**The CBO scoring shows this bill REDUCING the deficit by $130 million annually.
**
Assuming Medicare cuts that Doug Elmendorf says are unlikely to materialize. The Congressional Research Service has said the same thing.
As for public support, the polls are pretty consistent. At best, only 40-45% support the bill. That’s not the kind of support you need for this kind of undertaking.
Dang it, You don’t see why a program intended to ensure universal access to basic food is the food equivalent to universal health-care? For realz? Really really realz?
Okay food stamps may have holes, mostly due to Republicans crying like spoiled stuck pigs, but they do show Americans do have an electoral will for no one to starve, universal nutrition if you will.
Now further your analogy of socializing food fails because, short of slavery, you can’t nationalize the doctors themselves. What you can nationalize is paying the medical costs, salaries, equipment costs, etc. Just like food stamps are form of nationalizing the costs of food for the needy.
We do need massive fundamental reform, but this is an imperfect society. Most voters barely pay attention are easily swayed by wealthy corporations who fund ad campaigns. Corporations represented in this debate (insurance companies, drug companies, hospitals) control over a trillion dollars of our economy. The GOP wants to derail any health reform so they can use it to get reelected in 2010 and 2012.
We need massive reform (single payer, comparative effectiveness, more R&D into ways to cut costs and improve innovation, more outsourcing). But when you combine a democracy made up of malleable, uninformed voters; trillion dollar corporations and rabid political bias, its not going to happen.
As a Canadian, I understand the OPs frustration.
I so looked forward to America joining the rest of the free world and experiencing the benefits of UHC.
I just don’t think it will happen anymore.
If you don’t get public option, you don’t get UHC.
If you do get public option, it will be just as expensive as the private plans because you won’t have the benefit of economy of scale and simplified administration that we enjoy, thereby threatening its future.
You appear to be caught between a rock and a hardplace.
What do polls say about keeping the broken system we have? Anybody with firing synapses is aware our present system is badly broken. It has to be tossed. It can not be salvaged. The problem is that powers making huge profits off our present health care also can force the politicians to keep them in a money making position. The insurance companies are the problem not the solution.
Food assistance programs are there to provide basic food for people who don’t have enough money to buy it for themselves.
We already have Medicaid that serves an almost exactly analogous role in health care. So, why do we need to nationalize the grocery stores?
What do polls say about keeping the broken system we have?
Keeping the current system is almost as popular now as the health care bill. The Democrats have done an amazing job of increasing confidence in the current system.
This.
The entire exercise has become a political exercise and nothing more. This bill fails, and Obama has been ‘proven’ a failure, and 2010 seals the deal in sweeping a group that will never entertain any concept of health care reform into power in 2012.
Put even this flawed bill into place and there will, at the very least, be the expectation that Something Can Be Done. In my opinion, once a program is in place it is far easier to revise than the initial process of ratification.
There are programs in place. They are called Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, and of course a wide variety of smaller programs.
Also, the bill could be broken up. You can do insurance reform in one bill, you could do exchanges in another, set up a public option in another, and do subsidies in another.
There’s no reason to take a comprehensive approach right from the start. That’s turned out to be a big mistake, especially since the people who drafted the bill never made any effort to take their case to the voters.
I just want the same insurance policy that the Senators have. Is their policy 2,000 pages long?
Vote yes on the bill and get a damned foot in the health care door.
Today I paid $50 for just one bottle of meds. (One of many.) It had a note on it that said, “Your insurance saved you $357 today.”
The Cobra subsidy is running out. If a laid off person has to pay for Cobra is will consume 84 percent of their unemployment check. The membership of the uninsured is about to expand. All is well. No reason to get it done.
Double-spaced, with huge margins, etc.
With similar formatting, the bill would be about the same length as Sarah Palin’s book. But much more factual, and with a lot more substance!
BTW, someone snuck a clause in the Senate bill saying that Congresscritters would get their insurance through the Health Insurance Exchanges that the bill sets up. I’m rooting for that to make it into the final bill that comes out of conference.
Absofuckinglutely. Losing on this won’t mean a better bill will pass in the next Congress, or the one after that, or the one after that either.
This is far from the best bill in the world, but Social Security wasn’t all that great when it was first instituted, either. Once it’s there, we won’t have to wait 70 years to fix its flaws.
I’m afraid you’re wrong. It’s more “anything to get a bill passed” being the enemy of us all. I saw a news article recently suggesting that insurance companies are almost encouraging the passage of the legislation in its present form, with Republicans dragging their feet in part to get even more egregious concessions.
To a large extent, high costs are the problem, not some people’s lack of insurance. (The former drives the latter.) Entrenching a system deliberately designed to have high cost is not the answer. (Bush’s Medicare “reforms” are a case in point.)
What we saw Wall Street do to the taxpayer during the Bush-Obama transition reminded me so much of Naomi Klein’s description of South Africa’s Central Bank actions at the end of arpatheid. Please let’s not make a similar mistake in the name of “any health care bill is better than none.”
Hope this helps!
James
Isn’t this what most conservatives on this very board were espousing all along?
Not for long; the rates increase every year. My ‘family’ policy (myself and one child) is going to be $355 per month in January, with a $10 k deductible.
I do agree with you in principle; I think people should foot the bill for their own treatment, up to a point. But as someone upthread pointed out, a doctor’s visit shouldn’t cost $150, a month’s supply of one med shouldn’t cost $168. The whole insurance situation has caused prices to be artficially high.
Well, its hard to argue much with such reasoned analysis as is offered by Sen Coburn (R- Batshit)
**Coburn tells seniors: ‘You’re going to die soon’ if the Senate health care bill passes. **
OMG! I never noticed you were a liberal!
**Well, its hard to argue much with such reasoned analysis as is offered by Sen Coburn (R- Batshit)
Coburn tells seniors: ‘You’re going to die soon’ if the Senate health care bill passes. **
It’s right out of the Grayson playbook. I don’t see a problem here.
Turnabout is fair play. When Republicans tried to cut the growth of Medicare by a smaller amount, Democrats ran ads showing Republicans pushing a granny in a wheelchair off a cliff.
Liberals are centrist wussies. They think they can tinker with the Moloch Machine, and bit by bit, turn it into a solar-powered rainbow extruder. Feh!
It depends on how well the public option is set up and how it performs. If done right it will provide some serious competition for private insurance in the market place. A strong public option might eventually make it clear to the public that insurance companies provide no added value to the health care system. Don’t forget, programs like medicare evolve from where they started back in the days when it was first passed. Despite its current problems it is still a huge success; all the screaming about it being socialized medicine back in the day that would destroy the health care system have been proven to be BS. The Republicans were offered a bill this year to eliminate it. That bill came nowhere close to passing on their behalf.
If we’re smart, the public option program will be given a lock box in short order for its funding and expanded over the next few years. It is also possible that states might pass single payer plans which might increase the pressure if they are successful. And one form of single payer could be where insurance companies all compete for 300 million clients obtainable only through the government. That would simplify paperwork and standardize and provide basic regulation in part through the marketplace. Not perfect, again as pointed out elsewhere in the thread, it’s still half a loaf.