The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

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

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?

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by KWhit

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.

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"

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

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

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.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

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?

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.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Unfortunately, co-ops won't work. It's a nice idea, after all, it taps into Americans’ strong belief in direct community control (what the political scientist James Morone has called “the democratic wish.“) Cooperatives of various sorts have been discussed and sometimes created to provide health care in the past.

But in the past, what has happened is that the ccoperatives crumble in the face of physician resistance (including boycotts), the lack of financial wherewithal of the cooperatives themselves, and the eventual withdrawal of government support.



To quote Howard Dean, "He’s wrong about this. The co-ops are too small to compete with the big, private insurance companies. They will kill the co-ops completely by undercutting them, using their financial clout to do it. In the small states like mine and like Senator Conrad’s, you’re never gonna get to the 500,000 number signed up in the co-op that you need to in order for them to have any marketing [power].This is a compromise designed to deal with problems in the Senate."

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

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

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.

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.

[sterlingice]

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

[molson]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

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.

[DaddyTorgo]

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.

We need a Medicare-like set-up not a health care Halliburton/KBR.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

First, why should a party with a supermajority in one chamber, a massive majority in another chamber, and a President who just won the biggest election victory in the past twenty years have to compromise with the party that at it's lowest nadir in forty years?

A public option instead of single-payer _was_ the compromise. A health care bill with a mandate for health insurance without a public option is nothing but a massive giveaway to those same health insurance companies and will lead me voting third party in 2012.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by molson

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'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.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

First, why should a party with a supermajority in one chamber, a massive majority in another chamber, and a President who just won the biggest election victory in the past twenty years have to compromise with the party that at it's lowest nadir in forty years?

A public option instead of single-payer _was_ the compromise. A health care bill with a mandate for health insurance without a public option is nothing but a massive giveaway to those same health insurance companies and will lead me voting third party in 2012.

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

[Flasch186]

IYO

[Big Fo]

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.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Obama for not going to Max Baucus and Kent Conrad and telling them to get a bill through, the previously mentioned Conservadems for giving the Minority Republicans equal power in the committee, and Congressional Democrats for not starting off with single-payer so they could have a carrot of their own. I can only hope the Progressive Block in the House stands true to their message that they'll vote against any bill without a public option.

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

[ISiddiqui]

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)

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Except this is neither the right or easy thing to do. To quote Jim Hightower, the only thing you get by standing in the middle of the road is a yellow stripe."

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

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

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.

[DaddyTorgo]

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

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

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.

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.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

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.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

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?

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.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

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.

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.

[RainMaker]

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.

[ISiddiqui]

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

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

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.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

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.

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.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

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?

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

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.

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.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Can't they remove Baucus if they want to?

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.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

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 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.

[watravaler]

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!

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by watravaler

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

[Arles]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

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.

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.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Arles

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.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

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.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

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.

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.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Arles

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.

[Jon]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

First, why should a party with a supermajority in one chamber, a massive majority in another chamber, and a President who just won the biggest election victory in the past twenty years have to compromise with the party that at it's lowest nadir in forty years?

A public option instead of single-payer _was_ the compromise. A health care bill with a mandate for health insurance without a public option is nothing but a massive giveaway to those same health insurance companies and will lead me voting third party in 2012.

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.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Jon

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.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Arles

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.

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

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by watravaler

Death by disease or debt to y'all...again congrats!

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

[Mac Howard]

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.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Mac Howard

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.

[Neon_Chaos]

What's healthcare?

[Jon]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

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.

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.

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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.

[lungs]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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.

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

[larrymcg421]

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

[Mac Howard]

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.