A lot of Progressives have been upset with President Obama’s failure to live up to their lofty standards. Apparently, they believed the oft regurgitated bullshit National Journal meme about Obama being the “most liberal Senator,” and imagined all their policy-related dreams coming true. Obama supporters like myself understood he is not a liberal idealist and much more a consensus-building pragmatist. For the most part, this has been reflected in his 1st year as Chief. For instance, the Lily Ledbetter Act, SCHIP expansion, and certain environmental measures are examples of welcome departures from 8 years of destructive policies. And while I don’t agree with his plan for Afghanistan, he stressed the issue during his entire campaign. People shouldn’t be surprised.
Which brings me to health care. With some exceptions, I am an unapologetic liberal. I support a single-payer government-run health system. Cover everyone. Pass on the administrative savings. Provide better care. However, like many liberal policies, this is not supported by any corporate interests, thus making its passage an impossibility in America. But what about a Public Option? What about Medicare expansion? Two policies with overwhelming public support. Off the table. Thus, we’re apparently left with the Senate’s current “compromise.”
From what I can tell, the current bill does nothing to control costs. More people might be covered, but that’s just because mandates will come into effect. With no not-for-profit, government-run public option, there will be no increase in competition. With no premium caps, insurance companies can continue their current business model of “charging people more for worse coverage.” Someone tell me how this addresses our current problems. Most people filing for Bankruptcy because of health care bills HAVE health insurance. It’s just shitty insurance that won’t help if the “insured” is diagnosed with something catastrophic. That’s part of the currently broken system. I’m not sure what will change.
As Greenwald notes, some progressives have been quick to come to Obama’s defense. I mean, the White House is just the victim of a few Conservative Democratic Senators bought + sold by the insurance companies, right? I don’t know. I might have to agree with Sen. Feingold on this one:
Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), among the most vocal supporters of the public option, said it would be unfair to blame Lieberman for its apparent demise. Feingold said that responsibility ultimately rests with President Barack Obama and he could have insisted on a higher standard for the legislation.
“This bill appears to be legislation that the president wanted in the first place, so I don’t think focusing it on Lieberman really hits the truth,” said Feingold. “I think they could have been higher. I certainly think a stronger bill would have been better in every respect.”
I am not a health care expert, but it’s pretty easy to read patterns of behavior. The White House had no problem pressuring Democrats when they needed votes for the War Spending Bill. But Obama puts up no fight for a public option, medicare expansion, etc? Why is he doing this? This will be the defining legislation of his first term. He’s not powerless, so what’s the logical answer?
It’s most likely this is the Bill he wants. Look at the White House reaction chastising Howard Dean for coming out against the Bill, as opposed to their virtual reacharound to accommodate Lieberman, who criticized it from the other (industry) side.
What is happening seems to be just another example of the appropriation of our government by Corporatism. I keep picturing another unqualified disaster/giveaway like Bush’s Medicare Part D.
Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe the proposed Senate Bill is the first step in improving a system that provides no care for some, substandard care for many, and all at exponentially rising costs. Also, I support Obama’s previous health care measures: SCHIP, tobacco regulation, and stimulus funds for Medicaid, COBRA subsidies, health information technology and the National Institutes of Health. You could also throw stem cell research in there. On a personal level, the COBRA subsidy provided me great assistance following my job loss earlier this year ($385/mo. premium down to $165/mo.)
And I’m trying not to lose perspective of the following…
The Institute of Medicine’s methodology says 22,000 people died in 2006 because they didn’t have health-care coverage. A recent Harvard study found the number nearer to 45,000.
So please someone tell me why I’m wrong.
(Note: I started writing this yesterday evening. Coincidentally, I received this e-mail from Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Illinois mid-post:
from noreply@hscil.com
to date subject mailed-by Based on the information provided on your application, we are unable to extend an offer of coverage. A detailed explanation of this decision will be sent to you shortly.)
I’m a relatively healthy 30 year old, with only one pre-existing red flag. I’m trying to move from COBRA to an individual policy.
Maybe I answered my own question.
Matt, I am glad to see that you are seeing this legislation for what it always has been. It is a 2500 page bill imposing multiple taxes on employers and citizens along with an unprecendented and unconstitutional mandate on Americans to purchase health insurance. President Obama displayed the governments true motivations for this bill when he stated on ABC news in an interview with Charles Gibson that if health care reform is not passed, the Federal Government, “will go bankrupt.”
President Obama is either using “end of times” fear mongering or he is being truthful. If the latter is true, health care reform will only delay the inevitable.
Obama is referring to the fact that Medicare/Medicaid is the largest item on the national budget surpassing defense spending. Check it out here:
http://www.usdebtclock.org
Matt,
As you know I have much to say on this. I’ll try and be brief.
As to the post above. Any sober and objective analyisis has concluded that, in fact, Medicare and Medicaid will, as the system currently exists, engulf our entire budget over time if not properly dealt with. Any economist worth his salt, not some “fear-mongering” President, has come to the same conclusion.
The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, who scored this legislation, concluded that over ten years time this bill will be a defecit reducer, the largest of its kind, to the tune of $300 billion. And over the next decade, it will reduce the deficit by more than $1.3 Trillion (Trillion with a T). This will be a boon to small businesses struggling to do the right thing and provide insurance for their employees as the bill provides subsidies and tax incentives to the businesses that do. And yes, people should be responsible for their health care so that we the insured don’t have to be. They should be mandated to buy health insurance so that the rest of us don’t have to pay for their insurance when they go to the ER. It’s easy to call it unconstitutional but a little more difficult to come up with a solution to a problem that increases everyone’s premiums (might as well be a tax on middle-class Americans). Anyone deemed unable to afford it will be given a hardship exemption.
Matt, I’m not sure whether or not you support the Senate Bill as is. To those on the left who don’t, I have become increasingly annoyed. I think they need to step back and gain some perspective about the opportunity we have in front of us. While the left can debate the merits of the bill, one thing I’m sure of: that we’ll have another chance at real, substantial reform again under this President or any other. And if we don’t get this now – with a supermjority in the Senate, a Democratic majority in the house and a liberal President (yes, I’m using liberal) – we’ll never get anything close to this in the coming years. Political reality say the 2010 midterms will, at best, leave us with a few less Dem Sens and Dems in the house. Obama will be re-elected in 3 years (I’ll guarantee that) and then maybe, in 4 years, we could write another health care bill. The chances we’ll have enough enlightened Senators to write as good a bill as we have now will be slim. We might not get anything. After Obama (that scares me) the chance that we’ll get a more liberal candidate elected, in a country of way too many uneducated loons, is ludicrous. I just hope Dems will be able to hold onto the Presidency. The point is, this really is our best opportunity to make significant reform a reality.
Carps, remember in October of 2003, the Cubs were on the cusp of going to the World Series only to blow it. Remember those assholes who were talking about next year, unaware of just how hard it was to get to the point where had a 3-0 lead with 5 outs to go untill we reached the World Series. Well Carps, it’s the eighth inning and health care reform is 5 outs away. (I just realized how overused baseball analogies are but fuck it, this is relevant)The chance we’ll be at this point – to make health care reform a reality; to do the right thing and care for those who aren’t fortunate enough to be able to take care of themselves; to reduce the deficit; to provide affordable insurance to 31 million Americans; to make it illegal for health insurance companies to deny coverage to their insured who get sick and illegal to deny someone based on pre-existing conditions; to start to reduce health care costs thru hundreds of smart pilot programs; to ensure the hundreds of thousands of families who go bankrupt every year from their health care bill don’t anymore; to start to make REAL change – the chance we’ll be at this point any time in the near future is between slim and none. Don’t gloss over those real changes I just listed just because the public option isn’t in there. I’m disappointed too.
But this is a Bill I firmly support. You can attack me from the left or the right, I know I’m right. And Ill gladly use an overused metaphor that is dead on – we simply can’t afford to kick the can on down the road thinking next time it will be different and better. It won’t.
This is a good bill and a good start.
Wow, I wasn’t even close to brief.
Paul, I appreciate your emotional appeal for health reform, but your argument lacks substantive evidence to justify this massive and potentially unconstitutional expansion of gov’t and taxes. Unless we immediately balance the budget like President Clinton did and reform monetary policy, our current federalist system is doomed to die an ugly and potentially violent death.
There is no such thing as non-partisan in DC, so you have to take the 15-year budget projection from the CBO with a grain of salt. One only has to study the governments’ projected costs for medicare/caid, social security, the war in Iraq, predictions on how the bailouts would effect employment etc at their point of inception to see how innaccurate government forecasters can be in terms of predicting cost/duration. Furthermore, there is no way that the 500 Billion dollar drawback on Medicaid will be sustainable because we are not going to just let old people suffer and die in America. This is an enormous hidden cost in the rosy CBO numbers along with many others.
Most doctors will tell you that the current bill will not lower costs or provide coverage to more people than the current system. In fact most health care professionals will tell you that health care will get more expensive. The primary beneficiaries of the current proposal are the health insurance companies and pharma companies (surprise surprise). The bill will increase their market share and protect their inflated prices they impose. It’s shame because there are many ways that real reform could take place, but they have been virtually ignored by Congress and the mass media. The real reason the government is passing this bill is to bail their spendaholic asses out, secure their jobs for a couple more years, and protect the health care cartels.
Here are some simple ways the costs associated with health care could immediately be lowered:
1. Tort Reform—limit the amount of money that patients can sue doctors for malpractice
2. Allow purchasing policies across state lines
3. No insurance needed for basic care ie free market clionics (give tax incentives)
4. GEMs http://www.twincities.com/alllistings/ci_14044396?source=rss
I for one, do not believe in the need for insurance except for catastrphic emergency reasons. The artificial and inflated costs of medical care result from HMOs and the way clinics bill to insurance companies rather than directly to the patient. Have you ever wondered why a clinic will charge $200 for a test that costs them $5? It is because they can. Over the last 20 years, the American patient has lost all touch with the cost of medical care.
Health Insurance should use the same model as homeowners insurance. If I paint my house, change the carpet, add a garage etc, I pay for it out of my pocket. I will maintain my house based on my own budget and wants, whereas if a catastrophe hits such as a damaging storm or fire, I have the insurance to step in to take care of the costs above and beyond the premium. This is how health insurance should be, but rather under the current economic inflationary practice of HMOs, families literally need insurance for the most basic services such as to obtain a prescription, get stitches, a physical, etc because HMOs set prices artificially high and clinics charge HMOs the max allotted price b/c they have to.
The health industry is a 2.5 Trillion dollar industry. It reaps enormous profits for insurance companies, hospitals, doctors and others. You better be realistic and believe that these profits are being protected and in many cases redirected through the proposed legislation rather than what it should be doing which is lowering costs, but unfortunately for us, lowering cost would mean lowering profits and this is simply not acceptable to the corporatacy of America.
Sorry for writing so much, but I am passionate about freedom of choice and the Constitution in America. Yesterday, I called Senator Franken and Klobuchar to ask them to justify the Constitutionality of the mandate to purchase health insurance. Both offices said, “Well, the government mandates you to buy auto insurance…”
I explained to them patiently that I have a choice whether I purcahse an automobile, therefore I can avoid auto insurance by walking, public transporation, or biking, therefore it is not the same. I am concerned b/c the Feds are going to tell me that I have to purchase insurance simply because I am a human being and American citizen. This mandate to purchase a product is completely unprecedented and unconstitutional. Whats next? The government is going to tell me that I have to purchase life insurance?
Come on! This is America. The land of the free. Just because a minority of super smart liberals want to impose their will on little old me doesn’t mean that I have to go along with it.
Sadly, if this passes, there will be a tax revolt in this country. The legislators cannot ignore the will of over 60% of Americans who are against this bill without consequnces. Even if we are not as educated and smart as you and the sportsbroadcaster turned political hack Keith Olbermann. Ironically, we are the same people who were against the bailouts as well and now have to painfully witness the corruption, fraud, and outright theft of our money to pay off people like Hilary Clinton’s pollster (did they really need $6 million dollars to save 3 jobs?).
The ultimate solution may be to split the country. Those that want to live in the corporate/welfare state go east of the Mississippi and those that want to live free go to the west. I would easily sacrafice some of the bourgie comforts of life to have my independence and free will.
Have a Harry Harry Christams!
Z System,
I apologize for not getting back to you sooner but I can’t get past a paragraph you write that doesn’t compel me to reconcile your views and philosophy with facts and reason- I’ve only read the first paragraph at this point and can’t get past the fact you’re actually suggesting that our primary concern in the worst economic crisis since the Depression is balancing the budget. I respect your adherence to fiscal discipline and think that one of President Clinton’s greatest achievements was balancing the budget and reducing the deficit racked up during the profligate Reagan/Bush years. Balancing the budget and reducing the deficit is a goal Pres Obama shares with you. However, this isn’t the boom time of the 90′s: Obama walked into 2 wars that went unpaid for; massive deficits; the aftermath of our financial system nearly collapsing, a housing crisis that left millions under water, delinquent or in foreclosure; high unemployment; and yes, a health care system that consumes 17.6% of US GDP and will make Medicare insolvent by 2017.
Here’s you substance:
http://www.kff.org/insurance/upload/7692_02.pdf
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124212734686110365.html
Two main points before I go onto your other paragraphs that will make me want to pull my hair out:
1- If economists have learned ANYTHING from the great depression, it is that when the free market isn’t pumping money into the system or providing jobs, the government must step in and provide fiscal stimulus and jobs. If the government had not provided stimulus (tax cuts – yes tax cuts, money to states to save jobs education, health care, fire and police; unemployment benefits, etc), unemployment would be much higher, state budgets would be far worse than they already are, and a few hundred thousand more people would be homeless. And our economy would be similar to that of the depression which lasted largely for 10 years. To suggest that our primary concern at this critical juncture should be balancing the budget or reducing deficits belies any rational economic solution to the current economic crises we’re enduring.
2- Health care reform is essential if we ever expect to balance our budget in the long term. To simply ignore fiscal reality and the rising costs of health care does a disservice to your argument for balanced budgets. Can we think long term here or is it always gonna be the simplistic, myopic, hackneyed solution to every complex problem we have: tax cuts, less government. In my lifetime, Republicans have run up deficits, Dems have balanced budgets. Obama will be no different. In the short term, yes, we have to spend money and stimulate. We also have to address long term liabilities, the biggest being health care costs, medicare and medicaid. To neglect those realities, and not admit a need for reform, makes your argument irrelevant.
You generalize that because the Congressional Budget Office resides in Washington DC, it is partisan and therefore their conclusions lack credibility. Yes it resides in DC and yes there is inherent bias in any organization made up of fallible humans. However, I’d challenge you to find me any legit organization (one that can credibly study the complexities of health care) that has studied the Senate Bill as closely as they have. Because I haven’t seen one and I’m clearly less cynical about government than you, I’ll “settle” for their conclusion that states THIS IS A DEFICIT REDUCER, by a long shot. Pray tell, where do you get your info that states ‘this is just a giant expansion of gov’t and a tax on employers and citizen’s.” No, it’s not. The Senate’s bill is paid for by making cuts to medicare and by taxing cadillac insurance plans The tax would provide a strong incentive for employers and workers to shift to lower-priced plans. Health economists of all political stripes see the tax as the major cost-reduction element.
I’ll quote a saying David Axelrod repeated this week with eloquence, “everyone’s entitled to their own opinions, not their own facts.”
This is all just from your first paragraph. I saw something else about a welfare state and succession by the west, things that make me want to vomit. I hope to get to the rest of your argument but it’s difficult and a little infuriating because while I respect that you adhere to your libertarian political philosophy, that very philosophy makes me want to vomit (yeah, vomit twice).
I recognize the privilege I was born into, that I’m lucky to have the job that I do, privileged to have been able to receive the great public education I received, lucky to live in the great city I love, and I’m lucky to have health care. I benefit from the capitalist, free market system I live in. But I also have the humility to recognize that there’s a guy out there just like me, who works harder than you and I do, has played by the rules but because he got laid off last month, his chemo treatments will cause him to go bankrupt in the near future because our health care system denied him coverage. If you can’t recognize that you’re a day away from being that guy, from being on the short end of the free market system we live in, I can’t begin to help you. I’ll gladly pay taxes to cover the least among us and I’ll be better off for it. Welfare state my ass, it’s called moral justice.
Paul, regardless of the liberal minority view for my own health care, the people have spoken last night in MA. I don’t want to hear the argument that Coakley ran a weak campaign. The dems lost because of arrogance, complacency, and hypocrisy. The majority of Americans do not want a liberal dictated health insurance mandate. They tried it in MA and it has failed. God is involved in politics after all!
it’s nice God could find some time in his/her busy schedule of punishing the people of Haiti to impose his/her will on the Mass’ special election.
Personally, I have little problem with the Coakley loss (and she did run an awful campaign.) given the remote possibility of putting more progressive influence on the bill, I’ll take the chance. After all, despite the Right/Corporate control of the MSM HC message, there is still overwhelming support for progressive ideals like the Public Option. Take the power out of the hands of Nelson (D-Insurance) + Lieberman (I-Pharm), and give it a go with rocnciliation. Rahm – you’re supposed to have big balls. Earn your fucking salt.
For the record, I believe that God could give two shits about politics or health care reform. If anything beyond natural seismic shifts, the Haiti earthquake was man’s attempt to punish and transform Haiti and save them from their poverty. See the Tesla weapons.
I would not be surprised if Harry, Nancy, Rahm, and all the other repressives still try to shove this bill down our throats before Brown is seated because they know if they do not, it will be another 10-20 years before people forget about the inability of a corrupt Congress to bring real health care reform that actually benefits the American people rather than major taxes on insurance plans, bribery, unconstitutional health insurance mandates, and government takeover of the health care industry.
Coakley did run a complacent, presumtious, and detached campaign, but this is not atypical. It is an accurate representation of the arrogance that is corroding the dem party and liberal values.
Anthony,
“They tried it in MA and it failed”- really? I’ll be happy to see some subtance and credibility on that. But until that time I’ll take the word of the more than 96% of MA residents who are now covered and Atul Gawande, the Dr and Journalist who practices in MA and written extensively on the cost of health care. On Charlie Rose a few weeks back, he spoke about how before MA had universal coverage, his hospital turned away some 20% of cancer patients per year, most ending up dying. Since coverage became univeral, they have not turned away one cancer patient from treatment. It’s saving lives. Do you want to tell the cancer patients whose lives have been saved by universal coverage that this reform has been a failure? Their saved lives is compelling evidence that is anything but. Flawed? You bet. There isn’t a silver bullet and it takes time. It’s the right thing to do, I don’t know how so many Americans are so blind to that. Sad really.