Sen. Ron Wyden has sold to the Democratic leadership an amendment that would enable more employees to cash out their employer-provided benefits and buy their own insurance policy on a health exchange.
This seems a great idea – and even more, a great idea for conservatives. Remember, it was conservative economists who established the case for the irrationality of the whole employer-provided benefits system. It’s been a crazy feature of this year’s debate that conservatives keep backing themselves into positions they did not believe two years ago and won’t believe two years from now. Now we are in the ludicrous position of opposing curbs on Medicare spending, opposing global budgeting for health systems, opposing studies of comparative effectiveness -and championing the employer-provided system that Milton Friedman regularly excoriated as the source of all trouble in the American health market.
Why is it left to a Democrat like Wyden to press for individual purchase within a prudently regulated health marketplace?
104 responses so far
1 txanne // Nov 20, 2009 at 10:53 pm
David, is this a rhetorical question? Because I suspect everyone knows why the Republicans didn’t offer this amendment.
They are not trying to improve the bill, they only want to kill the bill. Just like 1993; it is the Krystol strategy all over again.
2 cpanza // Nov 20, 2009 at 11:07 pm
“Now we are in the ludicrous position of opposing curbs on Medicare spending, opposing global budgeting for health systems, opposing studies of comparative effectiveness -and championing the employer-provided system that Milton Friedman regularly excoriated as the source of all trouble in the American health market.”
Perhaps because actual agreement with your political opponents isn’t really useful when you job as a politician to serve up never ending tidbits to generate outrage from your constituents.
How would agreement with Dems on the use of effectiveness studies, budgeting and curbs on medicare serve to goal of feeding Republican outrage? You talk as if it’s ideology and principles that should stay consistent over time here. It isn’t. What stays consistent is the need to maintain the outrage of one’s constituents (whether left or right). The subject matter you manipulate to generate that outrage, even if it switches back and forth and generates ideological inconsistency, isn’t all that important.
3 esurience // Nov 21, 2009 at 12:41 am
Republicans: Party first, country last (if at all). That’s the explanation for everything they do.
4 fastestinthewest // Nov 21, 2009 at 1:03 am
David is correct with the observation “that conservatives keep backing themselves into positions they did not believe two years ago and won’t believe two years from now”. The real deal is to revert to Reagan politics and never speak ill of any Republican – David!
5 rbottoms // Nov 21, 2009 at 3:54 am
Because he GOP is now made up primarily of dogmatic, one note Sean Hannity clones? That a huge percentage of the Republican voters believe ObamaHitlerMao is out to deliberately destroy the country and thus refuse to reward the party leadership for anything other than obstruction and outrage?
Take your pick. In any case what is spells is disintegration during the primaries and crushing electoral defeat in 2012.
Bye, Bye.
6 danoand // Nov 21, 2009 at 5:06 am
David
Come on… let’s get real. It doesn’t make any sense to enable the government’s subjects… er… sorry consumers to buy their own insurance policy on a health exchange when the intent, design, and result of Obamacare is to (literally) destroy the private insurance industry and ultimately force everyone into a universal healthcare regime.
Obamacare is a power grab of a sixth of the US economy and will intrude in the lives of the vast majority of US citizens. It taxes productive people (entrepreneurs, small businesses), punishes unfavored groups (baddie pharma companies, insurance companies, doctors), benefits favored groups (unions, “good” big business who fed the crocodile first, tort lawyers) and exempts the august mandarin class (congress, federal employees).
7 joemarier // Nov 21, 2009 at 8:49 am
Yes, it’s a pretty good amendment, BUT I think the ban on folks with employer-based health insurance getting on the exchanges was because it keeps the level of taxpayer subsidies down. I’d like to see the CBO numbers with the Wyden amendment, and I’d like to know whether voucherizing the off-paycheck subsidy would just cause every company to cut the subsidy to the point where everyone gets the taxpayer subsidy instead.
In two years, I’m thinking that a lot will change, but there’ll be a bipartisan consensus around Wyden.
8 joemarier // Nov 21, 2009 at 8:51 am
Oh, and Wyden is Bennett’s cats-paw.
9 cpanza // Nov 21, 2009 at 9:25 am
Joe,
I’d be interested in the CBO numbers as well. But one thing that gets tiresome (on both sides here) is the selective use of CBO. Are they an authoritative source to turn to or not? It gets old to hear one side say “must be budget neutral” and then when CBO says it is, they get attacked. Of course, when CBO says it is not budget neutral, they are presented by the same people as the finest and most non-partisan minds in economics.
Sure, it’s politics, but that doesn’t make it any less annoying. In matters like this, both sides have cut the scorched earth policy crap and accept _some_ sources as legitimate in an epistemic sense.
10 ottovbvs // Nov 21, 2009 at 9:54 am
…..It’s not a bad amendment but it’s probably going to add to the cost and I rather doubt it will find it’s way into the final bill that comes out of conference but we’ll see…….as for discussing why Republicans are walking away from this and the various other issues David mentions, that’s because the whole Republican stance on this bill is not about effective governance it’s about politics………the GOP has simply ceased to be a serious party of govt at the national level……there’s no doubt in my mind the healthcare reform bill is going to pass and that the public is going to like it (for once Kristol was right when he prophesied this)……Republicans will then find themselves in the position of having voted against a hugely popular measure just as they voted against SS and Medicare which they are now running ads DEFENDING which just goes to show they really aught to be called the GHP…..the Grand Hypocrisy Party
11 balconesfault // Nov 21, 2009 at 10:07 am
fastinthewest: The real deal is to revert to Reagan politics and never speak ill of any Republican
Well, Reagan did only revert to those politics himself AFTER his position had taken control of the Party. In 1976, I recall the battle he waged against a sitting President, a battle that played a large role in the election of Jimmy Carter.
A healthy political party can deal with ideological battles within their own ranks.
12 ottovbvs // Nov 21, 2009 at 10:22 am
balconesfault // Nov 21, 2009 at 10:07 am
“A healthy political party can deal with ideological battles within their own ranks.”
…….One of those occasions when I have to disagree with you……..schisms can seriously damage even for healthy parties……they can completely wreck sick ones…..a couple of weeks ago someone posted a piece about the disintegration of the Labor party in Britain in the late seventies and eighties which was essentially a battle between doctrinal zealots with lots of left wing flat earth ideas and middle of the roaders…….the current schism in the GOP bears more than a passing resemblance in that it’s between doctrinal zealots with lot of right wing flat earth ideas and middle of the roaders.
13 sinz54 // Nov 21, 2009 at 10:39 am
ottovbs:
And in the 1960s, the Dem Party in the U.S. was torn apart over Vietnam and the race violence issues. The hard-core left-wing not only split with the LBJ administration, but they countenanced actual political violence–and riots swept across America, often aimed at the LBJ administration.
When you have a schism that deep, whether it’s over Vietnam or socialism or social conservatism–it really can destroy a major political party that needs a “big tent” to have any hope of winning a majority.
14 cpanza // Nov 21, 2009 at 11:05 am
“…When you have a schism that deep, whether it’s over Vietnam or socialism or social conservatism–it really can destroy a major political party that needs a “big tent” to have any hope of winning a majority.”
Sinz, I agree that deep schisms can harm a party politically for various reasons, but I would hardly call not having schisms a “big tent”. I think that’s rather called forced conformity, which is the opposite. Big Tents tend to lead to schisms, since they are indicative of inner complexity and thus tension. The goal is to have a Big Tent, which includes tensions and inner battling, while at the same time being able to be an effective and united political force. Admittedly, these two are very hard to pull off.
Unless I’ve misunderstood your point.
15 PracticalGirl // Nov 21, 2009 at 11:30 am
David, your question is only practical in a vacuum. Ron Wyden has proposed much that is reasonable for health care reform, because (as txanne pointed out) he cares deeply about making the bill better.. The Republicans abandoned their entire platform. Like children, they have chosen not to “brush their teeth beofre bedtime” in the fervent hope that bedtime, then, will never come. Instead of acting like statesmen and negotiating for the things they believe in, they have chosen to lead frenzied, rhetorical Tea Parties. It might SEEM like a childish thing to do-hold your breath and count to ten, then go play a different game- but the GOP seems to be gaining steam with this sort of tactic.
I have wondered, and continue to wonder, whehter or not there are any Republicans who actually believe that even one of the centerpieces of their own proposals would indeed, be effective. If they REALLY beleive it, they’d be in there fighting to represent us instead of leading us in a loud, FOX-news sponsored snit.
16 ottovbvs // Nov 21, 2009 at 12:04 pm
sinz54 // Nov 21, 2009 at 10:39 am
…….We essentially agree about big tents but you’re missing a fundamental difference between what happened in Britain and what happened in the US in the sixties/seventies/eighties……..in the US the hardcore left was always a fringe element, noisy maybe, but a fringe or how else would the Democrats have had control of congress for much of the time……the situation in Britain was totally different……the fringe took over the labor party and that’s what’s happening with the GOP today
17 ottovbvs // Nov 21, 2009 at 12:18 pm
14 cpanza // Nov 21, 2009 at 11:05 am
“Big Tents tend to lead to schisms, since they are indicative of inner complexity and thus tension.”
…….This is what tends to make the Democratic party more fractious than the GOP…..it’s basically a much broader coalition of interests and therefore has more potential for friction…….having said that the Democratic party is probably more doctrinally homogeneous today than it’s been in modern times……back in the thirties half the party was southern and deeply conservative and would frequently ally itself with northern conservatives to block progressive legislation………one of the unintended consequences of the southern and polarization strategies pursued by the right over the last 40 years has been to put politically square pegs in square holes and round ones in round holes…….basically all the most conservative tendencies in the country are now corralled in the Republican party and the liberal ones in the Democrats although because of its broader makeup it still has a much diminished conservative wing…….given demographic, generational and social changes this is not working to the GOP’s advantage and is far more of a handicap than they are willing to acknowledge being forced by their base to ignore its implications in favor of doctrinal purity.
18 balconesfault // Nov 21, 2009 at 2:25 pm
Back to Frum’s question:
Why is it left to a Democrat like Wyden to press for individual purchase within a prudently regulated health marketplace?
Right now, the only amendments the Republicans want to bring to the floor are those that are either politically charged enough to make it difficult for Democrats to vote for them … or that contain Trojan Horse provisions that are really intended to turn healthcare reform into a debacle that Republicans could celebrate not having voted for in the final bill.
If they are involved in proposing reforms that have a good chance of passing – then it ends up becoming harder for them to vote against a final bill, since that “no” vote will have an increased possibility of coming back to haunt them in the future.
As for “conservatives keep backing themselves into positions they did not believe two years ago and won’t believe two years from now that is just legislative irresponsibility, on a level that would be unsustainable if the media actually challenged it, rather than encouraging it (the screaming helping everyone’s ratings).
19 balconesfault // Nov 21, 2009 at 2:26 pm
Former conservative/Republican blogger John Cole takes the question on in a more direct tone today:
And when you realize that, it makes complete sense why no one in the Republican party stands up to the lies spewed by Sarah Palin, like, for example, this nonsense about mammograms and death panels. She is flat out lying, as she does most every time she opens her mouth, but no one in the GOP will call her on it because it is to their advantage to make the country ungovernable. They like it when there is so much bullshit and disinformation out there that the public is incapable of being informed. Sarah Palin is cheaper and far more effective than all the bullshit factories the Koch Foundation and others have been funding for decades.
20 ottovbvs // Nov 21, 2009 at 2:33 pm
“and far more effective than all the bullshit factories the Koch Foundation and others have been funding for decades.”
……..Bullshit factories……perfect description
21 Grizelda // Nov 21, 2009 at 3:32 pm
I would back it up even further than that – if tort reform and shopping across state lines are the silver bullets that Republicans pretend they are, why didn’t they put them into law when they had control of the government?
22 MI-GOPer // Nov 21, 2009 at 5:02 pm
Another circle jerk by the Troll Tribe trying hard to find some solace in Obama’s plummeting polls and the Democrats’ failure of leadership.
Maybe this is what happens when a political party takes the very last issue anyone cares about –according to two polls just after Obama & ACORN stole the election– and move it to the front of the line. There’s no political consensus to act, the voters haven’t had time to ripen an opinion on the issue, pundits on either side can spin to their heart’s content and effect a downward spiral of public opinion on the issue at hand… and it all can be chalked up to Obama’s inexperience as a leadership, his ego-centric and harshly partisan approach to governing… it’s caused him to run away from DC and find some pr glory in foreign lands, dither away our soldiers’ lives on the battlefield and capitulate our courts and constitutional protections to terrorists who want us all dead.
This is what happens. Some Americans chose change and we’re just getting more of the same lame game. Bush 43 is looking almost statesman like compared to Obama. Ashcroft is starting to look refreshing competent compared to our ethics-challenged Stedman-Holder. Sarah Palin probably could have done a better job rooting out corruption and lies in the Stimulus Spending Spree than HairPlugsR-US Joey Biden –as she did in Alaska.
And it now looks like the GOP could gather a major upset in the 2010 Congressional races… while picking up as many as 9 new state governorships. Ouch.
23 MI-GOPer // Nov 21, 2009 at 5:06 pm
MESSAGE TO MODERATOR: PLEASE BLOCK AND REMOVE ALL OF BLANK HEAD’S COMMENTS AS THEY ARE INFLAMATORY AND INJURIOUS AND FULL OF PROFANITY (see #19). THEY ARE IN DIRECT OPPOSITION TO THIS WEB’S LOFTY GOAL AND MISSION.
(j/k Mr Face… or was it TeaBagged… or CentristNyer… or, darn, which character in the Troll Tribe tried that flame-out earlier?) LOL.
24 cpanza // Nov 21, 2009 at 5:26 pm
Otto:
You may be right about Dem internal complexity being on the downswing over time. However, it’s still the case that even with a diminished tent (over time), the internals of the tent are still far more diverse than are the internals of the Republicans. Over time, and demographically, however, I agree that the Republicans will hit a wall as the country inevitably becomes more and more diverse (much to Pat Buchanan’s horror). Simply appealing to the same highly homogeneous 22% isn’t going to win you elections now or in the future as the very diverse demographics the Republicans do not court come more and more onto center stage.
25 ottovbvs // Nov 21, 2009 at 5:55 pm
cpanza // Nov 21, 2009 at 5:26 pm
“the internals of the tent are still far more diverse than are the internals of the Republicans. ”
………Actually I thought this was exactly what I said….polarization/southern strategies have made both parties much more homogenous doctrinally, particularly in the case of the Republicans who outside of maybe three or four senators (Collins, Lugar, Snowe) no longer have a moderate wing in either house……the Dems have a much diminished (relative to the sixties say) conservative wing of perhaps 6-8 senators and maybe 40 Representatives (the Republicans have literally no moderate Representatives)…..if you read the LBJ biog master of the senate you are going to be amazed at how conservative half the Democratic party was in 1963…….he must have been a magician to get civil rights and Medicare passed……..the societal shift canyon the GOP is a million times more significant in long term electoral terms than the latest cable/blog excitement du jour that they love to run around screaming about.
26 ottovbvs // Nov 21, 2009 at 5:57 pm
MI-GOPer // Nov 21, 2009 at 5:06 pm
“MESSAGE TO MODERATOR: PLEASE BLOCK AND REMOVE ALL OF BLANK HEAD’S COMMENTS AS THEY ARE INFLAMATORY AND INJURIOUS AND FULL OF PROFANITY (see #19). THEY ARE IN DIRECT OPPOSITION TO THIS WEB’S LOFTY GOAL AND MISSION.’
…….The Tribune of the people gives us his latest pronouncement…..it’s in caps so it must be important
27 cpanza // Nov 21, 2009 at 6:03 pm
Otto:
I was actually agreeing with you there. I’m not a much of a student of the history of American politics, but I agree that if the Democratic party was that conservative, I can’t imagine what LBJ did to get the Great Society moving.
I completely agree on your last point. I think in terms of long term strategy (keeping future demographics in mind), the Republicans are “pricing themselves out of the market.” I think some conservatives recognize this, but the 24 hr blog-news cycle has contributed a bit too much to need to feel the addiction to daily servings of outrage du jour, so it doesn’t pay in the short run to pay much attention to that sort of thing. The War on Christmas provides too quick a “fix” to get you through the holiday season, if you know what I mean.
28 teabag // Nov 21, 2009 at 6:10 pm
Mi-Gop said in a weird loony voice.
“MESSAGE TO MODERATOR: PLEASE BLOCK AND REMOVE ALL OF BLANK HEAD’S COMMENTS AS THEY ARE INFLAMATORY AND INJURIOUS AND FULL OF PROFANITY (see #19). THEY ARE IN DIRECT OPPOSITION TO THIS WEB’S LOFTY GOAL AND MISSION.”
Ha,
Mi-gop has gone bonkers, do-lally, stark raving, off the reservation, mad as a hatter, totally and completely lost his marbles. Is now 2 sandwiches short of a picnic.
Someone please call the men in white coats. This man is a raving lunatic. And probably a danger to himself and his family.
29 steelyblades // Nov 21, 2009 at 6:13 pm
It is just astounding to me that Republicans would invest so much energy in obstructionism, and no energy at all in actually trying to influence what goes into the legislation. What a wasted opportunity.
30 MR FACE // Nov 21, 2009 at 6:22 pm
To be fair, even if the Republicans came up with the best idea ever that would solve all the health care problems, the Democrats wouldn’t even think of putting it in the bill. They are stubborn. It’s all politics. The Democrats can’t have something in the bill that Republicans propose that might work, because then they can’t take full ownership of the bill when (if) it passes. That is what Democrats want, a bill that is all their own ideas. If it is perceived as improving health care, then they get all the credit. And Republicans get none.
31 ottovbvs // Nov 21, 2009 at 6:31 pm
MR FACE // Nov 21, 2009 at 6:22 pm
“To be fair, even if the Republicans came up with the best idea ever that would solve all the health care problems, the Democrats wouldn’t even think of putting it in the bill.”
……I don’t think this really true…..Baucus spent six months negotiating with Grassley and Enzi and at the end of it Grassley said even if they put everything I want in the bill I’m not going to vote for it…….in other words he was stalling…….the Republicans don’t want a bill…..period
32 Danny_K // Nov 21, 2009 at 7:02 pm
It’s a first-mover problem. There probably are some GOP senators with good ideas, but they can’t get heard without being willing to play the game, and not even Olympia Snowe is willing to do that. Maybe she’s afraid of getting buried in rock salt!
Let’s face it, the GOP has committed to a policy of NO and they’ve got to play out their string. If they do OK in the mid-term elections, the GOP will keep saying NO right up to 2012 and beyond. In which case Frum might as well get a new job, because you don’t need pundits to just say NO.
33 ottovbvs // Nov 21, 2009 at 7:28 pm
Danny_K // Nov 21, 2009 at 7:02 pm
“Let’s face it, the GOP has committed to a policy of NO and they’ve got to play out their string.”
…….Basically I think you’re right……I do think the dems will lose some house seats (5-20 maybe) in the mid terms but if things are going well and given that I expect a huge push from the white house and the party which will have tons of money and all the benefits of incumbency it’s quite possible they could pick up several senate seats……this is all taking place against demographic, generational and social changes that are just not working to the Republican’s advantage and this is the single largest factor in US electoral politics today……Obama has got to f up big time to not get a second term and he isn’t.
34 sdspringy // Nov 21, 2009 at 7:52 pm
When you let the Democrats define the aurguement, then you lose on their terms.
Whether global warming or healthcare reform, when you agree to the fundemental issue as defined by Democrats, Republican will lose, so back away and let the Dems take the fall out
If healthcare reform is supposed to reduce the cost of healthcare, reduce the burden it places on families, and continues to allow unrestricted access, the two current plans fail.
The Senate or House plan will tax you for over 4 years before any of you receive benefits. Is that a good plan? Neither plan reduces the cost of healthcare, in fact Pelosi added the “doctor fix” to her bill. A $210 BILLION addition of costs not factered into the overall cost of the bill. The Medicare reimbusements were to be cut to doctors but not now, thanks to $210 BILLION the AMA supports ObamaCare. Seniors will face increased cost, taxes will go up on every individual and you will have reduced access to care. Government panels are already adjusting the ability of women to recieve screening test that are covered by insurance. They may have backed away now but when this passes, those restrictions will be back.
So this is something the Republicans should support, added cost, increased taxes, reduced access. No wonder Frum in not running any Republican candidate election campaigns.
35 sinz54 // Nov 21, 2009 at 8:30 pm
ottovbs:
By 1970, the New Left (the direct ancestor of today’s “netroots”) had taken over the Democratic Natoinal Committee, and foisted their hero, George McGovern, on the Dem Party. In 1972, McGovern went on to lose in a landslide to Nixon (McGovern even lost his home state).
There were other good candidates that year, notably Senator Henry “Scoop” Jackson. But Jackson was doomed along with all the others in the face of the McGovern insurgency.
36 sinz54 // Nov 21, 2009 at 8:45 pm
sdspringy:
One big thing the current Dem proposed plan does, is ensure that no one with a serious pre-existing chronic condition will have to go bankrupt, go begging to charities, or depend on only urgent care at Emergency Rooms as his chronic condition worsens inside him.
Are we conservatives saying that this is a bad goal? What’s wrong with it?
As for global warming:
Every one of the national academies of science and the national climatological societies of every one of the Western nations agrees that anthropogenic global warming is a reality.
We conservatives are right not to want politicians and bureaucrats to come between us and our doctors.
But did it ever occur to you, that we shouldn’t want politicians and bureaucrats to come between us and our scientists either???
If Western scientists are finding out that the earth is warming up, or there’s a high likelihood of a magnitude 10 earthquake about to hit L.A., or there’s a giant meteorite on a collision course with Denver CO from outer space, do you REALLY want politicians and non-scientist commentators to say “No, no, no, don’t worry about it, those scientists are just a bunch of malcontents stirring up trouble for their own hidden agendas”???
I think that would be a very bad bet indeed.
Because if those commentators and politicians turn out to be wrong, then what happens?
37 sdspringy // Nov 21, 2009 at 8:56 pm
Otto:
“Baucus spent six months negotiating with Grassley and Enzi and at the end of it Grassley said even if they put everything I want in the bill I’m not going to vote for it…….in other words he was stalling”
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1920209,00.html
Grassley faced his constituents back home, something most Dems were too cowardly to do, and realized hie employers hated healthcare reform as proposed.
What an idiot, listening to his constituents, who does that anymore?
The other myth of healthcare reform, most Americans are for it. Very similar to the other myths, like this will reduce cost, LOL, and will save Medicare, LMAO.
38 sinz54 // Nov 21, 2009 at 8:59 pm
Danny_K:
I think the problem runs deeper than that.
It’s the steadfast refusal of base conservatives to admit that their old dogma has gone past its sell-by date.
It’s the same problem the liberal Dems had in the late 1970s, when they had no real answer to the accelerating stagflation but to keep reminding us of all the great things FDR did 40 years before. And when they had no answer to America’s foreign policy troubles except to imply that America deserved it over Vietnam.
Today, free market purists have no answer to America’s health care mess that makes sense. Because, as I’ve explained about 35,000 times already, in a free market, the supply and demand curves won’t intersect at a point that a humane society can tolerate. (cf. the movie “Soylent Green”.)
And in the GOP–though we haven’t discussed it much on New Majority–social conservatives and national security conservatives are increasingly at odds with economic conservatives over free trade and immigration. On Townhall.com, Phyllis Schafly writes as many columns attacking NAFTA as she does attacking abortion. Conservatives’ traditional nationalism and focus on national defense–wanting the best for America–is colliding head on with globalization’s elevation of China and India, often at America’s expense.
And so, the GOP base is often reduced to just saying “No,” because they don’t have any real answers to offer anymore.
Some conservatives have done more thinking about these issues: Frum is trying, Douthat is trying. But the GOP base can’t seem to accept anything that Reagan didn’t already try 25 years ago.
39 sdspringy // Nov 21, 2009 at 9:02 pm
Sinz,
Allowing preexisting conditions is not an issue. Never has been for those who had insurance. Only for those who did not carry insurance and then wanted coverage after an injury, then being able to drop the coverage again.
And fixing preexisting conditions issues does not require 2078 pages of trash.
Global warming is a hoax, none for more than 10 years, NONE. New release of data manipulation by climate scientists to continue the hoax. And no direct link between CO2 and global warming. You sitting on a couch right now with Nancy?
40 cpanza // Nov 21, 2009 at 9:03 pm
Sds:
So wait a second. First you say that the Democrats are operating in bad faith, and that they were not willing to put in anything in the bills that the Republicans offered. Then it’s pointing out that Grassley was unwilling to add anything, was stalling, and said he wouldn’t vote for any bill whatsoever, showing that he was operating in bad faith and falsifying your original point, and you then go on to rationalize the falsification of your point by saying that it’s just good common sense.
Whoa.
41 sdspringy // Nov 21, 2009 at 9:13 pm
First I did not say Grassley was stalling Otto did.
And the Dem are not operating in bad faith, but a bold approach to government take over.
Because the legislation does not fix the stated issue.
Does the legislation reduce cost, NO
Does the legislation ensure access, NO.
Does the legislation fix Medicare, NO.
This legislation had nothing to do with Grassley and Baccus.
This legislation was crafted behind closed doors, Dems only.
And more importantly a majority of Americans are against it.
Grassley realized this in August, realized there was no way to return healthcare reform to the stated goal and backed away.
42 cpanza // Nov 21, 2009 at 9:16 pm
Sds:
You said that the Dems had no interest in adding anything Republicans came up with and so were operating in bad faith. Otto said that Grassley — in very Republican in charge of his side’s effort on health care — had no “good faith” effort to give, and was essentially stalling the bill. If that’s right, then the Republicans had nothing of good faith to offer Democrats to even find out if your thesis was true because they never even showed up to the table. Then you suggested that well, Grassley had good reasons to do what he did.
Um. Yeah.
43 cpanza // Nov 21, 2009 at 9:22 pm
On Grassley: I thought one of this signal moments was his moon-walking backstep on individual mandates. First they are great — hey, personal responsibility and all that! — and then it seems that some Dems start taking a shine the idea and suddenly he’s fiercely against them, because they are anti-freedom or some other well-worn bumper sticker.
Basically, there was no bill he was going to vote for, even if it included his own ideas.
44 sdspringy // Nov 21, 2009 at 9:25 pm
When Grassley was involved it was in the Senate Finance Committee and in August came back from meetings with his constituents to state he could not support the Senate Finance Committee version.
OK
Now the current legislation just voted on, was created behind closed doors. It is not the Senat Finance version. No Republicans were involved, none were allowed.
OK
And side note, never trust Otto.
45 cpanza // Nov 21, 2009 at 9:29 pm
Sds:
Rereading your posts, I did get the quotes mixed up. You didn’t say what I thought you said. My bad.
My others points regarding Grassley stand, however.
46 sdspringy // Nov 21, 2009 at 9:34 pm
Actually individual mandates require everyone to pay for insurance or face a penalty or jail.
As is now known the insurance companies, which are the profit driven bad guys, will recieve a windfall as the government drives million more Americans into their evil arms. A requirement of healthcare reform. Or a payoff to the insurance industry for supporting ObamaCare.
It is a payoff, very similar to the payoff given to big pharma by the Obama Admin to support ObamaCare. In your view would that qualify as bad faith to Democrat voters.
47 cpanza // Nov 21, 2009 at 9:49 pm
I know what individual mandates argue for. So did Grassley. He loved them for a long time, remember? I was not arguing whether they are good policy. I was arguing that Grassley’s moonwalk on them was evidence that he was not operating in good faith. What’s that old saying – he was for them before he was against them, or something like that?
“…in August came back from meetings with his constituents to state he could not support the Senate Finance Committee version.” Is this the one where he showed up waving Glenn Beck’s book? I can’t remember when he started to pander specifically.
Also, I believe Grassley was asked, on I can’t remember what program, whether he’d be willing to put his name on a bill that he thought was good, but which only garnered a few Repub votes. He said: “no.” Unless most Repubs liked it, he wouldn’t vote for his own bill. Or when he said he wouldn’t vote for any bill. After trumpeting the virtues of bipartisanship, having how many meetings, phone calls and special cozy behavior with Obama, some of his constituents read him the riot act and told him he’d better start talking about worries about pulling Grandma’s plug and how he was never and would never be in favor of Obamacare. Hey, no problem. But it’s not much of an effort at bipartisanship.
Hey, look – I suppose that if the argument is that the Republicans should not be a part of the proceedings, because it’s going to finally have to hang on the Dems, and their bill is bad and Grassley really sees that, all well and fine. If the argument is that they should listen to their constituents, that’s fine too. But if the argument is that the Dems were never interested in the first place, and that people like Grassley were really earnestly interested in crafting something on a bipartisan level and they continued with that attitude until they were locked out by the Dems, well, there’s plenty to be said against _that_.
48 ottovbvs // Nov 21, 2009 at 10:04 pm
sdspringy // Nov 21, 2009 at 7:52 pm
“When you let the Democrats define the aurguement, then you lose on their terms.”
……Well that would be because the Republicans have NO plans…..beyond hoping for terrorist attacks or economic failure…….Bill Kristol for once wasn’t wrong……universal healthcare is going to be rather popular just as SS and Medicare are
49 ottovbvs // Nov 21, 2009 at 10:08 pm
44 sdspringy // Nov 21, 2009 at 9:25 pm
“And side note, never trust Otto.”
…….I’m afraid you’re being petulant just because so far my predictions on the progress of this bill have proved 100% accurate……of course it could all still go off the rails but I don’t think so now
50 sdspringy // Nov 21, 2009 at 10:10 pm
Agreed.
And the Dems locking out the Rep will be quite visable during the following legislative process as the Dems defeat any attempt by the Rep to amend the bill.
51 ottovbvs // Nov 21, 2009 at 10:13 pm
sdspringy // Nov 21, 2009 at 9:34 pm
“As is now known the insurance companies, which are the profit driven bad guys, will recieve a windfall as the government drives million more Americans into their evil arms”
……….If it’s such great news for the insurance companies why aren’t all the Republicans voting for the bill?
52 ottovbvs // Nov 21, 2009 at 10:16 pm
sdspringy // Nov 21, 2009 at 10:10 pm
” Agreed.
And the Dems locking out the Rep will be quite visable during the following legislative process as the Dems defeat any attempt by the Rep to amend the bill.”
…….Well you see the reason for that is that the only amendments the Republicans are going to be interested in inserting in the bill are trojan horses that will wreck it purpose……by now it’s clear it’s going pass and they can’t stop it so they now move to plan b which is sabotage
53 ottovbvs // Nov 21, 2009 at 10:21 pm
sdspringy // Nov 21, 2009 at 9:13 pm
“Grassley realized this in August, realized there was no way to return healthcare reform to the stated goal and backed away.”
…….This is baloney…..Grassley is actually on record as having said that even if the finance committee had included everything he wanted in the bill he’d still vote against it……and then of course there was his totally ludicrous promotion of the death panel bs…..also captured on tape……..you must think the democrats were born yesterday…..he stalled for as long as he could but ultimately they called his bluff
54 sdspringy // Nov 21, 2009 at 10:27 pm
Otto:
……….If it’s such great news for the insurance companies why aren’t all the Republicans voting for the bill?
There exists this concept of individual freedom, ever heard of it. It really only exists in one country but not for very long.
And what is the purpose? To reduce cost, doesn’t happen. Too guarantee access, not in the legislation.
To fix Medicare waste, you can’t be serious. Otto, I never thought you an ignorant person, so do you really believe this bill will fix Medicare waste? It is 2078 pages of entitlement.
So what is the purpose of healthcare legislation which provides NO relief of the prescribed problems.
55 sdspringy // Nov 21, 2009 at 10:30 pm
Otto:
“Baloney”
In post #37, I provided a link. Perhaps you could do the same
56 ottovbvs // Nov 21, 2009 at 10:33 pm
sdspringy // Nov 21, 2009 at 9:25 pm
“Now the current legislation just voted on, was created behind closed doors. It is not the Senat Finance version.”
…….This as I’ve pointed out numerous times here is how the process ALWAYS works…..once the bills are out of committee power shifts to the congressional leadership and the white house if the same party are in control and away from the committees ……it was ever thus……Republicans as Frum points out above were MIA on this bill because they wanted to stop it for political reasons…..they have so far failed……they will now try to sabotage it but that’s not going to work either because Orzag whose forgotten more about this subject than most in congress have ever known will be riding herd on it’s progress the other end of PA av ……I’ve always regarded tonights procedural vote as THE vote that had to be got by…….the bill is now on a glide path to passage one way or the other
57 ottovbvs // Nov 21, 2009 at 10:36 pm
sdspringy // Nov 21, 2009 at 10:30 pm
Otto:
“Baloney”
“In post #37, I provided a link. Perhaps you could do the same”
…..Actually I prefer the evidence of my own lying ears because I actually heard him make both comments which were captured on tape
58 ottovbvs // Nov 21, 2009 at 10:42 pm
sdspringy // Nov 21, 2009 at 10:27 pm
“To fix Medicare waste,”
……..I don’t think it is going to fix medicare waste but then I don’t remember Republicans being vocal about adding huge new totally unfunded costs of a Trillion over ten years to Medicare when they passed the prescription drug benefit and gave the insurance companies the advantage boondoggle (which btw I’m a beneficiary of)…….at least the healthcare bill has some real and some imaginary offsets……
59 ottovbvs // Nov 21, 2009 at 10:44 pm
sdspringy // Nov 21, 2009 at 10:27 pm
“There exists this concept of individual freedom, ever heard of it. It really only exists in one country but not for very long.”
……Do be your age…..this is an urban myth……..this is one of the most heavily policed and lawyered societies in the world
60 sdspringy // Nov 21, 2009 at 10:47 pm
Otto, I would caution you about listening to those voices you seem to be hearing.
“Republicans as Frum points out above were MIA on this bill because they wanted to stop it for political reasons”
The Dems have a completely different view of healthcare reform. In order to ensure you are covered for preexisting conditions it takes 2078 pages. That maybe the Dem way but you really have to be a partisan to buy into that method.
The Obama promise of “budget neutral” is now a complete fraud. Which apparently does not bother the partisans either.
So again is there any promise or benefit of healthcare reform that is requied to be met or no matter the legislation just pass it.
61 sdspringy // Nov 21, 2009 at 10:56 pm
Otto:
huge new totally unfunded costs of a Trillion over ten years to Medicare when they passed the prescription drug benefit
How soon after that were the Republicans no longer a majority? Can’t learn fro history you are doomed to repeat it. So be prepared to be removed and demoted to the minority again.
Otto:
most heavily policed and lawyered societies in the world
So lets continue to bleed the liberty out of the country. Great statement from an individual of the “Greatest Generation”
And given an opportunity to remove lawyers from healthcare reform the Dems BOW to their lobby.
But the Dems seem to enjoy bowing these days.
62 balconesfault // Nov 22, 2009 at 12:10 am
sdspringy: Grassley faced his constituents back home, something most Dems were too cowardly to do, and realized hie employers hated healthcare reform as proposed.
Actually, Grassley went before his constitutents and repeated the “death panel” canard. That wasn’t just listening to his constituents … that was feeding them false information in order to incite them.
Most Dems did try to hold town hall meetings, I recall. A lot of them were shouted down before they had a chance to address their constitutents. Since mobs don’t have access to a filibuster rule, they need to resort to other means to silence discussion.
***
Repubs basically had two choices at the beginning of this process. a) accept that Obama was going to use the Democratic majorities to accomplish what he’d pledged during the general election – to make a government run healthcare plan available to Americans to buy into, and work with Dems on other aspects of the legislation to make it as good as they could, understanding that a public option would be part of the final package … or b) dig in and oppose virtually every aspect of healthcare reform in order to make sure that a public option could not be passed.
Note that what they are working to do is to make sure that middle class Americans cannot buy a plan from the government … that their parents might have access to a federal healthcare plan, that the poor people living across the tracks might have access to a federal healthcare plan, that the guy who delivers their mail or the park rangers at the local National Park might have access to a federal healthcare plan … but by God the middle class American taxpayer should NOT be able to purchase access to a federal healthcare plan.
The Republicans decided that making sure no middle class American could buy insurance from the Government was more important than the other things they could do to improve any healthcare bill, and acted accordingly from the start, in concert.
63 sdspringy // Nov 22, 2009 at 12:32 am
Funny how a majority of people expressing opposition to healthcare reform in townhalls are referred to as mobs. And a canard actually results in legislation being rewritten.
If the promises made at the beginning of the process had been followed a bipartisan bill may have been accomplished. However nothing in either bills mets that standard. They are not budget neutral, they do not reduce cost, they do not prevent waste, and they do not guarantee access.
The Republicans decided the attempt at overt government control of a massive part of the US economy as fraudulent. That this healthcare reform has absolutely nothing to do with buying insurance, unless of course you believe that IRS penalty for not having insurance is the reason for healthcare reform.
The canard is that poor people don’t have medical coverage, ie Medicad, that children don’t have medical care, SCHIP, that middle class America couldn’t buy insurance, ie unions.
64 Reason60 // Nov 22, 2009 at 1:18 am
“It’s the steadfast refusal of base conservatives to admit that their old dogma has gone past its sell-by date.
It’s the same problem the liberal Dems had in the late 1970s, when they had no real answer to the accelerating stagflation but to keep reminding us of all the great things FDR did 40 years before. And when they had no answer to America’s foreign policy troubles except to imply that America deserved it over Vietnam.”
Thats a pretty concise and bull-eye account of it. Ideas that made sense in 1979 are being resurrected, stripped down to their most bumpersticker essence, and repeated like a sullen mantra.
Cut Taxes! Bomb ‘em to the Stone Age!
Repeat as necessary, louder with each refrain.
65 sdspringy // Nov 22, 2009 at 1:24 am
Nice addition to the debate.
Demean, insult and never once address the legislation which is being debated in the Senate
66 steelyblades // Nov 22, 2009 at 2:18 am
Reading a bit about the Wyden amendment, it does seem like a very good thing. Kudos to Senator Wyden.
67 balconesfault // Nov 22, 2009 at 6:01 am
sdspringy: Funny how a majority of people expressing opposition to healthcare reform in townhalls are referred to as mobs.
Only when they act like this.
And a canard actually results in legislation being rewritten.
Yes, sadly, a canard, shouted loudly enough, can end up getting legislation rewritten. It is a reality of politics.
The Republicans decided the attempt at overt government control of a massive part of the US economy as fraudulent.
Or as I said, the Republicans decided that making sure no middle class American could buy insurance from the Government was more important than the other things they could do to improve any healthcare bill, and acted accordingly from the start, in concert.
The canard is ,,, that middle class America couldn’t buy insurance, ie unions.
Huh?
68 sinz54 // Nov 22, 2009 at 9:09 am
sdspringy:
But think through the implications:
If you only mandate THAT on the insurance companies, you will drive them out of business unless they jack up premiums on their healthy policyholders to afford to pay claims on those with pre-existing conditions. (My pre-existing condition is going to cost Blue Cross/Blue Shield $100,000 before this year is out. Who pays for that?)
The ONLY way to fix that is to vastly expand coverage with a mandate to businesses and individuals that they MUST purchase coverage or else pay a very stiff penalty. That will bring many more policyholders into the insurance pools, whose premiums will help pay the claims of those with pre-existing conditions. That’s how insurance works: The larger the pool, the more resilient the pool.
What I’ve heard some of my fellow conservatives advocating is to ban recession and pre-existing exclusions, but not to mandate vast expansions of coverage, because they’re philosophically opposed to Federal mandates. That would drive the private insurers out of business, something that we conservatives are supposed to be opposed to.
Romney understood this. The “Grand Bargain” of RomneyCare is universal coverage in exchange for banning denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions. I see no alternative to this.
69 sinz54 // Nov 22, 2009 at 9:19 am
sdspringy:
I agree with you that the legislation does not control costs.
The brutal fact of the matter is that the only way to lower costs over the long run is to deliver less care. Even in nations with single-payer systems (i.e., no profit motive), costs are rising as the populations of those countries age and start to get chronically ill. The only way to lower costs is to start trimming the amount and type of care.
But we all saw how hard that was this past week, when an advisory panel of public health professionals recommended ending mammograms for women under 50. They said that mammograms for this group only catch one case of breast cancer out of some 1,200, so it’s not cost-effective. But what if your loved one is that one case? Immediately you heard an enormous outcry from women in that age group whose cancers had been detected early by mammograms.
Romney faced that same problem in Massachusetts–and so he, and the Mass legislature, deliberately punted on it: Get RomneyCare implemented first, get a whole generation of Mass residents accustomed to it–and then start trying to bend the cost curve gradually. Getting Americans accustomed to rationing of health care is going to take TIME. Otherwise, you get a fiasco like this past week’s breast cancer screening recommendations occurring right in the middle of the Senate debate on the health care reform bill.
As for guaranteeing access: By banning recession and denial for pre-existing conditions, by mandating coverage on large businesses and individuals, the bill goes a significant way toward expanding access. The penalties for non-compliance should be much higher. But it’s a start.
My main problem with the bill is with the public option. I regard that as a foot in the door toward single-payer. And I’m absolutely opposed to that.
70 sinz54 // Nov 22, 2009 at 9:23 am
balconesfault:
And the experience of Olympia Snowe proves they were absolutely right.
It’s now clear that for you liberals,
the public option is non-negotiable. You won’t accept anything less. Olympia Snowe tried to negotiate a compromise, but you liberals said NO COMPROMISE. So be it.
And for us conservatives,
the public option is non-negotiable too. We won’t accept a public option without at least a trigger.
So the GOP was right, and Olympia Snowe was wrong, to try to work with the Dems. They’re being nailed by their left wing to support the public option–and we conservatives just can’t accept that, period.
71 ottovbvs // Nov 22, 2009 at 9:28 am
sdspringy // Nov 21, 2009 at 10:56 pm
“How soon after that were the Republicans no longer a majority? Can’t learn fro history you are doomed to repeat it. So be prepared to be removed and demoted to the minority again.”
……….this is wishful thinking not reality…..and much of the bill is funded unlike like the prescription drug bill that was totally unfunded and as Bruce Bartlett points out in an article on this site added about 15.5 trillion in present value terms to the national debt!…..as the rest of your comments indicate you largely exist in bumper sticker land……and I’m not the greatest generation…..my pa was
72 ottovbvs // Nov 22, 2009 at 9:30 am
sinz54 // Nov 22, 2009 at 9:23 am
”
They’re being nailed by their left wing to support the public option–and we conservatives just can’t accept that, period.”
…….So speaks someone who is personally a major beneficiary of a public option in his own state’s mandated insurance system……it’s parodic
73 sinz54 // Nov 22, 2009 at 9:37 am
ottovbs:
But that’s precisely why the conservative base of the GOP is so unhappy with their leadership.
Base conservatives were unhappy with Medicare Part D–and they don’t want moderate or liberal Repubs like Scozzafava going along with any more such boondoggles.
The only reasons they kept quiet were a) during the War on Terror, they regarded any criticism of Bush for any reason as near-treasonous, and b) the natural reflexive tendency to circle the wagons around any Republican leader, such as Bush, in the face of brutal attacks on him from the Dem opposition.
They did NOT keep quiet because they actually liked Medicare Part D. They kept quiet because they wanted to give Bush support for Iraq.
74 ottovbvs // Nov 22, 2009 at 9:38 am
sinz54 // Nov 22, 2009 at 9:19 am
“The brutal fact of the matter is that the only way to lower costs over the long run is to deliver less care. Even in nations with single-payer systems (i.e., no profit motive), costs are rising as the populations of those countries age and start to get chronically ill. The only way to lower costs is to start trimming the amount and type of care.”
…….Would that you would display this sense of reality more often……that said this is only part of the picture …….not only do we often dispense more care than needed but we pay too much for it……a cat scan in Japan which has a universal healthcare system that sets prices for procedures costs about $90 whereas in the usual cost in the US is around $1000…….drugs notoriously cost three times as much here as in Europe……this is a zero sum game and if we want to reduce costs by far the biggest contribution is going to have to come from reducing the revenue of the healthcare delivery system and to a lesser extent that of the insurance industry.
75 sinz54 // Nov 22, 2009 at 9:39 am
ottovbs:
I’m not on a public option.
I have Blue Cross/Blue Shield.
Are you liberals redefining Blue Cross to be a “public option” now???
I absolutely SUPPORT the RomneyCare Grand Bargain: Universal mandated coverage in exchange for banning recission and pre-existing exclusions.
But ObamaCare goes way beyond that.
76 ottovbvs // Nov 22, 2009 at 9:43 am
sinz54 // Nov 22, 2009 at 9:37 am
“Base conservatives were unhappy with Medicare Part D–and they don’t want moderate or liberal Repubs like Scozzafava going along with any more such boondoggles.”
…….Except that they like to receive the part d benefit when it applies to them personally……just has we hear that screwball mi-goper endlessly ranting and it turns out guess what he get healthcare from the VA, the most socialized part of the US healthcare system……As Bruce Bartlett has pointed out the reality is there’s basically no way you can cut these programs…..all you can do is work to make them as cost effective as possible and then deal with the revenue issues this creates.
77 sinz54 // Nov 22, 2009 at 9:43 am
ottovbs:
I think you’re confused.
The RomneyCare “public option”–Commonwealth Care–is strictly means tested, so it’s only for the truly poor and needy. Even Social Security disability income–and that ain’t much money–can put you over the limit and you won’t qualify for Commonwealth Care.
Thus, Commonwealth Care does NOT compete with private insurers for middle-class Mass residents. It’s a last-ditch option for those who are truly poor and cannot afford any private health care plans.
78 ottovbvs // Nov 22, 2009 at 9:47 am
sinz54 // Nov 22, 2009 at 9:39 am
“I’m not on a public option.”
…….Sorry if I got this wrong…..you’ve said yourself you wouldn’t have been able to get insurance unless the MA scheme had provided you with protection and I assumed you were therefore getting your coverage from the public option provided in MA for those that can’t get it in the private sector (apologies)
79 ottovbvs // Nov 22, 2009 at 9:49 am
sinz54 // Nov 22, 2009 at 9:43 am
” I think you’re confused.”
…….I’m not confused, it’s a public option, it may be a means tested public option but it’s a public option nonetheless.
80 ottovbvs // Nov 22, 2009 at 9:57 am
sdspringy:
“Allowing preexisting conditions is not an issue. Never has been for those who had insurance.”
………What planet do you live on?……….people lose insurance through job losses etc and then have to get new insurance themselves if they have no job or get it with the new job…….pre existing conditions usually render the cost prohibitive…..even in company schemes it can cause problems……and then when you have insurance there are often caps……why else do you think thousands of people with and without health insurance are being bankrupted each year
81 balconesfault // Nov 22, 2009 at 10:04 am
sinz: They did NOT keep quiet because they actually liked Medicare Part D. They kept quiet because they wanted to give Bush support for Iraq.
And they were rewarded with an additional 4 years of George Bush in the Presidency. The Medicare Part D passage was critical to Bush expanding his polling among senior citizens, and he touted it heavily throughout the 2004 campaign.
So the GOP was right, and Olympia Snowe was wrong, to try to work with the Dems. They’re being nailed by their left wing to support the public option–and we conservatives just can’t accept that, period.
Or, as I said … the Republicans decided that making sure no middle class American could buy insurance from the Government was more important than the other things they could do to improve any healthcare bill, and acted accordingly from the start, in concert.
We are in agreement on the basics, just with different framing.
82 sinz54 // Nov 22, 2009 at 11:03 am
ottovbs:
you misinterpreted what “sdpsringy” said.
What he meant was that even Republicans wanted to end the practice of banning those with pre-existing conditions. So there was bipartisan agreement on that much, at least.
However, while the GOP (which still has moderates like the Maine ladies) wanted to end the pre-existing condition problem, staunch conservatives like Yuval Levin (National
Affairs) did not.
Plus, as I said, many base conservatives don’t understand that if you don’t mandate universal coverage as well, the private insurers will be unable to afford to pay for those with serious pre-existing conditions without huge step-ups in premiums.
They just haven’t thought the issue through well enough.
83 ottovbvs // Nov 22, 2009 at 1:42 pm
sinz54 // Nov 22, 2009 at 11:03 am
“What he meant was that even Republicans wanted to end the practice of banning those with pre-existing conditions. So there was bipartisan agreement on that much, at least.”
………yes they are usually in favor of notional good things…….they’re just not prepared to do anything practical to bring them about
84 teabag // Nov 22, 2009 at 2:40 pm
Sinz said.
“Plus, as I said, many base conservatives don’t understand that if you don’t mandate universal coverage as well, the private insurers will be unable to afford to pay for those with serious pre-existing conditions without huge step-ups in premiums.
They just haven’t thought the issue through well enough.
And that is THE problem with today’s GOP they just don’t think.
85 ottovbvs // Nov 22, 2009 at 3:54 pm
teabag // Nov 22, 2009 at 2:40 pm
…….I’ve always particularly liked this clip of FDR making fun of all the things the Republicans are FOR…..the clip starts after about half a minute……the same speech could be made today by Obama…..it also conveys something of FDR’s oratorical power
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRZUaW0HwCM&feature=related
86 teabag // Nov 22, 2009 at 4:02 pm
Nice one Otto.
87 Socrates // Nov 22, 2009 at 8:30 pm
some in the house are trying: they came up with the 19-page budget and a 300-page health care plan. the gop senators, however, are content to “palinize” health care: attacking, making up stuffs, and trying to get on the news. for some, doing the actual legislating works is too hard. as a general rule, the gop is good in campaigning but can’t really govern.
88 ottovbvs // Nov 22, 2009 at 8:48 pm
87 Socrates // Nov 22, 2009 at 8:30 pm
……..the Republicans are faced with a fundamental problem in the context of the complexity and social democratic substance of most of modern govt………only librul…….or quasi librul measures are going to work……if you read the series of articles by Bruce Bartlett where he addresses taxation, entitlements, the European zeitgeist, he basically gets this but the bulk of the GOP are essentially engaged in trying to fit the 21st century USA into a 1920’s frame……it’s never going to work
89 Socrates // Nov 23, 2009 at 12:20 am
Otto:
Ah … I can hear the charges against you now: you rino, quasi-librul, pinko commie, facist, communist, socialist, obamatron! this is the u.s. of a where real men don’t need no stinking socialized health care! and real women go rogue and don’t read! you ain’t no real american!
90 sdspringy // Nov 23, 2009 at 6:44 am
Otto brings forth the European model as an example of the proper application of Liberal or in Europes case social medicine.
The fact however those models of medical wonder are broke. Pick the country in Europe and they are struggling to cover the cost. And fail to provide a level of survival rates which the US has.
So Otto is advocating a medical system with high cost and low survival rates. Another great Lib plan.
The current Senate version takes 2078 pages of legislation to fix protability. Great example of restraint. Everything else are vote payoffs, similar to the Louisiana Purchase with Landreau. Great example of Liberal legislation.
91 StuyTownGuy // Nov 23, 2009 at 7:13 am
I’ve not read the bill and my guess is that few, if any, have read the bill who are posting here. Having said that, let’s look at the history of America when it comes to helping ordinary Americans.
Social Security, Medicare, Family and Medical Leave Act – all Democratic initiatives. Looking into the face of the need of health reform and working to make something change, Democrats, with a huge mandate from the American people through the 2008 election. Why is anyone shocked and surprised by the swing to the left when the middle-class is being pushed down and the poor have grown in horrendous numbers under 8 years of W and 6 yrs of GOP controlled Congress?
This is a necessary backlash to even out America’s way forward. I wonder where the moderate Republicans will go if the GOP continues to live with its head in the sand.
92 balconesfault // Nov 23, 2009 at 9:00 am
sdspringy: The fact however those models of medical wonder are broke.
Interestingly, those nations are by and large spending less per capita on taxpayer funded healthcare than the US is. And some are spending about 1/2 per capita of what the US is spending in public and private dollars.
And they’re covering all their people.
93 MI-GOPer // Nov 23, 2009 at 9:47 am
BlankHead contends: “Interestingly, those nations are by and large spending less per capita on taxpayer funded healthcare than the US is (sic).”
Lining up in queues, families being told grandma needs to die quietly in the back room at home and many of those countries benefiting from huge US investments in drug research, overly bloated administrative bureacracies in America, nearly $500b in MediCare fraud and waste and God only can guess what that figure is MedicAid, litigation factors like supporting a massive trial lawyer industry, defensive medicine and poorly run non-profit hospitals with hospitals forced by the govt to short reimbursements and toss people in bankruptcy… no wonder.
Of course, if the country is close by like Canada and Mexico, that high per capita rate isn’t important as they flee to America for emergency medical care they can’t get back home… and when world leaders get hit with illness, they flock to US medical facilities because –although they may cost a lot– they’re also the best in the world.
You can cover all the people in the entire world, if you want, BlankHead. Democrats know this. The thing they aren’t telling America that is means rationing, lines, unavailable treatments, delays, transport to distant centers “authorized” to perform certain functions… and massive tax increases.
I’m guessing that’s why Democrats aren’t interested in really paying for all the reform… even after not covering all the people… and keeping the adverse impacts hidden while telling America their reforms will drive down insurance rates… ooops, they aren’t even saying that now.
88% of Americans are happy with their health care. 13% of Americans are happy with the Democrat Congress. 56% think America is on the wrong track.
The Democrats can have faux-universal health care for their constituents paid for by real working Americans… but it will cost far, far, far more than the per capita costs now incurred by the US economy. And it will cost the Democrats the Congress.
I’ll trade.
94 MI-GOPer // Nov 23, 2009 at 9:51 am
StuyTownGuy, our newest Troll Tribe member –another creation of the far Left Democrat activists operating on this site– claims the BlankHead Principle, again… “Democrats, with a huge mandate from the American people through the 2008 election.”
Nope, we’ve nailed that canard shut. Even BlankHead couldn’t spin his way out of the simple truth that a pro-Democrat MichStateUniver prof did an analysis of the 08 election and found that if just 443K voters had moved toward McCain, it would now be President McCain and Vice President Palin.
Honest Stuy, you really do have to either get a different act or find another name to reinforce these democrat party wishlist canards.
95 balconesfault // Nov 23, 2009 at 11:38 am
Nope, we’ve nailed that canard shut. Even Balconesfault couldn’t spin his way out of the simple truth that a pro-Democrat MichStateUniver prof did an analysis of the 08 election and found that if just 443K voters had moved toward McCain, it would now be President McCain and Vice President Palin.
Ahh – I see a claim shift here. Originally you wrote: “if McCain had picked up less than 443k more votes” … now you say “if just 443K voters had moved toward McCain”. Those are two different things, aren’t they?
But here’s the table I presented before:
McCain needed to flip 97 electoral votes.
Here’s the numbers for states where Obama won by less than 443k votes – I invite anyone to play with this and come up with a 443k additional vote for McCain that gets him 93 electoral votes.
Wisconsin 10 -414,818
Connecticut 7 -368,344
Oregon 7 -298,816
Minnesota 10 -297,945
Ohio 20 -262,224
Florida 27 -236,450
Virginia 13 -234,527
DC 3 -228,433
Colorado 9 -214,987
Hawaii 4 -205,305
Iowa 7 -146,561
Rhode Island 4 -131,180
Maine 2 -126,650
New Mexico 5 -125,590
Nevada 5 -120,909
Vermont 3 -120,288
Delaware 3 -103,085
New Hampshire 4 -68,292
Indiana 11 -28,391
North Carolina 15 -14,177
NE 2nd Dist. 1 -3,313
I still can’t get the math to work exactly, but it’s closer (I can make it work with about a 475K vote flip from Obama to McCain.
But for perspective – if you flip 432K McCain voters to Obama, Obama could pick up Missouri, Montana, ND, SD, WVA, Idaho, South Carolina, and Georgia … giving him a 423-115 electoral win.
So if we take somewhere around 450K as a potential variance – maybe 450K Obama voters flip to McCain, maybe 450K McCain voters flip to Obama – we can construct error bars for the electoral results.
Those error bars are bounded by a 270-268 McCain victory at one end … and a 423-115 Obama victory at the other.
This is an exercise that can be performed historically, as well. For example, in the 1980 election, had Jimmy Carter gotten 730K of Reagan’s votes, Carter would have won the election. Does that mean anything? Not really …
96 cpanza // Nov 23, 2009 at 1:00 pm
“Of course, if the country is close by like Canada and Mexico, that high per capita rate isn’t important as they flee to America for emergency medical care they can’t get back home.”
What percentage of Canadians do this? And of the ones that do, what demographic do they fit into?
97 cpanza // Nov 23, 2009 at 1:26 pm
The current plan isn’t aiming at reproducing the Canadian system.
But even with that said, I’m also curious what the Canadian comparison is, with respect to polls. If Americans are X% satisfied with their health care plan, what % of Canadians are? Also, if Americans are X% satisfied, what percentage of those polled had interactions with the system that went beyond routine to minimally serious illness? Similarly for Canadians? What percentage of Americans are satisfied with their health care system as a whole (beyond their plan)? What percentage of Canadians are?
I don’t know the answers to these questions. But if we’re going to whip out polls, we need to ask difficult questions and put poll questions and answers into serious context.
98 balconesfault // Nov 23, 2009 at 1:44 pm
BTW, using the “McCain 443K” methodology, had last year’s Detroit Lions had 32 of their opponents points turn into points for them instead … instead of being 0-16 they’d have ended up in a 3-way tie with Minnesota and Chicago for the NFC North title, and by the tiebreaker formulas they’d have made the playoffs.
Isn’t math fun? Irrelevant, but fun!
99 ottovbvs // Nov 23, 2009 at 3:25 pm
sdspringy // Nov 23, 2009 at 6:44 am
“Otto brings forth the European model as an example of the proper application of Liberal or in Europes case social medicine.
The fact however those models of medical wonder are broke. Pick the country in Europe and they are struggling to cover the cost. ”
………Actually they are not broke……..there’s a mix of pure socialized systems, hybrid private/socialized systems and private systems….. none of them cost more than 60% of what we’re spending and in most respects like infant mortality, life expectancy etc they produce superior outcomes to the US system which is bankrupting the country and rendering large tracts of our manufacturing industry uncompetitive…….the OECD ranks the US healthcare system 37th in effectiveness……your ignorance of even the most basic facts about healthcare comparators is let’s say startling
100 ottovbvs // Nov 23, 2009 at 3:31 pm
balconesfault // Nov 23, 2009 at 11:38 am
…….Exposing this guys ignorance has its own satisfactions I suppose…….a bit like sds’s…..but is it worth the effort…….their vacuity is so enormous
101 JonF // Nov 23, 2009 at 9:37 pm
Re: What I’ve heard some of my fellow conservatives advocating is to ban recession and pre-existing exclusions
Well, I wish we could ban “recession”. (Sorry, couldn’t resist). But we could get rid of the current practice of recission easily enough; in fact it’s already illegal, it’s just that the law in question has no teeth (though judges are usually quite displeased when cases involving recissons come to court and the insurers get the book thrown at them. Problem is, too many sick people do not have the resources for such a fight). Any insurance company writing an individual policy should simply have to do its homework up front to check into the subscriber’s pre-existing conditions. In today’s digitalized world this should be easy. Auto insurers do this; how many drivers have their policies rescinded after they have an accident? This doesn’t happen because the companies check driving records when they issue policies. And health insurance companies even have their own database where they store patient info for this precise purpose. So let them do their due diligence and then, if they issue a policy, they should be required to honor it (absent court-worthy evidence of actual fraud). I can think of no other business that is allowed to renegue on its contracts in such a manner, outside a bankruptcy court. Any health insurer that does so should not just have the book thrown at them, but the whole dang law library.
102 balconesfault // Nov 23, 2009 at 11:47 pm
JonF – the problem is that in the absence of comprehensive health databases, and medical privacy laws that don’t have a corollary to driving records, insurance companies “due diligence” involves asking the insured to report any pre-existing conditions.
And if someone does not have a perfect memory for everything that was ever recorded on one of his medical charts … he is liable for later denial of claim based on pre-existing conditions that were not fully disclosed.
103 The Party of “No, But Here’s A Better Idea” | thelobbyist // Jan 4, 2010 at 8:36 am
[...] on the Democratic health care reform bill in the Senate. They should have offered amendments, yes, as Frum has said- but they have a responsibility to stop the bill first and foremost. That is what the minority is [...]
104 race42008.com » Blog Archive » The Party of “No, But Here’s A Better Idea” // Jan 4, 2010 at 8:48 am
[...] on the Democratic health care reform bill in the Senate. They should have offered amendments, yes, as Frum has said- but they have a responsibility to stop the bill first and foremost. That is what the minority is [...]
You must log in to post a comment.