"There will be no bipartisan healthcare reform unless by that you mean the Democrats capitulate"

The Pompous or the Populists: Who Will Win the Healthcare Debate?
by Donna Smith
Common Dreams
June 11, 2009

Donna Smith is a community organizer for the California Nurses Association and National Co-Chair for the Progressive Democrats of America Healthcare Not Warfare campaign.

You'd think after eight long and ugly years listening to pompous and wealthy officials slam their versions of social hatred down our gullets, we'd have sent those folks packing for good on January 20, 2009. You'd think as we debate healthcare reform for this nation, we'd have left the arrogance and the flaunting of greed back in the pre-Wall Street bailout days of summer 2008. And you'd think in the People's House, the United States House of Representatives, we'd at least have stood up and said that every single American is deserving of and yes, entitled to, healthcare and protected from going broke in the process of getting care when ill.
You'd think.

But, as the Republicans have swelled up in their opposition to meaningful reform that can finally provide a progressively financed, guaranteed single standard of high quality healthcare for all, the same old pomposity and crude disrespect for human life are surfacing and oozing from their every word.

There will be no bipartisan reform fellow citizens unless by that you mean the Democrats capitulate to every horrible and ugly instinct about the undeserving masses of poor working slobs in this nation who the Republicans see as lazy, fat, undeserving and certainly beneath their status in life.

I heard it all again yesterday in the hearing in the House Education and Labor sub-committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, as a hearing on a single payer option for reform brought out in its classic and clearest form the "blame the victims" strategy that the elitists in the Republican party have sold us on this issue and many others for decades - ever since the dawning of that "new day in America" in the early 1980s.

Please read the complete article:

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/06/11

thanks for posting the nurses commentary.

He said we could get those results without single-payer.

He is wrong.

Which is why I was a late comer to his campaign - he was only slightly less wrong than Hillary on the same issue.

i think there are plenty of dems in the back pockets of insurance.

giving the insurance folks a perpetual rub-against!

On edit:
A relevant link to get the idea:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x455474

:spray:

:headbang:

The Republicans don't have a "plan" and don't want any "reform". They've made it clear. President Obama at least needs to publicly put forth an effort to work with them although I suspect that he, like us, know that they won't work with him, so they're basically irrelevant unless they have something substantive to contribute to the discussion.

The greater challenge, as others here have correctly pointed out, is dealing with the "Blue Dog" Dems and DINOs whom are publicly balking at a "public option" as part of true health care reform. I would definitely like to see what THEY are trying to push forward on us as "reform" (although I suspect that whatever it is probably doesn't amount to much more than "warmed over" status quo). Also, I'd like to see exactly what Schumer, et. al mean by pushing a "public option" that doesn't have any inherent advantages over private insurance and what the heck THAT looks like. Interesting that "free marketers" seem so opposed to competition, which, I thought, was the cornerstone of, well, the free markets. Insurance companies SHOULD be worried about the prospect of lots of people dumping their private insurance coverage if what the government is offering is a better deal for most people. They obviously haven't been offering a good enough product that stands on its own merits.

Hopefully, President Obama will hold the line and refuse to sign any health care reform legislation that does not include a meaningful public option AT THE VERY LEAST. If private insurance companies are going to continue to exist (and by all accounts, they will), then SERIOUS competition in the form of a "public option" is essential IMHO in order to put them in a position where they will be FORCED by market pressures to significantly improve the quality of their product and lower prices or face extinction.

If I'm wrong, I'll be glad eat my words. But I just don't see it happening.

If the public plan can't offer better coverage at a lower price than private insurance I and my wife wouldn't want it and hardly anyone else would buy it.

What's the incentive?

If the private insurance companies can't offer better coverage at a lower price than the government option, why would anyone stay with them?

It's time to acknowledge health care as a right, like clean air and clean water and safe food (which are, ultimately healthcare issues), not a privilege.

I've made the correction

Which is why I'm confused by Schumer's "principles" about a public option not having an unfair advantage over private insurance. If it's not going to offer any improvement over private insurance, then what's the point? Seems like it's simply Schumer's "passive-aggressive" way to kill off the whole idea of a "public option" as part of health care reform. Frankly, as far as I'm concerned, the private industry has failed. Maybe things arguably weren't quite as bad back in 1993-1994- making health care reform impossible to achieve then- but things seem positively AWFUL now and I'm not aware of many average people who unequivocally adore their private plans. I know that I have only seen my premiums skyrocket and my benefit coverage plummet during the near decade that I've worked for the State. Right now, we've been priced out of traditional HMO plans and now have an HSA/high deductible plan that doesn't cover anything until we've paid $2900 out of our pocket. It's practically like we don't have any health insurance and the $37 I get put in our HSA every can't cover the bills we've been getting and we don't have much else in terms of discretionary income. I don't imagine that the situation is much different or better for other people. It's so bad right now that a public option, no matter how "watered down" it might be, would still probably be better than what we have now and I'd imagine that quite a few people would be willing to at least give it a try rather than continuing to get screwed sideways by private insurance vultures......er....I mean, companies.

OBAMACARE: Will It Be Affordable Universal Health Care or a Government Bailout for the Insurance Companies?
By Miles Mogulescu
Huffington Post
June 10, 2009

The questions is will Obama's personal involvement lead to more robust health care reform which will make significant progress towards affordable universal care? Or, in the name of gaining support from the health insurance lobby and the "moderate" Republicans and "centrist" Democrats to whom it has contributed so much money, will Obama allow so many compromises that health care reform turns into a government bailout for the insurance industry?

Several administration quotes in the New York Times leave reason for concern. According to Rahm Emanuel, "The only nonnegotiable principle is success. Everything else is negotiable." According to the ranking Senate Finance Committee Republican Sen. Charles Grassley (a staunch opponent of a viable pubic option) in a meeting with Grassley and Democratic Senate Finance Committee chair Max Baucus (who has refused to commit to a public option) Obama said "Yeah, it's a problem. If I get 85% of what I want with a bipartisan vote or 100 percent with 51 votes, all Democrat, I'd rather have it be bipartisan." Possible translation--we may be willing to give up a viable public option, mandate that every American buy private insurance, and tax workers for their employer-provided health care, if it will get a bill passed with some Republican votes.

Supporters of compromise are fond of chastising supporters of more robust health care reform, particularly single payer advocates, by repeating that "we can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good." The problem is that an overly compromised health reform bill that satisfies the health insurance lobby and its Democratic and Republican supporters in Congress may not be "good" at all, and may even make things worse. Health care costs would not be reduced, putting increasing strains on individual and government budgets. Uninsured individuals would be forced by the government to buy private insurance they can't afford, taking a big hit out of family income and reducing demand in other sectors of the economy. Workers would be forced to pay for it by being taxed on their employer-provided health benefits. And as a result, increasing numbers of employers would drop health benefits for their employees.

Keep in mind that the argument of many progressives for a robust public option is that it's a stealth avenue to eventually reaching single payer. People like Paul Krugman and Jacob Hacker argued that it would save so much in administrative costs, compared to private insurance, and would be so much more effective in bargaining with providers for lower rates, that over time most people would chose the public option over private insurance until it became dominant and private health insurance begins to wither away. Did they think that the private insurance industry wouldn't notice this argument and wouldn't fight against a robust public option as hard as they would fight against single payer? (I've never completely bought this argument by public option advocates--It's true that there would be administrative savings, but the public option would still be relatively expensive if it offered comprehensive benefits, low deductibles and low co-pays. Private insurance could still offer cheaper options with high deductibles, high co-pays and lesser benefits that would draw away many of the young and healthy. This would lead to so-called "adverse selection" in which the older and less healthy gravitate to the public plan, making it increasingly expensive and thus less competitive with private insurance. Rather than leading eventually to single payer, it could instead lead people to conclude that "government financed health care" is expensive and inefficient.)

The question now is, having taken single payer off the table, how far is the Obama administration and its progressive supporters--both in Congress and in the grassroots movement--willing to further compromise in order to say that they passed some kind of health reform bill? Will they continue to say that "everything is negotiable?" Or will they say that unless there is a robust public option, a viable means to finance subsidies to the uninsured to buy insurance, waivers to any individual mandate for those who can't afford insurance, and continued tax-deductibility of employer-provided health care, Obama will veto the bill, key House and Senate liberals will vote against the bill, and the progressive movement will oppose it?

Please read the complete article at:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20090610/cm_huffpost/213430


--------------------------------------

Party fighting over health-care reform will focus on government's role
By David S. Broder
Seattle Times
June 10, 2009

WASHINGTON — The goal of the Obama White House is to come up with a health-care plan that can attract bipartisan support. The president has told visitors that he would rather have 70 votes in the Senate for a bill that gives him 85 percent of what he wants rather than a 100 percent satisfactory bill that passes 52-48.

The two senators who can speak with the greatest authority on framing a bipartisan health-care bill are Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat, and Bob Bennett, a Utah Republican.

Their bill — in simplest terms — would have guaranteed portable, affordable health insurance to every American. It would have required individuals to purchase private health-care policies, with subsidies as needed from employers and government. Most remarkably, the sponsors obtained an estimate from the Congressional Budget Office and independent auditors that their plan would be self-financing after a short transition period and might save a trillion dollars over 10 years.

Meantime, there is a preliminary but intense debate shaping up about whether a government-sponsored insurance plan should be made an option for people choosing from a menu of health-care-coverage options. Liberals want that included. The staff of Sen. Ted Kennedy included it in the draft legislation they rolled out last week. And Obama has reiterated his support for it.

But this week, the Republican members of the Senate Finance Committee, where a bill will be written this month, said almost unanimously that the government plan was a nonstarter.

Bennett, who is not on Finance, underlined that determination, telling me "we will fight almost to the last man and woman against a government-run plan, and not a few Democrats will join us."

Wyden, careful to preserve his credentials within his own party, said he saw this fight as more of a broad philosophical debate about the role and scope of government, but he reminded me that his bill last year did not include a government-sponsored plan.

The time may come — either before or after the House votes on its bill — when Obama may have to demonstrate his flexibility on the issue of a government-run option. Wyden and Bennett are potential allies if he removes what Bennett calls "the rock" blocking a bipartisan bill. And the president couldn't wish for better partners.

Please read the complete article at:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2009324850_broder11.html

On the "public option" the devil is in the details.

What kind of public option?