As I watched the President's town hall meetings this week I made one observation that perplexed me. He had changed his verbiage from referring to "Health Care Reform" to calling his plan "Insurance reform". Could he be hinting that the scope of his plans have changed? Could Democrat's be preparing to dump the public option?
Jettisoning the public plan has always been one option, and even Obama has signaled for weeks that he would consider alternatives to a government insurance plan, which moderate Democratic senators have yet to embrace and nearly all Republicans oppose. And in the face of public resistance to Obama’s plans, some top Democrats have begun to talk more openly about the possibility of compromise on a bill.
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL)said twice this week that he was open to dropping the public plan to pass a bill. “We are determined to get a bill to the floor. It doesn't have to be a perfect bill. I don't want this process filibustered to failure,” he said.
White House health reform czar Nancy-Ann DeParle said recently the president was willing to study replacing the government-run plan with non-profit insurance cooperatives – a compromise under consideration in the Senate Finance Committee.
In two town halls so far, Obama has spent far more time talking up the need to reform the insurance system than making a full-throated pitch for the public insurance option. On Friday in Montana, the president praised Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) – whose bill is almost certain to go with consumer cooperatives over the public option. Obama mentioned Baucus eight times during the town hall meeting in Belgrade, Mont.
A congressional source said, “Democrats can count to 60 and know that what plays in blue states doesn't always play across America. Everyone has learned the lesson of the failures of Hillarycare and knows that getting health care done is more important than drawing a line in the sand.”
Indeed, the whole notion of a public plan makes some moderate Democrats so nervous that they won’t even talk about it. Asked whether he supports the public option, Virginia Democratic Sen. Jim Webb said, “Depending on what else is in, yeah I do at the moment. I don’t want to talk about it anymore.”
So does the change in the Presidents verbiage mean a compromise is looming? It will remain to be seen but his focus in his recent town halls and his change in wording leave a lot of questions on the table. The biggest one being, is the public option on the shelf?
Read more:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0809/26137_Pa
ge2.html#ixzz0OI8MXgaS
|
|
| |
|
|
I believe when cap n trade passed the house no one was paying attention. Health care has a lot of people paying attention now. Could be a long hard road for that legislation as well.
Talk about your civil war then. Plus it sounds like coming back in September GITMO, Cape and Trade and other issues are going to be pressing in on them. And President's talking is not paying off like it used. I think personally he gives to many speechs.
As it very well could.
What would be more interesting is if it goes to committe one part public the other part only co op.
If they do it will be because they know it won't pass the Senate.
Its a small chance but I think Blue Dogs will have just as much guts here as they did on the Cape and Trade bill.
I think Pelosi has a chance to get them though. Either way if the bill is dead it's dead because of Democrats NOT Republicans.
thats true. I don't think Pelosi has the votes now anymore then she did before the break. So I don't know what they are going to do lol
Harry Reid has already stated he doesn't have the votes. They have to have 60 to break the almost certain filibuster that will happen if they pass it short of 60. He knows he cant get them all.
I disagree. The Senate will have the votes not the House. The only reason Cape and Trade passed was 8 GOP who I don't think will be their this time.
The house will pass the public option. It is the senate that doesn't have the votes. Even democrat poiticians want re-election. With Obama's numbers falling faster than any President in recent history, they may feel the timing is right to distance a bit for campaign time especially the blue dogs.
I agree its not a good idea either. But its one that blue dogs may attach themselves to. but liberals in Congress reject that. So its their civil war.
The start-up money will come with strings attatched as did the TARP and stimulus money. That will be a kin to government control. Just ask AIG and GM.
the Co op is not owned by the government but by the members in it. But to start it they will need money from the government. The liberals in Congress don't like it as they claim they wouldn't be big enough to take on the Insurance industry. But IF they stopped giving favoritism towards say Blue Cross and shield they would be fine. In fact the Government actually hinders smaller insurance companies.
isnt that were already kinda doing? in a way
The Obama made a comment about moving away from the public option and just doing Co Ops.
what happen with hcare, ive been gone for a while
http://www.liberty.edu/media/9980/attachments/heal
thcare_overview_obama_072909.pdf
Oh shit nevermiond this blog is two days old hahahahahhahahahaha
OK I'm done. Your turn.
And that would take a National Health Insurance. If the Republican Party realized this and put together a kickass Comprehensive National Health Insurance plan, they would be working class heros.
But personally, and I'm still quite convinced, there is only one viable way to cover everybody and that is to simply cover everybody.
I don't care how it is accomplished, I simply want to see every US resident, who is here legally (and HR3200 actually specifies no monies will be spent on illegal aliens contrary to your recent comments.), and it must be accessible regardless of financial situatuion, what way they do I don't care as long as it saves me money
Furthermore, Kempite, and yes I am trying to sway to into thinking quite "liberally" on this issue, when it comes to equal rights and equal treatment for gay couples, married or otherwise, health care plays a big part, since spouses usually get to be included in the health programs of their spouses. Hell, with a single payer plan, portability and each individual insured, that makes that whole part of the issue moot. No one person should have to rely on another person for health coverage. Not in this country in this day and age.
You do realize that #'s 2,3,and 4 of your proposal will require the assistance, regulation and funds of the federal government, right Kempite? I thought we wanted to keep the federal government our of it?
......Kinda like health care reform
Considering the federal government already subsidizes 65% of all health care in this country one way or another, I would say it's too late to worry about keeping the government out of it - they are already knee-deep in it.
Tort reform, YES! Oh the private law frims and back-alley shitwagon lawyers won't like it, the government butting in on their business any more than the insurance companies want their business regulated by the government, but once in awhile ya just gotta say tough shit - it's what's best for the country
...And, as a Republican I propose an incremental reform policy that does not in anyway put the federal government in charge of what amounts to a fourth of our GDP during times of tough economic transition. My first phase of reforms would be as follows: (- (1) .-Tort Reform. It will have a drastic effect on the rising cost of healthcare in America. (2).- Portability. The current lack of portability prevents people from keeping their coverage when they change jobs or relocate and often they can not continue with the same coverage they have throughout their lives as other changes in their lives occur. Federal action that would allow for the portability of health insurance would solve this problem and help to stabilize insurance markets, reduce costs and ultimately reduce the fluctuating number of uninsured in America. ( 3). – Enact a policy toolbox of federal initiatives that states could include and federal funding to the states would be linked to success in reaching the goals. With federal legislative guidelines and financial support, state experimentation would produce a myriad of various solutions and in time the best solutions for each state will evolve into better and stronger healthcare availability options for all states. (4).- Incentivise good health and fitness by offering limited tax credits for gym memberships and fitness equipment.-) Once we have achieved these reforms, allow some time for the states to take the lead on this and see where we are at as a nation and proceed from there.
FnG....there are big differences btween dems and reps on the issue but to claim that the debate on healthcare is just between dems and reps and that reps are the only roadblock is disengenuous. With a Democrat President, a fillubuster proof majority of dems in control of the senate and an overwhelming dem majority in the house......Democrats are not incorporating republican ideas and they could pass this all on their own. But apparently enouhgh Democrats object to this bill to make it impossible for them to do. So it looks to me like the fight is between themselves on the issue.
Not UHC and government run.
Well as Republicans isn't it contingent upon us to come up with a better way?
and government doesnt do planning well at all. So that is why I fail to trust them with such a plan or to run it effectively aka Social Security what a cluster fuck.
It's getting too expensive to maintain - if there were a way to maintain the status quo "system" we would have seen it by now but instead we see health care skyrocketing year after year after year year after year after year year after year after year year after year after year.
The better planned it is, the better off we'll be.
The problem as I see it is there is a big debate between Republicans and Democrats over who can "reform" our system. And they will play cat and mouse with this forever if we let them. It can't be reformed because there isn't anything that even resembles a "system" to reform! We need to sstart from scratch on this problem and there is a very, very simple way to do it - on a certain day, medicare & medicaid cease to exist and all Americans are covered for basic and catstrophic health care. The government will pay as per arbitrated schedules, copays would be mandatory to prevent trivial use, a new revenue system takes effect, simple rules are set in place to ensure it's integrity and voila! We've got an instant, workable system. In the mean time, it would have been coordinated with the private health insurance industry, who will be paid according to arbitration and all pertinant emminent domain law.
Their are affordable plans for people out their u just need to choose to have a priority. and plus if we have government care they will ration it or it will like Cash for clunkers run out of money.
I didn't say they couldn't come and be treated but if the government is going to be the biggest payer, then the people it represents will get priority. Period. That's how I'd "ration it". Foreignors, they'll have to wait in line. They can always go somewhere else if they don't like it.
Pretty soon just about everybody in the country will be covered under something -
VETERANS - covered; POOR PEOPLE AND THE HANDOUT CROWD - covered; OLD PEOPLE - covered; HANDICAPPED and DISABLED PEOPLE - covered; TAXPAYERS - not covered. As a taxpayer I'm tired of covering everybody esle accept myself.
foreignors pay so that is a good thing is it not? Our medical industry needs revenue which is good. illegals are a massive problem I am not scared of them but they are a drain on the system that UHC would not solve.
Let's just say I "skimmed through it"
By the way Erock, I don't dispute the fact that we have kickass health care in this country, and we should be proud of our technology, but under any plan, I would ensure Americans receive priority, if possible, over foriegnors (for participating providors) and that includes "illegal aliens" which everyone seems to be so afraid of lately.
that what? U had finally read it?
Erock you are welcome to delete my comment on your blog - the one where I posted the bill in my comment. Sorry about that. I didn't know it would fuck it up that bad,. I tried to delete the blog but I don't know how. The webmaster has my full authority to delete the blog. I posted only to make a point.
later Smashey thanks for the deabte
Arguing that we don't have priority is a red herring they come here for BETTER CARE then back in their own country. Plus the number of those with out insurance is much lower then people claim. And FG way to fuck up the website.
Smashey if there is a way to reform it, God bless whomever pulls it off. You just cannot have a hybridzied 65% public/45% private health care system like ours because it has gotten WAY WAY too expensive. That's the other thing that we need to acknowledge - the current "system" sucks! It takes 14-17% of the GNP (depending on what the GNP is because health care doesn't give a shit what the state of the economy is, it will take whatever part of the GNP it can.)
I agree with that FNG. That is if such a system exists. That is yet to be seen however. Thanks for the decent debate FNG. You are the only advocate of a national system on this site that will debate the points of it instead of resorting to name calling when someone says something you dont like. Time to eat dinner. bbl
The smartest thing the Republican Party could do right now, in order to re-establish itself when the Democrats burn themselves out, would be to have a very smart, very well-thought, very efficient, comprehensive National Health Insurance plan in place for when the Democrats fuck this up. The plan must save the taxpaying class money, must cover everyone, and must give Americans priority over foriegnors for health care.
The bill they wanted didn't address tort unless i missed it.
Single payer means more taxes not less. a sales tax that will mean a decrease in sales way to kill the economy. Also F&G Dems best donors are Trial Lawyers so I doubt they will about tort reform.
No ones asking anyone to ignore it FNG. The opponents were merely asking for reform that works instead of another government program that is poorly planned and fails in the end. They attempted to push a bill through in a few weeks. No one read the thing and then couldn't answer questions when their constituents asked them. We need reform and I don't see anyone saying we don't. All I see are people asking for honest debate and reform that is sustainable for all Americans.
Erock, if this bill passes, we will be paying higher taxes. That's why I'd scrap this whole charade and go with a simplified, single-payer system where it would be much easier on the pocketbooks of the working class, particularly if you fund it, as I've suggested, in part with a 4% national sales tax so that EVERYBODY helps pay for it, not just the middle and upper classes.
I whole-heartedly agree Smashey with the Tort Reform. And under a National Health Insurance system, the government WOULD be forced to take on tort reform seriously.
I posted the Health Care bill in it's entirety to make a point. 1000+ pages!! Of course this bill cannot be reasonably debated. It's Congress trying to repair what is essentially one of the biggest clusterfucks on the planet - the American "Health Care System." The problem is we have no system but rather a helter-skelter, unplanned, largely unregulated, over-regulated and poorly-regulated hodge-podge of private and public administrative monstrosities, linked only by the ever-growing tentacles they've attached to the working class American shit-kicker. It's theivery on such a grand scale, and corruptions are on such a grand scale that I cannot ignore it.
Just like if we had a UHC we would pay more taxes and would it really work....... lol
The first thing to make it work FNG will be tort reform. The insurance companies risk will have to be lowered in order for them to negotiate lower premiums. If a doctor takes off the wrong leg or sews up a scalpel in you then you should be allowed to sue. If you have a side effect of a procedure that you were made aware that there was a possible risk for then you should not be able to sue. I think it can be done with either tax credits or vouchers. We also need to be sure that those who can but dont get coverage on thier own stay off the reformed plan. Simply refusing to get coverage shouldnt be burdened onto the people.
Oh by the way Kempite, what questions?
The Health care bill - well the sponsors and cosponsors claim they have a way to make health care affordable and available for all Americans. I sincerely doubt it will work to any measurable degree, and we'll be paying higher income taxes to support it.
One way or another we'll need revenue for the people who can't afford to have health savings accounts.
Well Smashey I hope you are right. I hope you are right. But, it can be reasonably said that in order to cover everyone in this country one way or another and make it possible for any sick American to be able to see a doctor and receive treatment, we have to do one of two things:
1) Buy the people who can't (and some who just say they can't) insurance of some sort. If you were to set aside money for them through tax credits, whatever, it would have to be mandatory, involve the IRS and get really super complicated, just like medicaid and medicare are now.
2) Just pay the fees for the care they receive at a fair, arbitrated price - the going rate.
OK, Kempite, I'll answer your questions in order to begin debate. That's fair, I've been a little over-emotional about it, because health care is my #1 issue. It's the main crux that seperates me from my fellow Republicans. I've been, well a bit brash with my fellow Republicans and for that I'm deeply sorry.
Yes I do FNG but I do not believe in attempting to rush a bill through that admittedly wasn't read and doesn't spell out how to 100% pay for it and makes more changes to a system than getting uninsured people insured. If we can reform the insurance industry and can get those people covered either through credits for doctors or hospitals who treat them, or giving them a severly discounted price then sure. This plan was a fledgling attempt at government takeover of the entire system. That we don't need. We can do it other ways.
FnG....I will not answer of your questions until you answer any of the previous questions that I posed to you and until you point to where I claim to "oppose any government involvement in our society".
I hope you'll answer my question and I'm sure that will set the stage for some great debate.
Smashey, I sincerely hope you don't try to make like I - fatngassy - am NOT a chit-skicker of the most ignorant order! And proud of it!
Go ahead and run away now oh great smart one. If your so smart answer my question like you promised to 2 days ago. Or at least admit you can't and an 'ignorant shit kicker' defeated your argument.
Smashey, Kempite, and the countless others on this site that oppose any government involvement in our society - in particular to do with the health and welfare of the citenzenry of the USA - please answer this truthfully -
Do you think any American should be able to go see a doctor when they are sick, regardless of their financial situation at that particular moment?
See what I mean? Proud to be ignorant. I gotta go believe in science now. Peace.
Your system fails around the world and in every instance has lead to totalitarian regimes. You can have it. I'll chill with the shit kickers.
Well, maybe I'm in the minority. I'd rather be in a minority that supports what is right, rather than greed. I'm happy to be no part of the "majority" of america because the majority of americans are a bunch of shit kickers that make the rest of us look like idiots. It's embarrassing that we're the only modernized nation that doubts evolution and global warming. I'm embarrassed by the shit kickers that speak loudest for this country and I'm glad I'm not one of them.
The proponents of UHC have had their asses handed to them since this began. You can believe your in the majority if you want but the fact show otherwise.
Public healthcare has a lot of support, and has for a long time. All we're hearing from now is a loud group of shit kickers and corporatists. The proponents of UHC need to get out and send these hicks back to the gun-clinging, religion-clinging bitter towns they came from.
If they get the spending, debt and deficit under control before trying to ram a bill they hadn't read yet or had a good plan on how to pay for it they may have a better chance down the road. They went about it ignorantly and if it gets shut down it will be because of that.
The President and his administration know that as well. They are talking about dropping it because they have to get re-elected and doing something your constituents don't want does not help your cause. Ask the GOP.
Smashey, I don't know what happened. A few weeks ago, 70 some percent of the public supported a public option. Americans are dumb enough to be talked into war and out of healthcare. I just feel bad for the tens of millions of uninsured who are going to suffer because the progressives are too scared to shut down the made up bullshit that conseravtives pull out of their asses every four seconds. And I keep getting shit for calling conservatives stupid, but look at the polls. The majority of people that don't believe in evolution, global warming or stem cells are conservatives. The majority of people that think the world is 10,000 years old are conservatives. The majority of people that voted twice for George Bush are conservatives. The majority of people that think Obama is a Kenyan, are conservatives. I don't need to call them stupid. They brag about their stupidity. They're always in public denying the credibility of evolution ot saying Obama is a Kenyan. Why should I call them stupid? They don't need me to draw anymore attention to it. I feel terrible that so many people will suffer because there are so many shit kickers in America.
Holy shit Imagine do you want me to buy you a tv or radio or newspaper so you can see a poll? They are overwhelmingly against it. In every single poll the public doesn't want the public option. Unless you believe that the republicans somehow tapped into the phone lines and loaded them with Obama haters? Now your just sounding desperate that your socialized medicine is being rejected.
The public is not opposed to a public healthcare option. Obama ran his campaign on a public option and kicked John McCain's ass, who had no healthcare plan. The public wants a healthcare plan. Supports of the public option are the silent majority. That's why I am saying that the progressives need to crush this psychotic fringe before it gets out of control. Put the facts out there. Rep. Sestak crushed virtually all of the ignorant hicks that spewed out their made up bullshit about the healthcare bill by presenting the facts straight from the document. The Democrats need to step up and use the facts to crush this insane fringe that keeps trying to ruin the world for the rest of us.
If the public option goes off the table and the administration compromises to reform insurance instead of the entire system, they first must tackle tort reform. If they fail to do so, they will find it extremely difficult to cut costs.
The purpose of HR 3200 is to provide affordable health insurance for all Americans. It remains to be seen how this can be accomplished. Persoannly, I think it's impossible without a simplified single payer health insurance plan. A National Health Insurance is the simplest, most cost-effective means to that end.
As members of the ruling regime spend Sunday suggesting that the Czar of Czars, President Obama would consider dropping the "public option", it is becoming clear that they realize that even with total control of the federal government, public opinion is so opposed to socialized medicine that a backlash against those who support it would most likely force them out of office by 2010. If this "considered drfopping of the public option" is sincere, I would suggest that Republicans engage in sincere debate and compromise and I would suggest that we look at a Connecticut plan called SustiNet. I am not saying that this is the plan to run with but I am saying that it may be a plan through which effective compromises can be met.
and I refuse to support anything leading to single payer.
Yeah. He said that in 2006. On the campaign trail he was pushing a liberal agenda. He's abandoned the liberal base now. You're against Obama for attempting to reform the healthcare system. I'm against Obama for not being hard enough on the insurance companies. Obama is not giving us a bridge to single payer. He's barley bringing reform. But It's better than nothing I guess. Like I said, I'm a reluctant supporter.
As Obama has said he wants a bridget o single payer in the past well thats what we are about to get.
I'm idealy for single payer, but I know that bill is not going to pass. I'm a reluctant (and I stress "reluctant") supporter of the "main" healthcare bill that is being discussed right now.
Neither do but no more then I trust your plan either.
That's why I don't trust it.
I find it amusing the Drug companies and many insurance companies support the Obama plan.
If the Democrats drop the public option, they're going to lose their base. This president, who has already alienated the liberal base he relied on so heavily for support during the election, which push the left wing over the edge if he drops the public option. Obama has already bitten the hand that feeds him, and if he drops the public option, I think he may turn out to be a one term president after all.
I will agree that the insurance companies need reformed and will be more likely to support legislation that does such than I will be a government run public system. Neither of which will work without addressing tort reform.
|
<< Home