationed care and more difficult access to doctors (combined with higher taxes), there will be a pretty big outcry. I think most people are fairly ambivalent on this issue unless it starts costing them a lot more or their health service/wait times/access worsens. That, IMO, is why the democrats want a lot of cover with this bill. They know it will get worse until it gets better and this isn't the 1940s where Americans will sit and listen to thousands of soldiers dying abroad and not bat any eye. We don't have the stomach for any kind of pain in 2009 (war, health care, economy, you name it).

They live longer in Europe because they have better diets and healthier lifestyles (virtually no one eats fast food and foot/bike travel is much more prevalent).

If happiness is all that counts, 89% of Americans are happy with their own personal medical care according to June poll here: EDITORIAL: Health care's big secret - Washington Times

Zogby had a similar finding in June of 2009:
http://www.zogby.com/news/wf-healthcarereform.pdf

Same for babies who have better mortality rates? At some point you have to judge health care by the actual health of people.

They are happy with the care they receive. We have great doctors and great technology. The issue has never been the quality of care that our doctors and hospitals offer. The issue has always been the cost and whether those who are uninsured are able to access doctors on a regular basis.

We've also never lived under a different system. Ask people on Medicare if they'd like to switch to a private system. I'd be interested to see a poll of people who have lived in countries like Canada or the UK and the U.S. As someone who has lived in both, Canada's system is just better for the country.

If you ask people if they are happy with their house, most say 'Yes'. If you ask them if they're happy with their mortgage payment, that numbers drops a great deal. No one is "happy" to be paying for anything.

My point was that most people with health care are happy with the quality of service they are getting. So, coming up with a solution that had a high chance of impacting that service (wait times, rationing, ...) should be a last resort after other things (ie, targeting cost/uninsured) have been tried.

Polls don't show that. No one likes the cost of insurance (and no one ever will), but the above quote has 90+% of insured people with chronic illnesses being happy with their own insurance quality. Again, this whole thing reeks of throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Well, the trillions in stimulus and the massive drop in the war approval after less than 5,000 deaths says otherwise. We don't have the stomach for any pain in the US because the minute it happens, we see it 24/7 on our TVs - making it seem 100-times worse.

That's mostly hereditary (ie, obesity) and class oriented. The reality is that we have a much higher number in poverty than Europe or Canada (partly because we have 300 million people). It's not like the US has parents who can't afford to give birth and hire a bunch of mid-wives while the great European health care system allows for births on golden chairs. Mortality rates reflect poverty levels/obesity, not health care systems. If these countries had to support populations at nearly a third of what the US is, their mortality rates would skyrocket as more would be in poverty.

I'd be interested in that too, I doubt it would end up as you think (my guess is 50-50). My neighbors and their family are from the UK and despise British health care. Here's a recent quote of hers on facebook:

For those wondering about the British NHS, here's an article on the major issues it faces moving forward:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/ju...ealth.politics


A&E patients left in ambulances for up to FIVE hours 'so trusts can meet government targets' | Mail Online

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArti...84257033287107

Average NHS waiting times have RISEN under Labour - despite £90bn investment | Mail Online

Yeah, sounds like a plan we should all be envy of in the States.

Again, there is no plan in Congress that would create anything remotely like the NHS. Whether or not NHS is good or bad is irrelevant to the discussion.

I keep hearing how "everybody else's is better", how is it not relevant???

Well the NHS may be the worst example of a single payer system and their big problem is that they don't spend enough money on it. Did you know that the US already spends more tax dollars per capita on healthcare than the UK? If the UK matched our total spending per capita on healthcare I'd expect the NHS to be fantastic. The NHS gets trotted out because it's the easiest to find flaws with, but if you look at other European systems you can find single payer that works very well.

But we have reason to gripe about health care. We pay twice as much as other countries and are not getting back more in return. With a mortgage it's our choice, with health care we have no choice in what we pay.

We have great doctors and great medical technology. No one in this health care debate is arguing that. The poll has nothing to do with what's being debated. The issue is costs and access. Our health care system is great if you are healthy, have money, and have health insurance.

There are some extremely poor countries with better infant mortality rates than us. Obesity is also an issue that needs to be addressed with doctors and patients. The overall goal for health care is to live longer and healthier. You can't keep throwing the end results out the door because it doesn't fit your argument.

It's akin to saying your football team is faster and stronger than everyone else but not caring whether they win more games.

Your neighbors prefer corporate suits to decide the fate of their health. That's fine, but at least with a politician I'm getting someone who has a vested interest in me being happy and getting better (votes).

Out of curiosity...why wasn't France on that list?

And despite these horror stories of having to wait, they seem to find a way to live longer than us. They also get by paying a much smaller amount as to what we pay.

I continue to love how we bring up countries that have 60 million or less people and expect a system for 300 million to go just as smoothly. Most of these countries are similar in size to California and we've seen how well they run things.

I'm assuming those against the national health care system are opposed to having Medicare too, right?

looks like the Co-op option is gaining traction. Lets see if the other side of the debate wants to come to compromise too.

It's possible to be in favor of health care reform but have concerns with this plan. It's not just pro-national health care v. anti-national health care. That's exactly the problem I was talking about before. No matter what's thrown out there, people will be in favor of it because it's "something", and vaguely "national health care" (even though it doesn't guarantee all Americans coverage, particularly the middle class - don't you have a problem with that?) Instead we debate the existence of death counsels and which party is right.

If someone is misled about death counsels, or their grandparents being pressured into suicide, why not address the reasonable aspects of those concerns (how government doctors might persuaded to preasure patients)? Why instead to we just call them morons and vilify them for having concerns? If the goal is (for whatever reason), to have people across the country support this, then I promise that won't happen by telling people they're stupid. Of course, if they really wanted, they could just pass this thing tomorrow. They don't need support from rural farmers in Montana. What are they afraid of?

Oh I wouldnt make that arguement...I'm just stating that this seems to get thrown about frequently as a rebuttal to arguements such as "x demographic stands to benefit and they are not in favor".

My option A should have been worded a bit better as well (since it almost could be the same as C as is). Option A should probably be appended with "due to ignorance & stupidity"

I disagree here since we will never find any mouthpiece that can be believed at their "official" word IMO...and we certainly won't find one that the vast majority believes. That doesn't mean we shouldn't debate their intentions based on our own perceptions.

Case in point...the reasons for the Iraq war. I never believed the official line from the Bush Admin but was still in favor due to longer-term strategic national interests.

Very similarly, I didn't believe the Obama Admin line about the stimulus bill, nor do I believe their actual intentions in regards to Health Care reform. I don't necessarily believe they are up to any sinister plans with it...but that isn't the same as actually trusting their words.

In both cases their words are not the actual intentions or reasons for the actions. Some would argue their intentions are selfish, wrong, or fundamentally flawed logic...but IMO neither Admin had intentions that they didn't believe to be in the US interests...just less than truthful and forthcoming on their intentions, perceived outcomes and how it directly benefits the US. I liken this to parents telling their kids not to swallow watermelon seeds because it will grow watermelons in your stomach. I.e. government believes the majority of Americans are not capable, or in an informed enough position, to truly understand the issues.

So any argument, no matter how disconnected from reality should be treated as legitimate? At what point do lies need to be called lies? Do you really believe the same there would be the same outcome if people had been asking if it's advisable to allow same day living wills due to the potential of pressure? It's impossible to have a discussion about legitimate concerns when the argument is about death panels and Maoism.

And yes they do need the support of farmers in Montana because Max Baucus needs to feel enough pressure to let a bill get out of the Finance Committee. He has the power to kill reform on his own.

The point isnt whether ti is the bee's knees, the point is that we CAN find compromise without the rhetoric and scare mongering.

Ok...that is a good opinion. I still have mine as well. I think to have that debate, even based on some semblance of our perceptions, we still have to start at the fundamental base of believing that particular side's stance as being sincere.

Print Story: White House appears ready to drop 'public option' - Yahoo! News

Now you can easily find me on the wrong side of this debate. If we're going to spend a ton of money and, yes, it's going to cost a lot of money to do this. I want it to be spent well for a big change that will help the system.

I just hate how it's starting to seem more and more likely that Obama is just fishing around, trying to get a political victory on this. Great, you can score a few political points now or you can actually overhaul the system and do good for years to come.

I don't think that in 3 months if health care passes in this neutered state that does nothing for people, those political points will be all gone. It's not as if you can just string together political victory after political victory. That's not how public sentiment works.

As an aside, I seem to remember an old West Wing set of episodes very similar to this and I thought it was tough to swallow as fiction but now Obama is basically doing it in real life. IIRC, President Bartlet felt he needed to get some political victory on something decent but not groundbreaking. I forget what the issue was but the writers tried to make a huge deal about even tho it didn't seem like it would score long term support. He had to bargain and make all sorts of deals to gut a bill just so that he could pass some bill that I thought was in name only and then they acted like he had some political clout. That said, it really only lasted until some other crisis or issue came up and it was back to square one and they just completely dropped the "fight for votes to get this thing passed" storyline.

SI

Obama supporters should be absolutely appalled that this is being considered. It will be interesting to see if they care.

I guess it makes sense politically. He's not going to be defeated in the primaries in 2012 (as cool as it would be to see a Dem take him on for backing of on his campaign rhetoric about this, GITMO, Iraq, who knows what else the next few years). The supporters are going to vote for him no matter what, so he doesn't have to really cater to them.

At least the Republicans can be blamed if this doesn't work, that's the most important thing. Though I'm reading that a lot of Dems wouldn't vote for a bill that doesn't have the public option, so this whole thing might just crash and burn.

I'll take him to task on this - if he backs down on thisthen he's quite possibly lost my vote in the next primary (unless he does something else extraordinary), and maybe even in the general election if there's an independent I can stomach, or at least then i wouldn't vote.

Co-ops are a shitty option that will just end up being corrupted and turning into a mess. They'll be packed with Boards of Directors in the pockets of drug companies and insurance companies & etc.

:+1:

I'm still not unconvinced that if things go badly for him that Hillary won't run against him. She seems to getting pissier and pissier by the day.

because sometimes the right thing to do isn't the easiest.

IYO

Yeah that's some crappy news. I'm not sure who should take more of the blame, Congressional Democrats or Obama but there's plenty enough for them to share.

Or perhaps they decided they wanted to get re-elected?

I'm glad Obama is ready to drop the public option. I've always thought it was a bad idea. Would rather see the government act as an insurance pool broker for poor and uninsured than to actually run a large portion of American health care.

Then again, I'm not a Democrat (I think you can call me a Rockefeller Republican with highly libertarian views on social issues)

Or actually compromise, taking both extremes and melding them into something that can work for most Americans.

It depends on what you're doing. I'm a big fan of compromise, but I'm very much opposed to a centrism defined as always doing a little less than what was proposed. It's like the stimulus debate where 800 billion was somehow better than a trillion, but only because a trillion sounded scarier. I'd like to hear a rationale for doing less that doesn't include polling numbers.

edit: To clarify, this happened with Bush as well. That's how we ended up with the absurd doughnut in the Medicare drug bill.

co-ops are just dens of corruption and graft...they're no solution

They didn't need to compromise during the stimulus bill and obviously didn't do all that much. The White House just wanted one or two Republican Senator names on the thing.

But the centrist Senators did compromise down to the 800 billion number with no justification other than a trillion was a big number. What I'm looking for in any compromise is a rationale for why the compromise is better, and polling numbers aren't good enough. If that 800 billion had to be done to get enough Republican votes to pass there is at least some justification. If instead that 800 billion number came as a way to say they found a reasonable center point, it's all bullshit.

The same thing happens with too many centrists all the time. They pick some arbitrary number that is 2/3 of what was originally proposed and demand that they have the compromise position. I think that's less about crafting good policy, regardless of ideology, and more about getting fluffed by the Broders of the world for being so reasonable.

But much of the debate has been about the public option. About socialism and how the government shouldn't take over anything. I'm just wondering why there isn't the same pressure to abolish Medicare since the private option is so much better than anything the government has to offer. Seems a tad hypocritical.

Because that was ALL they could get the administration down to. They weren't going to slash all sorts of pork and get it down to $500 million or something, so the centrist Senators were looking for something, anything, they could do. They got it down $200 billion. That's not bad when they were really not needed to pass the bill.

It is sad to see Obama backing away. I mean this is the health care plan he campaigned on and the one that people voted him into office for. He has massive majorities in both the House and Senate. This isn't to argue whether the plan is good or not, it's just sad to see him back down to a minority party with little power.

As much as people disliked Bush, when he wanted something passed, he got it passed. Tax cuts for the rich? He campaigned for it and then made it happen. Dumbshit war? He pushed it through with whatever means possible. If you get elected by the people for the policies you pushed in your campaign, you should do everything you can to pass those through.

Did he campaign on a public plan though? Or just universal health care?

I don't think it was well publicized, but especially in the Dem debates he specifically stated his opposition to single payer.

The Senate majority doesn't mean shit as long as Baucus runs the Finance Committee. He's the single biggest obstacle to passing a bill right now. The House bill would pass even if a bunch of Blue Dogs voted no, but in the Senate the first hurdle is Baucus and then there has to be a 60 vote block to break the inevitable Republican filibuster. If any of fifty other Senators ran Finance and they could have an up or down vote this wouldn't be an issue.

Can't they remove Baucus if they want to?

But again, what was the rational for 800 billion being better than 1 trillion? It may be better, but I never heard an argument for what the policy goal was in cutting it other than it was just too big. That's my problem with Baucus and Conrad on healthcare. What are they trying to do and why is their approach better? So far I haven't heard any rationale for the merits of their policy position.

Obama certainly did need the centrists to pass the stimulus. Remember that Franken hadn't been seated and the new rule in the Senate is that everything takes sixty votes to pass.

The Dems are married to seniority. The Rrpublicans would have ditched him or at least set up a killer primary opponent, but the Dems aren't going to do that. The Dems can't do much of anything but write sternly worded letters.

The rationale from the health care perspective is that Baucas' top donors are health insurance companies and the pharmaceutical industry.

I also don't get why a guy this powerful comes from such a small state.

Congrats to the insurance companies/healthcare industry. The millions you've spent on propaganda/lobbyists over the past few weeks paid off. Of course, there never was any doubt due to y'all paying off every politician possible, but you had to get the public behind ya, but of course most of them really didn't know who or what they were supporting. Death by disease or debt to y'all...again congrats!

:(

SI

I'm open to publicly financed plans that focus on an area/group that doesn't have many health care options. That's why I would support the idea of the current poverty or "Medicaid" type plans. That's why I think some kind of gov't sponsored coverage options for kids is a decent idea in theory. It's also why I think a plan to help seniors to afford prescription drugs and get coverage is a good idea.

What I don't like is the idea of having the government responsible for paying for health care for the 80% of working adults who have good coverage. This all comes back to a kind of targeted approach to improving coverage, then re-evaluate. I'm encourage if Obama is starting to lean this way.

FYI, I also don't think doing this would be going against any kind of campaign promise. He repeatedly stated he was against a single payer system in the debates and never once promised a government-financed health plan. He said he would look at improving health care - and that's about it. This is one advantage he now has because he gave few specifics during the primaries/debates.

You spent the entire thread bashing a public health system. Described how bad it is for us as taxpayers and the pharmaceutical industry. How it leads to long wait times and poor service.

Then you say it's OK for older people, kids, and those who can't get it to be on a public health system. Seems a tad hypocritical.

With the options of 100% socialized medicine or complete abolishment of government health care intervention...I'd say we are all a tad bit hypocritical. Because none of us believe government doesn't have a place in this process and none of us think the 100% government is the amazing end state to medical utopia. (You say government has a huge place in this process, conservatives say it should be a lot smaller.)

What we have now is a compromise that needs some reform by way of continually reviewing the processes and improving upon them, not a complete start-from-scratch Robin Hood overhaul.

I feel the government can help be a safety net in certain instances. When it comes to paying for unemployment coverage (ie, a few months after you lose your job), paying for coverage for people in poverty or kids under the age of 18 and helping seniors who are no longer employed afford coverage.

I don't see how being in favor of government subsidies/intervention in the above safety net situations means I have to then support the government providing coverage for people who currently have good coverage options. And, again, my preference is for the government to help pay the premiums and broker private options for the above cases, not go into the business of health care (but that ship has sailed with medicare).

It seems this viewpoint would be akin to saying that welfare should be given out to everyone regardless of employment/earnings. So, Bill Gates and an unemployed person in poverty should both get a welfare check for the same amount. It doesn't make sense here, yet people feel it should be the case for health insurance premiums.

It seems that your plan just adds a bunch of unprofitable customers to the government's rolls while doing nothing to contain costs. The costs of Medicare are already unsustainable over the next few decades. Increasing those costs only exacerbates the problem.

Because a substantial portion of that "supermajority" doesn't agree with a public option. They don't have the votes for a public option. I'm not saying I agree with it (although I suspected the co-op thing would be what they end up with the whole time), just the reality.

I think you're overstating substantial portion. I'd bet that a public option would pass an up or down vote, but the five or six Senate Dems that would vote against it seem to believe that the cloture vote is the same as the bill vote. Most of the problem can be boiled down to a handful of Senators from states with very small populations.

Sounds about right, after all, earning money is evil unless you hand it over to the government for redistribution.

Both of which beat the hell out of death by taxation & the utter incompetence of government.

As one who has lived all hs life in countries with universal health care systems let me correct a couple of errors that appear above and in the propaganda put out by opponents of these systems.

Universal healthcare does not mean:

1) that 100% of health care is provided by the government system

2) that government runs the health care industry

3) that the population are critical of the government systems

1) both Britain and Australia have government systems but there is also a flourishing private health care industry that operates alongside the government system. If you have the money and you wish a better system than that provided by the national system - usually quicker treatment for elective surgery and a higher quality of service such as better meals, private rooms in hospital etc - then there is nothing to stop you taking out health care insurance to provide that.

However, most people with private health insurance will first use the government system and turn to the private system if they're disatisfied. All but the top end of the market will use the government system for normal health treatment - visiting a GP for example - virtually all of the time.

The private health industry sets up it's systems to cater for this market - 5 star quality service where they feel government system fall down. The government system and private systems are not seen as competitors but as complementary to each other.

2) The government effectively operates a nationwide insurance scheme. The hospitals, GPs surgeries etc are in the main run as private companies who contract to provide services to the government system much as to the private health care systems. There are a few hospitals still run by government as a hangover from the earlier systems that did run everything but that no longer holds and most health care is provided by private companies.

The government run insurance system has several advantages over private insurance companies:

a) they don't make profits

b) they have little front office costs. They needn't sell their policies - everyone is automatically a member - and they need little in the way of financial handling of payments - payment comes from an already-existing tax collection system.

c) unlike for-profit private companies who have divided loyalties, government has a genuine interest in keeping costs down - even socialist governments realise they lose votes when they have to raise taxes because of rising health care costs. So the intermediary between patient and health provider is very much on the patients' side and works tirelessly to keep costs down.

c) because it is by far the largest purchaser of health services it's capable of nailing the prices for services.

No profits, no up front costs and nailed down prices provides much better value for money than the private systems. Patients face no direct costs - the providers bill the government for treatment - and no patient ever need avoid treatment because he can't afford it.

An example of the ease of mind this brings: you get prostate cancer and it can cost $30,000 per month for drug treatment. Here in Australia it will cost $25/mth and only $5/mth if you're over 65.

3) Not so much a myth but only half the truth is told.

We do complain about the government system but the complaint is that more money should be spent on the system rather than less, that all new treatments should be provided.and always yesterday.

In short, we love our nationwide system! In fact any political party that even so much as hinted that it would reduce the system in any way would simply be unelectable. Regularly polls show that citizens would be sympathetic to increased taxes if they could be sure the money went into the health care system (but a certain scepticism about whether that would happen).

As I argued once in the gun law debate, the problem with the American system is that to create the best system you wouldn't want to start from the system you have. If the above system were introduced it would inevitably kill off most of the private systems who simply couldn't compete with the government system and you would end up with a small number of systems providing 5 star care for those who could afford it (around 35% here in Australia). There would also be howls of protest from the health care providers themselves and drug companies who have far too easy a time when their pay-masters are for-profit companies whose premiums and profits rise as health care costs rise. There would be significant commercial carnage which I really don't see happening.

But maybe you should bite the bullet anyway.

Alternately, you could mind your own fucking business and keep your government run system if it makes you happy and let the residents of the U.S. fight out the latest battle in the ongoing war between capitalists & socialists on their own.

What's healthcare?

I'm not so sure if it's limited to just 5 or 6. But I do agree that, in effect, the inability (which I think is intentional to some extent, look at Mary Landrieu), to distinguish between a cloture vote and an up/down vote means that it does require 60 to ultimately pass.

:eek: :)

New rule: No more foreigners in this thread unless they agree with this ass hole's worldview.

Oh the irony of someone from the US telling someone from another country to mind their own business and leave the US alone.

I think Jon had his tongue firmly in his cheek there, guys.

It is disturbing though when I see some of the distortions (for want of a better word) by the opposition to a universal system, usually aimed at the Canadian system (which I know nothing of). But is is worth repeating: We love our health care system. Particularly because of the peace of mind it brings that we need never avoid seeking medical help whenever we need it. That is priceless!

So don't let anyone ever tell you that people in these countries with nationwide systems would rather have a private only system.