Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Ezra Klein on Health Care Reform: What is Bipartisanship Worth?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
flpoljunkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 12:19 PM
Original message
Ezra Klein on Health Care Reform: What is Bipartisanship Worth?
Should Health Care Reform Be Bipartisan?



David Broder has a column today talking up the Wyden-Bennett bill and the importance of bipartisanship in health reform. He quotes Sen. Bob Bennett (R-Utah), saying, "we will fight almost to the last man and woman against a government-run plan." This comes on the heels of a Post editorial calling Obama's support for a public plan "disappointing," as it would "doom what Mr. Obama says are his hopes for a bipartisan agreement."

Fair enough. There's an obvious logic to bipartisanship, particularly when you're pursuing large reforms in a closely divided republic. But I'd like to see some transparent calculations about the worth of bipartisanship. The question of Republican votes, after all, isn't whether they are, all else being equal, a good thing. It's whether they're worth the tradeoffs necessary to attain them.

Broder and the Post editorial board focus other portions of their arguments on the importance of cost controls, for instance. So it would be interesting to see them explain how many Republican votes you have to gain to justify losing a policy that would lower the costs of health insurance by nine percent a year, as the Lewin Group estimated a "level-playing field" public plan would do. And how many Republican votes are worth sacrificing a policy that would lower the cost of health insurance by between 20 percent and 30 percent a year, as the Commonwealth Fund estimated a "strong" public plan would do?

And it's not just the public plan. Republicans have grave concerns about the cost of health reform. Much of that cost comes from the subsidies that help low-income Americans afford health insurance. Are 10 Republican votes worth lowering the subsidies from 400 percent of poverty to 300 percent of poverty and leaving out, say, eight million Americans? Are five Republican votes worth leaving out eight million Americans? Two Republican votes? It would be nice if someone published a table or something.

(Photo credit: AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/06/what_is_bipartisanship_worth.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Oregone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 12:25 PM
Response to Original message
1. Bipartisanship is fucking worthless (unless you are trying to get re-elected)
Doing the right thing is priceless.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
avaistheone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 12:32 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Bravo.
:fistbump:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Proud Liberal Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 01:55 PM
Response to Original message
3. "we will fight almost to the last man and woman against a government-run plan."
Well, at least we won't have to fight them until they're ALL gone! ;-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flpoljunkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 03:44 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Republicans make clear they will go to the mat to protect health care industry profits.
They are siding to a man with the health care industry. The lines have been drawn. It's up to us to push the Democrats to give us a strong public option--not a weak one, in name only.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Proud Liberal Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 04:14 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. I totally agree
The Republicans (nearly all of them) have nothing constructive to offer as an alternative to the status quo and should be treated as irrelevant unless they have something substantive to bring to the debate. President Obama has already tried to offer up a compromise regarding malpractice awards and they had nothing to offer themselves and walked away. Unfortunately, I do not see things changing much. Our bigger challenge is to make sure enough Dems get on board as well. So far, most of the leaders (i.e. Obama, Pelosi) are saying the right things. It's people like Baucus and Schumer that I'm worried about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 04:21 PM
Response to Original message
6. K & R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wednesdays Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 08:53 PM
Response to Original message
7. K&R
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 30th 2024, 12:55 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC