The questions "public option" supporters won't answer

1. Do you expect that the "public option" in the Senate bill will be "strong" and "robust"?

2. How many people do you expect will have access to it?

3. Will it substantially "help keep insurance companies honest"?

4. Will it bring America anywhere in line with other countries on health-care costs?

5. Why didn't you complain about Obama and company's lies about conducting an open-and-transparent process that considered all options?

6. How did the wafty public option plan become the only plan that leading progressives would dignify? Which is it: are the big bloggers and activists playing too much footsie with Beltway insiders... or have they simply become Beltway insiders themselves?

Please kick, too, if you want more people to read... and maybe for some serious answers, finally.

Went from +5 to +2 in a flash.

No answers to the questions, though. Funny, that.

:thumbsup:

for government intervention and provision of services.

It's not the magic cure-all right away. But it's the first step in that direction.

Not so much in 2009.

Tell me do you think there will be more reform dollars or more insurance/pharma/AMA dollars flowing to congress in 2010 than in 2009.

The trend over the past 30 years has been for regulations/government programs to be weakened after they are implemented not strengthened.

HIPAA and SOX are great examples.

Success does breed success.

And, you're comparing apples (regulation) to oranges (provision of vital services). Give people a taste of some good ol' fashioned socialized medicine, and if they like it they'll ask for more.

and this administration continues to fail with half ass measures in everything they do.

legislation. None.

This is like debating Star Wars vs. Star Trek amongst sci-fi geeks.

You're interested in hypothetical awesomeness, not what happens in the real world.

I'm just amazed after 4 years of being told by the Democratic Party how important it was to elect people with Ds behind their names, how said Ds are behaving.

If the Senate was 55-45 and the House was 230-215...they'd have an excuse for this shit.

55 Democrats plus

Evan Bayh
Ben Nelson
Joe Lieberman
Blanche Lincoln
Mary Landrieu

The problem is that in Congress there is a conservative working majority.

Why make that not just your negotiating starting point (planning to fail) but a near-obsession for progressive activism (weird, and abusive to those who advocate real, y'know, change)?

The one in which people have turned out in droves for two elections for the ostensible "change" party?

The one where the Greatest Orator Since Aaron is our president?

The one where the American people are desperate for economic and social reform?

for what they wanted the incoming government to do.

No cause, no issue, no constituency, no policy position gets to claim credit and ownership for the Democratic party's success in 2008.

was due to the economy and GWB.

It isn't.

Not with this Congress. The current bill was considered too radical by most of the blue dogs.

In the Senate, you'd need to get:

Blanche Lincoln--AHIP
Kent Conrad--DLC
Max Baucus--AHIP
Jeff Bingaman
David Pryor--Walmart
Evan Bayh--Wellpoint
Tom Carper--DLC
Mark Warner--DLC
Kay Hagan
Tim Johnson--DLC
Mary Landrieu
Claire McCaskill
Joe Lieberman--Satan
Bill Nelson--DLC
Ben Nelson--DINO
Harry Reid--DLC
Jeanne Shaheen
Arlen Specter--RINO
Diane Feinstein--DLC
Maria Cantwell--DLC
Herb Kohl-DLC
Debbie Stabenow--DLC

truthiness and tribalism. Maybe a few more of us should act that way.

where the best policy gets enacted regardless of who's in Congress.

The one where "public option" is good policy, instead of bait-and-switch?

It's not.

It's like arguing whether it's better to take the subway or a transporter beam.

In the real world, where policy gets made instead of just argued over by screen names, single payer is not happening.

Read the original post. Answer the questions if you can/dare. Or admit that you don't have good answers.

But stop putting words in my mouth.

and just ditch it?

They caved when they made a "public option" for less than 2% of Americans their idea of "historic" reform.

Obama caved when he made a secret deal with Big Pharma and sent Daschle around on a fake listening tour.

And you don't care to answer the questions in the O.P. Here's a big guess, it's because the answers wouldn't feel as good as being a solidier in the public-option placebo brigade. Hard to blame you for that -- all the progressive opinion leaders have been love-bombing you into believing that's, as we used to say, where it's at.

I don't think anyone will say this is the best policy at the end of the day.

1. Do you expect that the "public option" in the Senate bill will be "strong" and "robust"?

Not really, no.

2. How many people do you expect will have access to it?

Given my answer to number 1, I expect less than need to. Were it done right, everyone would have access to it.

3. Will it substantially "help keep insurance companies honest"?

Again, if it were done right, yes. Private insurance would have to compete or go out of business.

4. Will it bring America anywhere in line with other countries on health-care costs?

No, but it would be a start, either way. Overhead costs would go down dramatically.

5. Why didn't you complain about Obama and company's lies about conducting an open-and-transparent process that considered all options?

Plenty of people did. Where were you?

6. How did the wafty public option plan become the only plan that leading progressives would dignify? Which is it: are the big bloggers and activists playing too much footsie with Beltway insiders... or have they simply become Beltway insiders themselves?

Progressives rallied behind it because single-payer was dead before arrival. The strong public option was the next best rallying point and a gateway to a single-payer system.

There you go, there's my unrec reasoning.

Why was single-payer dead on arrival?

as Republicans.

don't believe me... check Open Secrets for yourself. Donations from Insurance, HMOs and big Pharma

and I'm sure it pales to the amount the President got and will get from getting on his knees before them.

Goldman Sachs is loving their investment on the finance side.

and see just how many Dems are beholding to the same bullshit corps the GOP are. Single-payer never stood a change agsinst millions of dollars in campaign contributions.

Oh, and Obama purposely keep the single-payer folks out of the mix from the very beginning of this process. Thanks a whole lot, O.

"Plenty of people did" doesn't sound like you did. I've been pretty vocal about it, myself.

How is a puny public option that is available to roughly 2% of Americans going to substantially reduce overhead?

Is there a "wishful thinking" clause that will make it so?

"If it were done right." President Obama bragged that fewer than 5% of Americans would get access to it. David Swanson's #s put it at 2%. Is that "done right"?

So, the plan won't meet the long and oft stated requirement of being "strong and robust."

"Were it done right" means, I can only surmise, "were it not the crappy plan that's come out of this process." I.e., this "pragmatic" endeavor is a FAIL.

1. Do you expect the Senate would ever pass Single Payer?

2. How many people will have access to a non-existent Single Payer plan?

3. How will a Single Payer plan that never exists keep insurance companies honest?

4. Will a non-existent Single Payer plan that can't even pass the House bring America anywhere in line with other countries on health-care costs (only 2 of which are true Single Payer systems)?

5. Did you bother to watch a single open-and-transparent meeting on C-Span on Health Care Reform (yes, those meetings were televised and they are up on C-Spans website)

6. How did Single Payer become the only plan that is acceptable to people like you?

Don't change the subject or twist words.

Don't try to divide people with bullshit. That's just being a troll.

It doesn't usually end well.

that poster just demonstrated.

You are not offering single payer as an alternative, because single payer is not a possibility. Any more than the impeachment and removal of Bush from office was ever a possibility.

Nothing will change.

If we just assume our "progressive" betters know what's "pragmatic," than we're little better than sheep.

I'm hearing every sort of response but substantive answers to my questions. Gee, after a while one might get the idea that there aren't any good answers to be had....

not as good as single payer would be.

The problem is that single payer is not a political reality in 2008. But, a public option does make single payer more likely.

Which is why the scorched earth campaign by the single-payer-or-nothing people is stupid on so many levels.

And making wholly unsupported assertions about what would have possible with some, y'know, leadership.

as single payer, which unfortunately is not a reality in 2008.


But, a public option does make single payer more likely.

Which is why the scorched earth campaign by the single-payer-or-nothing people is stupid on so many levels.

What compels you to do that?

What an impressive set of answers you have! I hope your blind tribal affiliations serve you in good stead. In the end, they may be better than logic and good policy. You never know.

When you throw up, try not to blame anyone but yourself.

... you have no good answers to the questions?

Simple and honest.

... you have no good questions to answer?

Simple and honest.

Why is that? Why are you compelled to keep us in the dark?

1. Do you expect that the "public option" in the Senate bill will be "strong" and "robust"? I forgot what "strong" was code for but "robust" is code for tied to Medicare rates so no on that. It won't be open to all.

2. How many people do you expect will have access to it? I expect everyone eligible for the exchange to be able to access it, if they choose. So, 34 million or so to start and as many as 40+ percent by the end of the 1st 10 years.

3. Will it substantially "help keep insurance companies honest"? It will help. It will set up a baseline for comprehensive coverage within the exchange and those rates as a whole will reign in the general private market because of the implied threat of opening the whole deal up. The effect will increase over time as more and more migrate to the exchange.

4. Will it bring America anywhere in line with other countries on health-care costs? No, and probably we can't get there without going to a full on national health service because it isn't just the for profit insurance that has run amok nor does any bill magically make our populace more healthy.

5. Why didn't you complain about Obama and company's lies about conducting an open-and-transparent process that considered all options? Because, an open process and the current ways of doing anything are in deep conflict to the point that I ignored the rhetoric.

If I was to magically reboot the process I'd represent the whole thing as a fact finding mission to find cost containment while achieving universal coverage with no preconditions, which I hope would by debate, trial, and error would in the end lead us to smart policy in a more organic way. CBO would be testing all kinds of theories and the process would take even longer but in the end horse sense might win the day from public pressure.

6. How did the wafty public option plan become the only plan that leading progressives would dignify? Which is it: are the big bloggers and activists playing too much footsie with Beltway insiders... or have they simply become Beltway insiders themselves?

I'd argue proper identification of the edge of the envelope considering the make up of Congress (forgetting party affiliation for the moment) and the how easily frightened the American people are and how convinced they have become that government is teh evul.

1. That definition of "robust" was always fishy, because it described pricing but not access. If it were Medicare+a nickel that wouldn't mean anything if only a few Americans could get access to it. Anyway, your answer is a "no" to begin with, so moving on....

2. That # is way out of whack with anything I've seen from reliable sources, such as President Obama (less than 5%) and David Swanson (2%).

3. Again, this is highly dependent on how many people will use it... and how strong/robust it is. Doesn't look good, does it?

4. In other words, the policy is a massive fail on costs.

5. It wouldn't have taken magic, it would have taken progressives who'd retained their critical faculties and who weren't kneejerk supporters of whatever came down from insider trendsetters. But with the placebo of rallying around "public option," most everyone took their eyes off the ball and allowed a back-door process to destroy this landmark opportunity for reform.

6. The American people have frequently polled as in favor of single-payer. Taking it off the table -- in defiance of those promises of an open process -- was a self-fulfilling and self-enriching prophecy for friends of the status quo.

I've not seen anything that locks people on the exchange out of the PO. If there are controls there on that then I'd obviously have to revise.

and with #4 I believe anything short of full on nationalized health care will fail to get us in line with other western industrialized nations because the pooch is so screwed. Even if we went SP we'd still be considerably higher than most because I think we'd only be looking at between 15-30% savings by cutting the middle man out which would be substantial and game changing but we'd still be significantly higher than other advanced nations.

With #6 I continue to maintain the support as very soft and would shrivel up quite a bit when the reality of shutting down private insurers and imposing something different and new on themelves. I might be wrong but other polling, talking to real people, and the hysterics over a government take over lead me to believe its 50/50 at best and more like 40/60 against. Not to mention how in the tank the media would be against it. They've tried to kill the PO at least weekly and they'd be in all out assualt on SP. I don't buy opinion would hold up with the very little groundwork we've laid on this policy.

I'd be happy to be wrong but I don't see it.