Selling Health Care
[Guest post by DRJ]
Today two Senate committees the Senate Finance Committee refused twice to include the government-run “public option” in the pending health care reform legislation. Meanwhile, another hot-button health care topic — health care mandates — has lawmakers in more than a dozen states pressing for state constitutional amendments to “outlaw a crucial element of the health care plans under discussion in Washington: the requirement that nearly everyone buy insurance or pay a penalty.”
I don’t think this will prevent Congress from passing some version of health care reform as long as Democrats control Congress. I also doubt it will stop liberals and the White House from continuing to push for both the public option and mandates.
Liberal Democrats clearly believe Americans want and need the public option and mandates but that sounds like a hard sell to me. When even blue state health care workers object to government-mandated swine flu shots, how do you successfully sell letting government run all American health care?
— DRJ
Today two Senate committees refused to include the government-run “public option” in the pending health care reform legislation.
Which “two Senate committees” are we talking about?
steve (e2af98) — 9/29/2009 @ 7:36 pmI said that wrong, didn’t I? It wasn’t 2 committees, it was one committee that voted twice. Thanks, steve.
DRJ (b008f8) — 9/29/2009 @ 7:52 pmUnfortunately, the left still associates the public option and universal coverage with actual healthcare. Pushing for one or both will cause a reaction to the supply and demand in the marketplace. If the government makes it miserable for people to practice medicine, how is the government going to force people to practice medicine? If you lose the practitioners, what does it really matter if everybody is covered? It’s free, but there’s a 13 month wait for an obstetrician. Of course, if you have the proper connections or enough money, you won’t have to stand in line.
SomeOtherSteve (bde158) — 9/29/2009 @ 7:55 pmI have a honkin’ piece on this ready to go for tomorrow, Polanski-blogging permitting. 😉
Karl (246941) — 9/29/2009 @ 8:20 pmWhat seems to be developing is a parallel system of health care. If you are a Medicare beneficiary, you will have a hard time finding an internist or GP. Soon you will have a hard time finding an orthopedist. The Democrats want to expand this and Medicaid, which has worse reimbursement rates, to include everyone. That is the public option. The result will be that there will be two systems. One will be outside the government plans with Visa or Mastercard as the equivalent of insurance. The other will have long wait times for doctors who cannot get into the other system.
Mike K (2cf494) — 9/29/2009 @ 8:22 pmI really think Sen. Reid will push the public option through reconciliation and I think the House will pass a House bill that includes same.
Then, they will come up with a compromise bill that appeases the blue dogs, while including the public option. The President will sign it. And all the left will have a brand-new day of joy because they stuck it to us all.
Because of the mandate.
Rep. Pelosi will be OK, but Reid will retire to the desert. And President Obama will consult former President Carter on the best hammer to use on those Habitat houses.
Ag80 (592691) — 9/29/2009 @ 8:23 pmKarl,
Sorry. I try to stay away from health care topics because you cover the subject so well, so consider this a teaser for your post tomorrow.
DRJ (b008f8) — 9/29/2009 @ 9:28 pmDRJ: Please don’t apologize for posting something here that doesn’t involve Polanski. Some of us actually want to talk about other things. 🙂
Ag80: As I’ve written before, the Dems will do a reconciliation if need be to get a bill.
I’m less sure they would go that route just for the sake of a public option, if they can get to 60 without one. I frankly don’t think they have the collective sack.
Tom Harkin claims they have at least 51 votes for a bill with a public option, although many folks thinks he’s just talking.
There was some movement today on one version of the public option amendment, with supporters getting a couple more Dem. votes in finance than expected.
A bill is not in doubt, and despite media-generated drama, has not been in doubt for some time. A public option, however, is still very much in the air.
If it makes you feel better, the mandate will be legally challenged almost immediately, though a few scholars who’ve talked about the issue think the challenges will be symbolic and can only delay, not stop, implementation.
I don’t think there should be a mandate without a public option.
Lastly, Dems are not trying to “stick it” to anyone. They don’t believe people should die b/c they can’t afford health insurance or that people should be driven into financial ruin to try to pay medical bills. There is no reason America has to lag behind all of the west and many other countries on this basic issue. This is to say nothing of the fact that the current trajectory is economically unsustainable — which is acknowledged by both sides.
We put a man on the moon. We can solve this.
Myron Pitts (e63c20) — 9/29/2009 @ 10:09 pmThere is no reason America has to lag behind all of the west and many other countries on this basic issue. This is to say nothing of the fact that the current trajectory is economically unsustainable — which is acknowledged by both sides.
Nice of you to acknowledge that fact. There are ways to solve it but that is of small concern to Democrats who have no idea of economics, especially this crew of academics and poseurs. Sorry for the redundancy.
Mike K (2cf494) — 9/29/2009 @ 10:15 pmPerhaps, now that I look at your comment again, you think the 1.6 trillion puts us on some sort of path to economic sustainability ? No, you couldn’t mean that. Nobody is that dumb.
Mike K (2cf494) — 9/29/2009 @ 10:17 pmMike K: I think the Republicans could offer valuable input if they had a higher goal beyond opposing every initiave of Obama. S
Orrin Hatch was on the TV today talking that “80 percent agreement” business. To me, Baucus’ committee stripping out the public option was a major concession on the Dems’ side that was met with no reciprocal action across the aisle.
Myron (e63c20) — 9/29/2009 @ 10:19 pmThat’s “initiative of Obama.” And no “S” at the end.
My fingers are doing their own thing tonight.
Myron (e63c20) — 9/29/2009 @ 10:20 pmWhat bill is $1.6 trillion? One of the House bills?
In any case, you are talking about start-up costs vs. long-term costs and viability. Two different things.
Myron (e63c20) — 9/29/2009 @ 10:22 pmJoe: I suggest we give everyone here a poison that will kill them all in 24 hours.
Bill: I refuse to go along with that idea.
Joe: Then let’s compromise. I’ll change the poison so that people die in 24 days instead.
Bill: I refuse to go along with that idea.
Joe: I conceded and tried to compromise. You have to compromise now, too.
Bill: I refuse to go along with that idea.
Myron: Joe is being reasonable and Bill is being contrary for contrary’s sake.
John Hitchcock (3fd153) — 9/29/2009 @ 10:25 pmHey! You right-wing fundamentalist idiots! Mark “Lightworker” Mohrford knows how to talk to you Neanderthals about ObamaCare.
“This is why, even when you whip out, say, a fresh article by the goodly old Washington Post — not exactly a bastion of lopsided liberalthink — one that breaks down the rather brutal truth about the real cost of health care in this country, it will likely be hurled back in your face as an obvious piece of liberal propaganda. Go ahead, try it. Or better yet, don’t.”
The WaPo article Mohrford linked to in the quoted passage was written by Ezra Klein.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 9/29/2009 @ 10:26 pmMyron – Why and when did those other western countries you are so keen on us imitating adopt socialized medicine? What might be different about the history of those countries?
daleyrocks (718861) — 9/29/2009 @ 11:03 pmJohn Hitchcock: It’s not that dire.
My belief is that a bill, even with the public option, will not be the panacea some believe, nor will it be the greatest evil to ever visit the country that others believe.
The similarity b/n the arguments against this bill and the ones made by substantially the same people against Medicare and Social Security are striking. Except the AMA is on board with this reform.
Myron (e63c20) — 9/29/2009 @ 11:10 pmDaleyrocks: Just make your point. I don’t know what you’re getting at.
I do know the U.K. started its program right after World War II on the belief that if it could ask its citizens to die for their country, it could provide them with basic health care.
Myron (e63c20) — 9/29/2009 @ 11:17 pmMyron – What was unclear about my question? When did the other countries to which you are referring adopt socialized medicine?
Why wouldn’t you be interested in the history of the implementation of a system you are advocating in other nations?
daleyrocks (718861) — 9/29/2009 @ 11:24 pmThe issue is not the issue.
kazooskibum (a4dd38) — 9/30/2009 @ 7:01 amThe issue is control.
No, you couldn’t mean that. Nobody is that dumb.
I assume this question is rhetorical.
Dmac (5ddc52) — 9/30/2009 @ 8:18 amNotice how Myron does nothing but blabber on about points which he cannot buttress with any objective sources, something I’ve asked him to come up with since…oh, since forever and a day. Not worth discussing anything of substance with – just another undergraduate prat, no question.
Dmac (5ddc52) — 9/30/2009 @ 8:21 am