How to Think About the Health Care Bills
| Tue Jul. 28, 2009 7:13 AM PDT
The latest news on the health care front is that the version of the bill the Senate Finance committee is working on will not include a public option or a requirement that employers provide insurance for their workers. Meanwhile, "Blue Dog" Democrats in the House are still fighting Energy and Commerce committee chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) over that committee's bill. There are a couple of ways to think about these conflicts.
Despite their intransigence, lawmakers who oppose the public option often represent districts that would benefit greatly from a public plan. Jacob Hacker, a Yale political science professor and public option expert, explains:
A public health plan will be particularly vital for Americans in the rural areas that many Blue Dogs represent. These areas feature both limited insurance competition and shockingly large numbers of residents without adequate coverage. By providing a backup plan that competes with private insurers, the public plan will broaden coverage and encourage private plans to reduce their premiums. Perhaps that's why support for a public plan is virtually as high in generally conservative rural areas as it is nationwide, with 71 percent of voters expressing enthusiasm.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Matt Yglesias argues that the overrepresentation of rural areas in the Senate is a big part of the obstacle blocking real health care reform:
[I]t does strike me as worth noting that when you read a puff piece in The New York Times about the Gang of Six bipartisan dealmakers in the Senate that vast power is being wielded by people who, in a democratic system of government, would have almost no power. We’re talking, after all, about Max Baucus of Montana, Kent Conrad of North Dakota, Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico, Susan Collins of Maine, Mike Enzi of Wyoming, and Chuck Grassley of Iowa. Collectively those six states contain about 2.74 percent of the population... The largest metropolitan area contained in whole or in part within any of those six states is the Albuquerque MSA, population 846,000, the 59th largest in the United States—smaller than New Haven or Fresno or Richmond.
That's not very representative. But Matt Taibbi thinks that blaming the "Gang of Six" is a cop-out:
Make no mistake, this has nothing to do with Max Baucus, Bill Nelson, or anyone else. If the Obama administration wanted to pass a real health care bill, they would do what George Bush and Tom DeLay did in the first six-odd years of this decade whenever they wanted to pass some nightmare piece of legislation (ie the Prescription Drug Bill or CAFTA): they would take the recalcitrant legislators blocking their path into a back room at the Capitol, and beat them with rubber hoses until they changed their minds.
The reason a real health-care bill is not going to get passed is simple: because nobody in Washington really wants it. There is insufficient political will to get it done.
Of course, Democrats haven't shown Republican-style party loyalty in recent years, and there are some people in Washington who want a real health-care bill to pass. It's a safe bet that Teddy Kennedy and Henry Waxman and Bernie Sanders are among them. But Taibbi may be broadly right—the Obama administration could try to push to pass a health care bill through the reconciliation process (avoiding the threat of a filibuster), and that bill would probably be better than one that gets Mike Enzi and Chuck Grassley and Olympia Snowe on board. For whatever reason, the White House is going to push for the worse, weakened bill first. That's too bad.
But maybe that's too harsh on the administration. Maybe the problem really is Max Baucus. He did write this, after all.
UPDATE: You could also just read this Hendrik Hertzberg piece, which explains everything.
Comments
the core issue is personal experience
Submitted by ericf on Tue Jul. 28, 2009 8:39 AM PDT.
I suspect as much as lobbyist money, the problem with blue dogs and Republicans is they haven't been sick and uninsured, and don't get what a literally life and death crisis that can be, as well as an ever-present dread in the back of your mind. Obviously many single-payer advocates have never been in that situation either, but at least they thought about what it's like. I honestly think conservatives haven't thoguht it through. The question I'd like to see the press asking congressmen, even beyond "how much do you get from corporate special interests", is "have you ever been sick and uninsured?"
http://www.ravensblog.net
Bringing all groups together
Submitted by hsr0601 (not verified) on Tue Jul. 28, 2009 9:27 AM PDT.
A pay for outcome / value payment system, key to the deficit-neutral, might be capable of bringing all groups together.
Supporters of the agreement say it could save the Medicare System more than $100 billion a year and 'improve' care, that means more than $1trillian over a decade, and virtually needs no other resources including tax on the wealthiest. (Please visit http://www.kare11.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=820455&catid=391 for detailed infos).
As much as 30 percent of all health-care spending in the U.S. -some $700 billion a year- may be wasted on tests and treatments that do not improve the health of the recipients,” Thus the remaining $239 billions over a decade do not matter.
Dr. Armadio at Mayo clinic says, "If we got rid of that stuff, we save a third of all that we spend and that is 2.5 trillion dollars on health care. A third of that and that is 700 billion dollars a year. That covers a lot of uninsured people."
1. There is no need for infighting and class conflict.
2. It can satisfy revenue-neutral raised by the Republicans.
3. It is able to resolve the regional disparity.
4. It may bring the private insurers to competition, innovation.
5. The focus on 'outcome' over volume can make the practitioners more accurate and creative based on IT SYSTEM and evidence, while eliminating the additional, unnecessary care that is increasing patients' pains, frustrations, and possible side-effects.
6. It undoubtedly allows for massive medical job creation.
7. The desperate people will get back American dream.
THANK YOU !
Politics and Our Money
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue Jul. 28, 2009 9:54 PM PDT.
You folks complain about the Stimulus Packages and the Presidential Give Away's of our hard earned money. The reason the Folks on the HILL don't give a damn is simple and we the voters and tax payers let them do it. In fact we applaud them for ripping us off:However, our own US Congress voted themselves a raise.
Many of you don't know that they only have to be in Congress
one time to receive a pension that is more than $15,000 per month. And most are now equal to being millionaires plus.
They do not receive Social Security on retirement because
they didn't have to pay into the system. If some of the
military people stay in for 20 years and get out as an
E-7, they may receive a pension of $1,000 per month,
and the very people who placed them in harm's way
receives a pension of $15,000 per month.
Post new comment
MoJo Comments: Send Us Your Feedback
We changed our spam software to better filter comments. Should you encounter any issues, please let us know.
