RSS Feed MenuHere’s some more details on the final bill—Sen. Ron Wyden’s exchanges were expanded, and smart cost control measures introduced by freshman Democrats also made it into the final bill. Conservatives/Republicans should like both of these thing — pity they, instead, spent all of their time acting like children (forcing the clerk to read entire amendments), refusing to join in improving the bill at all, and simply lying about the contents of it. For shame — and for stupid, too, because now, after all of that, it’s going to pass anyway.
It looked like our base was going to be about as stupid as yours there for a while (thank you Howard Dean and Glenn Greenwald!)–but the logic of incremental reform finally kicked in. Ultimately, Dems/liberals really do want to help people — it’s what we do, it’s who we are (he says proudly, if smugly) — we weren’t going to miss a chance to get 30 million plus people health insurance for the rest of their lives. Apparently the Democratic caucus was overjoyed — and that was the reason why.
Who Wins In Healthcare Reform? // Dec 20, 2009 at 3:59 pm
[...] one hand, there are the Republicans who have said no since the summer, refusing to do anything but obstruct. On the other, are the Democrats who have chosen to go the road alone and ended up with a bill that [...]
sinz54 // Dec 20, 2009 at 5:34 pm
debs: And yes, we ration too–except we call it only providing health insurance for those with the ability to pay for it. That’s why 1/6th of Americans lack it
The American health care system is an accident,
a tax-break hack created during World War II as compensation for the mandatory wage freezes that were in effect then. Health care was to be treated from then on as a tax-free fringe benefit.
After World War II ended, the IRS tried to relinquish the tax breaks–but they had proved so popular that Congress summarily overruled the IRS. And that was that! From then on, we would have a health care system that bound workers to corporations like serfs.
debs // Dec 20, 2009 at 5:47 pm
Yes, the history here is correct. Then you had unions–which then had density of about one third of the non-agricultural workforce–able to leverage that density into strong health care packages with brand name employers like the auto companies and other major manufacturing companies. These companies set the benchmarks, not only for the unionized workforce, but for much of the rest of the non-organized worforce, too (in large part to keep unions out–thus companies like IBM, for example, assiduously matched union benefits in order to discourage union drives among its employees).
Effectively, then you had a dual welfare state system: One for well paid and well benefited union workers, and those companies who matched those benefits, and then a weaker one consisting mostly of just welfare, social security and unemployment benefits for the rest of the workforce. Off topic a bit, but, ultimately, this damaged the Democrats with the white, unionized workforce who grew resentful of paying two sets of “taxes”: their ordinary taxes, which they angrily viewed as supporting “deadbeats” (and there was a strong element of racial animus to this), and also paying their union dues to support the excellent wages and benefits they received via their union contracts. In the North, many of these folks became first the angry ex-Democrats who voted for Nixon and Wallace in 1968, and then the famous “Reagan Democrats” of 1980 (the non-union evangelical Christians of the South were a different constituency, of course).
rbottoms // Dec 20, 2009 at 5:55 pm
In the North, many of these folks became first the angry ex-Democrats who voted for Nixon and Wallace in 1968, and then the famous “Reagan Democrats” of 1980 (the non-union evangelical Christians of the South were a different constituency, of course).
How’s that working out for them?
Heh.
balconesfault // Dec 20, 2009 at 10:55 pm
27 sinz From then on, we would have a health care system that bound workers to corporations like serfs.
But if I recall, one of your biggest objections to a public option, particularly a broad public option, was that companies would drop their healthcare (and probably as a result raise wages) because their employees would then go get coverage under the public plan.
So in essence … you support this serfdom?
athensboy // Dec 21, 2009 at 9:21 am
Did anyone catch the story of Tom Coburn praying that a senator wouldn’t be able to show up for the vote?Senator Byrd was rolled in in his wheel chair to make the vote. Was Coburn referring to Byrd? If so, the gop has sunk to a dismal low.We’ve spent almost a trillion dollars for the invasion of Iraq, but we can’t provide healthcare for our poor? Being a Christian means more than fighting abortion(which I’m against) and gay marriage. It means feeding the hungry and taking care of the poor.We’ve lost our way as a humane society.The healthcare bill is a good start to regain our footing.
sinz54 // Dec 21, 2009 at 12:28 pm
balconesfault: So in essence … you support this serfdom?
Like both Hillary and Obama,
I too recognize that we’re stuck with it.
If we conservatives could start over, we would do away with this link between employment by a large corporation and health insurance. So would you liberals. The difference between us is what we would put in its place. (I opposed the public option because I didn’t want the replacement for corporate serfdom to lead to single-payer, NOT because I thought the current system is all that great.)
But it’s way too late to start over. 70% of Americans get their health insurance as group plans from their employer, tax-free. They’re used to it. And it’s too easy to scare them by proposing to do away with it–better the devil you know than the devil you don’t. Nixon found that out the hard way in the 1970s. The Clintons found that out the hard way with HillaryCare in 1993. McCain found that out in 2008.
sinz54 // Dec 21, 2009 at 12:31 pm
athensboy: We’ve spent almost a trillion dollars for the invasion of Iraq, but we can’t provide healthcare for our poor?
The poorest Americans are already entitled to Medicaid, which is means-tested.
The currently uninsured in America are those who are above the poverty level (i.e., working-class) but who don’t receive health insurance from their employers; the self-employed; those with pre-existing conditions who no insurer will take on.
SpartacusIsNotDead // Dec 21, 2009 at 1:59 pm
Sinz wrote: “The poorest Americans are already entitled to Medicaid, which is means-tested.”
I guess in the very narrowest sense, this statement is true. However, there are many poor and low to mid income Americans who can’t afford insurance and who aren’t poor enough to qualify for Medicaid. And, of course, there are many other Americans who can afford, and do have, insurance, but are still forced into bankruptcy and economic ruin because of the amount of their deductibles and co-pays or because of limits on their policies.
sinz54 // Dec 21, 2009 at 9:16 pm
SpartacusIsNotDead: And, of course, there are many other Americans who can afford, and do have, insurance, but are still forced into bankruptcy and economic ruin because of the amount of their deductibles and co-pays or because of limits on their policies.
I believe I said as much.
Until the 2008 financial crisis hit, out-of-pocket medical costs accounted for over half of personal bankruptcies in the U.S. The most common scenario was when the family breadwinner fell seriously ill. Then not only did household medical expenses rise sharply, but household income dropped off by half or even to zero.
When it comes to health care, the middle class is often screwed more than the poorest and the richest of us.