I think it's pretty clear with hind sight that there was no way in hell an even minimally helpful public option would have passed. I didn't think this was so in the middle of the process, but I do now.
I really, really dislike that excuse. The campaign promised transparency and to at least attempt to limit lobbyist exposure to key legislation. This was a total, total failure in that regard, and the result is a giant government subsidy to an already absurdly non-competitive and filthy-rich industry. Epic Fail. Oh, and Obama made these deals while he was still trumpeting the public option.
Disagree - it's certainly not ideal, but it's neither a "failure" nor a "mess". A public option was one way to create downward cost pressures - but it was only one small component of it. The public option only helped control costs on the *insurance profit* side of things. That's a small part of the price spirals going on. The real price spirals is the cost of the actual health care. Insurance companies have to spend a significant portion of premiums on actual health care payments - so much of insurance costs going up was based on actual health care costs going up. The bill has a number of things in it to put pressure on those costs - and that's where the real success or failure will be. Whether those cost controls work or not is still up in the air - it's all experimental because no one actually knows how to slow those costs. But insurance premiums were a symptom rather than underlying cause, which is why putting so much focus on the public option was really so misguided - it was a very small part of the overall bill.
A universal coverage mandate is an integral component of any HC system, precisely due to cost control As far as the votes for the public option, I don't get how Obama is going to control the Senate without hte votes. Rembmer back those days it was basically the Ben Nelson/Olympia Snowe/Lieberman dog and pony show, they could do whatever they wanted and there was pretty much nohting the anybody could do about it. I guess they could have come down on Lieberman harder (considering that he was doing a total 180 on the public option) by having Reid threaten to kick him out of the caucus, but I don't think that would have been successful ultimately other than to make no HCR possible.
So you are justifying this bill by saying that the GOP was against it the entire time? What does that have to do with it at all, Sam? The GOP is a freaking mess of a party and I am not a republican. It is entirely possible to not be a republican, to be PRO health care reform, and to think that this bill is a ****ing mess
No I'm trying to ask you how you came to the conclusion that "what do you guys think now, it's a mess!" when (1) it kind of hasn't really been implemented yet and (2)the evidence you are citing in favor of it now being a mess is a meaningless referendum engineered by same GOP'ers who always opposed it no matter what.
what don't you understand about HCR barely passing with only one democrat senator needed to be against the public option. there were probably at least three who wouldn't have voted for it. edit: and secondly, at least we know who Obama met with in discussions on setting policy, unlike us still not knowing who Cheney met with. this article is pure speculation
We will eventually see. I just don't see costs coming down like they need to. And I now that a bill has been passed, who knows how long it will be before they get to the point where everyone starts saying something has to be done again.
I agree - it's unclear how much impact this will have. But it does establish a lot of the underlying mechanisms to have an impact. I don't think the public option was the cure-all that many others do. It was going to be very useful for price discovery to see the actual cost of health care, but it was going to suffer the same problems as insurance companies - raising rates due to rising costs. As far as something needing to be done again - I think that time will be soon. But I don't think that is unexpected. Any major legislation like this will have to be adjusted and improved over time. There's no way to get it 100% right the first time because there will always be unintended and unexpected results (good or bad). It will absolutely have to be tweaked and adjusted, and maybe either strengthened or weakened depending on how things play out.
Soemthing will definitely to be done again, but that's the point of clearing the first hurdle. Comprehensive health reform isn't going to happen in a day or a year, it's going to be a long period of trial and error. But it's important to take the first step, because Presidents have been trying, without success , to do so for nearly 80 years now. I mean FDR couldn't do it. FDR. Add in the recent spike in costs and it's important to start the process sooner rather than later.
read my edit, secondly do you really think all 60 dem senators were on board with a public option? unlike your little speculation piece, I can come up with facts to back my claim that there weren't
this needs to be noted by everyone, since we deal with the insurance companies that's who our ire is directed against. but they are only covering the costs they have to from the actual health care.
This has been asked so many times to multiple conservatives on this board, but I never seen a legitimate or rational response by any of them. If you're going to say you don't like something, shouldn't you know why and what should be done to fix it? But they never know... Why don't they just say, " I hate it because it wasn't proposed by the GOP." Then they would actually have a reason...
Not the point, but your efforts to alter the argument are noted. For the sake of clarity, though, I think Obama had a huge opportunity to try and push it through..but instead he assured the lobbyists behind the scenes that they would be "taken care of" and just gave it away. You need to read more - that article specifically quotes kirkpatrick confirming that the deal existed. There a lot of links there....
Yep, the dice was already loaded before it was thrown. It's was all calculated upon the premise that not all Republicans would reject a plan they would vote for 10 years ago. Eliminate lobby opposition. Compromise with Senate Republicans. A bone here and there for friendly lobbies to soothe bruised egos. I rather have a bill that overshoots and is subsequently scaled back, but I can understand major's position. Regardless of any solution, healthcare is still headed towards bankruptcy within 20 years. But this bill is A LOT better than nothing.
I understand if you are against THIS bill, but something had to be done to get the ball rollin. The GOP would have never even thought of touching health care, now that its done maybe, just maybe some tweeks can be made to satisfy more people.
This is my biggest problem with this whole thing. All of the frustration and angst is directed at the insurance companies, and the general will of people is find a way to take away money from the insurance companies. Limit premium amounts! Require them to cover everything! etc etc Why don't people talk about the fact that the reason your insurance is so damn expensive is because your doctors and hospitals are RAPING AMERICA with their charges? A guy goes to the emergency room and gets an MRI and some bloodwork and ends up with a $2500 bill going toward his deductible/co-insurance. He will complain about his crappy insurance and everyone will agree that we need health insurance reform. Why doesn't anyone think about the fact that your emergency room visit was billed to the insurance company as a $20000 charge that they reduced via negotiated fees?
You can't kill something that's already dead. The alleged "deal to kill" the public option, if it was enacted in August, which was already after Senator Droopy Lieberman came out against it as early as July. http://thinkprogress.org/2009/09/08/lieberman-public-attainable/
