I have two major reactions to the President’s speech. First, he set out, in clear, simple terms, the strongest case I’ve seen from him for the key elements of health insurance reforms, all of which are in the House and HELP Committee bills.
It was an excellent statement, made even stronger by his public putdown of all the lies and distortions of the last two months. When he threatened to call out the liars and demagogues, and recalled the fiscal irresponsibility of Bush’s wars and tax cuts, the Democrats rose to cheer, but the Republicans indicted themselves by sitting on their guilty butts. It was a self-defining moment and the nation saw it.
Second, he addressed the idea of including a viable public option as a choice on the exchange.
President Obama kept the public option alive tonight, but probably only enough to pretend it has some negotiating value with those who oppose it. He said nothing he hasn’t said before, and the fact that he still won’t nail this down will only feed the impression by progressives that they’re being played.
Here are the portions of Obama’s speech relevant to the public option:
Now, I have no interest in putting insurance companies out of business. They provide a legitimate service, and employ a lot of our friends and neighbors. I just want to hold them accountable. The insurance reforms that I’ve already mentioned would do just that. But an additional step we can take to keep insurance companies honest is by making a not-for-profit public option available in the insurance exchange. Let me be clear – it would only be an option for those who don’t have insurance. No one would be forced to choose it, and it would not impact those of you who already have insurance. In fact, based on Congressional Budget Office estimates, we believe that less than 5% of Americans would sign up.
Despite all this, the insurance companies and their allies don’t like this idea. They argue that these private companies can’t fairly compete with the government. And they’d be right if taxpayers were subsidizing this public insurance option. But they won’t be. I have insisted that like any private insurance company, the public insurance option would have to be self-sufficient and rely on the premiums it collects. But by avoiding some of the overhead that gets eaten up at private companies by profits, excessive administrative costs and executive salaries, it could provide a good deal for consumers. It would also keep pressure on private insurers to keep their policies affordable and treat their customers better, the same way public colleges and universities provide additional choice and competition to students without in any way inhibiting a vibrant system of private colleges and universities.
It’s worth noting that a strong majority of Americans still favor a public insurance option of the sort I’ve proposed tonight. But its impact shouldn’t be exaggerated – by the left, the right, or the media. It is only one part of my plan, and should not be used as a handy excuse for the usual Washington ideological battles. To my progressive friends, I would remind you that for decades, the driving idea behind reform has been to end insurance company abuses and make coverage affordable for those without it. The public option is only a means to that end – and we should remain open to other ideas that accomplish our ultimate goal. And to my Republican friends, I say that rather than making wild claims about a government takeover of health care, we should work together to address any legitimate concerns you may have.
For example, some have suggested that that the public option go into effect only in those markets where insurance companies are not providing affordable policies. Others propose a co-op or another non-profit entity to administer the plan. These are all constructive ideas worth exploring. But I will not back down on the basic principle that if Americans can’t find affordable coverage, we will provide you with a choice. And I will make sure that no government bureaucrat or insurance company bureaucrat gets between you and the care that you need.
The concluding sentence — "I will not back down on the basic principle that if Americans can’t find affordable coverage, we will provide you with a choice" — is vague enough to allow a public-option-killing trigger, a state-based co-op or a severely hobbled public option with little chance of providing a meaningful alternative to a better system. Everyone will read what they want to read.
I don’t know how others will read this, but I was looking for something to show the President understood his credibility with Democrats has been badly damaged by precisely this kind of ambiguity. The fact that he continues this mode means he and those around him don’t get it or they don’t think it matters.



266 Comments




Come on, at this point, he had to commit.
And, remember, that wasn’t actually when he spoke about his plan. It was under the distortions part.
That’s pretty mild compared to the other pup’s reaction.
I’m so tired of people’s tantrums if they don’t get everything they want… Like spoiled children on Christmas who don’t get ponies… Did I hear everything I wanted to hear? No. Am I going to call for Obama to be cast into the outer depths? No…
It matters only to the extent that we are Obama’s foil against Republicans. I believe the technical term is “Sister Souljahed”.
It was another speech by someone who makes good speeches.
Oh, I know.
god how amazing – yesterday Obama was toast if he didnt strongly support a public option – now its backtracking and more excuses. Primaries in ‘10 and ‘12
as I heard it, he said he wants at least a minimialist type of PO – coverage of last resort, targeting about 5% of the country. Beyond this minimum, he declined to comment on a wider PO. He did not oppose it, but said little to give the idea hope either.
Kum-bipartisan-ya
I feel the same about the situation as I did before the speech.
WOOHOO ……someone finally mentioned pre-existing and that it might be outlawed…. OMG that is sweet
I pretty much agree with Scarecrow’s take on the speech.
I wouldn’t say cast into the outer depths– but maybe we can find someone to challenge him in the primary in 2012.
Remember when Ted Kennedy cut Jimmy Carter’s legs out from under him? Carter was in the fight of his life against Reagan and Kennedy’s primary challenge hurt him bad.
Teddy said “We’re going to put a Democrat in the White House.” He was saying that Carter wasn’t a real Democrat.
Marion called me a troll for being cynical in a different thread, but I’m starting to see its the other way around. Marion = troll
The speech isn’t the place for him to start busting bluedog skulls or even to signal he’s prepared to do so.
A public option in 2013, immediate coverage for people with pre-existing conditions … Hmm
Mmm, and look how well THAT worked out…
Marion – my big issue with tonight is…how rude the Rethugs were – everyone is going on about Wilson calling the president a liar – but I think Cantor’s texting away is just as bad.
Unreasonably optimistic, I know, but is there a possibility that the (4 year?!) interim alternative for the uninsured might be a medicare for all option that will ease the public into the concept?
There will be so many triggers around his P.O. you would be better off walking through a firing squad in effort to buy into it.
I thought Obama gave a fairly good speech, however reform opponents are not going to scale back their attacks, if anything they will up the ante, so the real question is, does Obama have the will and the skill to play political hardball? I have witnessed nothing during the past nine months to suggest he does but time will tell…
Let me be clear – it would only be an option for those who don’t have insurance
Every Wal-Mart employee in the country is probably dead drunk and crying about now….
Yes. I most certainly do. I also remember all those years of Reagan. Is that the bit of history you’re aching to relive?
At this point I would just like for Obama to be clear on where he stands. He’s way behind the curve on health care – should have started the day he took office hitting it hard and he didn’t. He left it to Baucus and Congress and there’s where we find ourselves.
Thanks for this, Scarecrow!
This is a great start to a level-headed discussion.
FWDiva
I can’t even begin to dignify that with a response. How long have you commented here? Schmuck.
Just got an email from the president. He wants me to call congress. Umm, I’ve been doing that and am not about to stop now.
Can’t type and listen at the same time so I’m late to the party, which means maybe this has been said already, but…
I am going to (temporarily) go with the glass-half-full interpretation of this: We (many of us) have been saying emphatically that a public option IS the compromise, that the left-side position is (was) single-payer. So maybe, just maybe, that was the point of the juxtaposition of “left side – like Canadian system, repubs – everyone on their own” bit. It sounds to me like a careful framing of the window, leaving the public option as the clear space in the middle.
Maybe?
So maybe the effort is working and we double down? Well, truly, I know some are already tapped out and fulltime on this, but for the rest of us… Let’s frame this OUR way: Our President has just put the public option out as the middle of the road, reasonable compromise position so let’s back it.
Does that make any sense?
Obama has always, always, always been about seduction – saying something with a lot of energy, but vague so that the listener could project upon them all their hopes. But by the time it comes around to specifics, like a woman who discovers her hot new boyfriend was really just saying whatever he needed to get over on her, then the unpleasant reality becomes clear.
The only way to deal with this, like with any person who can’t be trusted to tell the truth, is to stop talking about hopes and dreams and talk about specifics.
Actions, not speeches.
Realizing this and demanding this of Obama (and the rest of government) is our responsibility. Otherwise we’re just like the woman who doesn’t want to deal with her cheating boyfriend – co-dependent.
In other words just a normal day for Wal-Mart employees, then?
Hmmm. I missed that when I was listening/typing comments.
Must be pretty weak tea, indeed, if only 5%.
No Bill. No Way. No How. There’s no Tort Reform IN the legislation and nothing to make it permanent. Paid for by mythical cuts in waste, fraud and abuse that could be done without legislation. Give me a break.
There’s a big difference between not getting SOMETHING you want, and not getting ANYTHING you want. What I, and a lot of progressives want is UNIVERSAL SINGLE PAYER HEALTH CARE, but we were all supposed to stay on board with Obama even as he jettisoned that option BEFORE NEGOTIATIONS BEGAN. Now Obama is positioning to jettison “the public option,” but we’re “spoiled children who don’t get ponies” if we raise our voices to object. So in other words, we’re all supposed to sit down and shut up and do what those in authority decided is best for us, even if it’s not what they said they were going to do?
Sounds pretty authoritarian to me.
Here’s the president’s “plan” :
As far as the Obama and this plan goes, I think this sums up my feelings about it pretty well.
to be fair, I didn’t hear much bipartisanship in his speech, unless you count outreach to the insurodems as bipartisanship. The message he delivered was a centrist one, but that’s him… but in respect of rethugs, he was definitely more on the offensive.
I just wish he provided more guidance on the PO (beyond the minimalist PO he proposed.. that was a surprise, and I don’t even remotely understand how it would or even if it would work) and just HOW precisely he plans on getting underlying healthcare costs under control. By not providing guidance one way or another, I think he’s continuing to put the whole reform process in jeopardy by providing room for still more conservadem shenanigans.
He opened with costs in his speech but he didn’t follow up on it IMO. This cost control commission of his confuses me. How will it work? What kind of powers will it have? Who will run it?
You know, the sad thing is that if we’d heard this speech before all the debate about the details, I’d rate it another great, even inspiring speech, something to energize people who support reforms. I liked much of the speech, particularly when he fought back against the demagogues. All those things needed to be said.
But it comes after months of debate and lots of focus on the precise wording that we then read, perhaps too closely, as indications of intentions, and then of motives and even character. Same words, different context, makes the difference.
Point taken. And I remember how livid I was at Ralph for giving the election to Dumbya. But there’s a point where I just have to say enough is enough. I agree with eCAHNomics– I’ve had it with voting for the lesser of two evils.
Shhh! You’re not supposed to notice!
This description is exponentially weaker than even the pathetically weak PO in HR 3200. Under 3200, the PO is available to exchange-eligible individuals, regardless of whether they currently have insurance under a small business’s group plan or their own privately purchased plan. So if Obama is serious about his statement, he’s calling for an even greater constriction of the exchange-eligible population.
And his description totally demolishes the already disingenuous constructions about “choice” promulgated most shamefully by the likes of Howard Dean. If words have meaning, then there’s no more “you can keep what you have or choose the PO”; you can only choose the PO if you don’t “have.”
I would go with “don’t think it matters” being a cynic, and all. Obama gave another nice speech. Yawn. We are no better off than we were a week ago. Baucus will rule. Bipartisanship will be the raison d’etre for passing a crappy, watered-down do-nothing bill that gives a profit windfall to the insurance companies, and average Americans will continue to die, be bankrupted, and suffer, only with the added bonus of having mandatory high premiums and/or tax penalties while remaining unable to pay their bills.
We have failed again.
As to the Rahm/Obama assumption that democrats will support them anyway in the next election, well, not this one. And those nasty Republicans will do everything in their warped power to destroy Obama and he won’t have his troops guarding his flank. Should be an interesting 3 1/2 years.
Marion is a long-time FDL friend, and always welcome here.
tri**er, the ‘t’ word.
It’s all over. This was his last chance to get tough, because John Roberts is about to give the insurance industry the legal right to purchase entire state legislatures, so, with a certified wimp in the Oval Office, it’s all over.
AL-buh-tross!!
Long time, no see, buddy.
FWDiva
(((Marion)))
I don’t think it was as bad as some are trying to make it out to be. The Public Option is still on the table. The House will pass a bill with the Public Option. Something (anything) will come out of the Senate and then the bill will go to conference.
The Democrats will come out of conference committee with a bill that has to be passed with 51 votes in the Senate (reconciliation) and that bill either will or will not include the Public Option.
Whether it gets included is mainly up to supporters of the option to continue to make our case. Yes, it’s gone on longer than we hoped it would, but that is the nature of the beast. What we do know is that we cannot rely on OfA which is basically taking orders from the White House.
Now is the time for backers of the public option to step up, not stand down in a huff because we were not handed a summary judgment in our favor tonight.
Obama didn’t go to Washington to fail on healthcare reform. But, we didn’t get into this fight to settle for whatever he is willing to settle for. This is the nature of politics: activists push and pull, politicians seek common ground.
We need to keep pushing and pulling so that the common ground that is found is closer to our liking than anyone else’s.
Ding.
This must be wonderful for you. Booyah, girl!!
Roy Roger’s stuffy steed?
I’ve got no problem at all with voices raised to object. I do, however, have a problem with people who call for primary challenges and some who call for what sounds like insurrection (see a couple of threads back) without being able to propose a viable alternative. Maybe it’s just because I’m an old fart and remember back to the early 60s that makes me understand that as much as you may love his politics Dennis Kucinich ain’t the answer…
are we still beating a dead horse?
Hang in there, Marion. I always enjoy your warm breakfasts.
It’s not a tantrum. It is simply the observation that Obama’s healthcare/corporate sellout plan won’t work. Don’t get mad at those of us who point this out. You should reserve your anger for Obama who is responsible for both this crap bill and the crappy political way he chose to push it.
CBO says 10%. Of course, that was with the somewhat stronger version in HR 3200, as distinguished from the mike ross version.
I’ve been doing it for almost every election I’ve ever voted in, except when I voted for Bobby Kennedy to be my Senator. And I’ll still do everything in my power, including holding my nose and voting for the lesser of two evils to keep McCain/Palin/Gingrinch et al out of power.
“He said nothing he hasn’t said before, and the fact that he still won’t nail this down will only feed the impression by progressives that they’re being played.”
Yup, because it’s pretty obvious we ARE being played.
This is not what Robert Reich said in his YouTube video. Reich said (paraphrasing) “if the public option costs too much, or doesn’t provide good service, you stay with the insurance you already have. That’s it – it’s that simple.”
Well, which is it?
LOL
Stuffing a dead horse?
I have to go with the glass half full crowd for now. My family has a tremendous amount of skin in the game as many other americans do. I am scared to death that my premiums will price my family right the fuck out of the crap healthcare that we are desperate to hold onto. Even after the speech, it’s all to vague.
Here’s an hypothesis. The medical insurance corps seem to have committed a big tactical error. They are raising rates in high double digits in anticipation of greater oversight. Denial rates are just entering the public domain as in those published for CA insurance corps in the last week, in the neighborhood of 1/3 of all claims. Josh picked up some drumbeats of sizable corp cutbacks in medical benefits. I think perhaps in a year or two, there will be a much larger public outcry against the “private” system. Perhaps nothing should be done now, awaiting the public to get behind a much better plan. If something weak is done this year, nothing else will get done for a couple more decades.
good comment. Obama IS our president. We may have to push every step of the way but that’s fairly normal in politics. We had better hope that he doesn’t fail – we have the clean energy bill coming soon and that is going to be a fight to the death. Much harder than health care – IMO
to be fair, I didn’t hear much bipartisanship in his speech
I just wish he provided more guidance on the PO
Do you see your irony now?
I think that’s a plausible interpretation. I’d add that I don’t think the public option would have received as much attention by the President, or been described as still a viable proposal tonight, if the folks here — Jane and her team, and all of you who’ve supported that effort, hadn’t made such a fuss. You’ve kept it alive when the Administration might well have wanted to trade it off much sooner. So who knows what’s possible?
BTW, I turned to Faux News for a minute, caught Karl Rove saying that CBO claims big cost increase after 10 years, Obama is misleading by saying it’s paid for…
Deficits!! Argh, we can’t afford this!
Look for the Republicans to jump on this – after 10 years costs aren’t paid.
Was typing my #57 when your #39 appeared. This seems to be imortant, no?
No, CBO says less than 5% of the under 65 demo. It’s roughly ten million people by 2019.
Well, if memory serves, Trigger IS dead and he IS stuffed and he’s in residence at the museum in Branson.
Neo-cons want,”tort reform” because anyone can sue anyone over anything. There are effective ways to reduce medical malpractice. Poor people, I mean low net worth individuals can sue the rich, which may bother you. But the corporations only want the rich to be able to bring lawsuits.
I think Reich is describing the concept, in which the public option might eventually be open to many more who have insurance now; Obama is describing, more or less, the limited version in the actual bills.
As I noted, only if words have meaning. ;-)
yep
And invoking Teddy at the end – for that, he should truly bow his head in shame.
that horse don’t hunt…
DING!
Or a dead pony?
Here’s the somewhat OT story I referred to in a prior thread. I was touristing with a colleague in advance of a joint business trip. We were on the ferry to Drottnigholm, the Swedish Versailles outside of Stockholm. I’d been there before so I was telling him of the wonders he was about to see. We rounded the bend and the boat house came into view. Jeff said he’d be satisfied with just that. I responded that since he wasn’t gonna get that, he should not be satisfied with less than the full palace and estate, and plenty of money to improve it. If you wish fruitlessly, then there is no point in stopping with half measures.
Sorry, not “more or less” — most definitely less.
I would really hate to have you as an enemy.:)
Exactly – go public option..or go home.
My point exactly. Oh, no, wait. This was your point. God, I always get us mixed up.
They need to sit down and STFU. Like those stupid fuckers paid for the war, and the tax cuts. This plan costs LESS than the tax cuts. /End rant.
What is this 5% nonsense. I smell some kind of rat here. Is this a
means based option. I and everyone I talk to say they are bailing on their Blue Cross/Blue Shield etc and taking the public option if it is
available. This does not sound good to me.
I think the Democrats or someone should pay for a good survey of the states of the hold out Dems in the Senate on the PO. They should get on the bandwagon with the results and get in the news daily that the public supports the PO.
They should do the same in Maine and a couple of other states, plus in the districts of the loudest Blue Dogs in the House, like the asshole, Mike Ross.
Well, of course, all of this health care luxury stuff is awfully hard to pay for, what with being constantly at war for 8 years… Just sayin’… [and snarling]
Meaning you think there’s some merit in my hypothesis?
I agree. Have you noticed what the credit card companies have been up to lately? Giving them a bunch of time before the bill of weak-tea rights kicks in has given them all the time they need to absolutely maximize profits, raise rates to unheard of heights, tack on every kind of fee and penalty, so that by the time the “controls” kick in many people will be bankrupted and they will be sitting pretty on massive profits and hoping to ride it out until Republicans and conserva-dems get rid of all the controls again or create some loopholes that will allow them to continue gouging American citizens to the end of time. I see this health care reform following the same path. Bankrupted, sick, homeless, jobless Americans are the death of the American middle class.
I concur. There’s something very suspicious about the 5%.
There is some overlap in some of the proposals, in which those who have insurance can get access to the exchange if the insurance they have exceeds some percentage of their income. So eligibility can be somewhat larger than the flat statement “only the uninsured” would suggest. But it’s not unlimited.
FDR was supposedly remark to some folks wanting something and that he agreed with them but they would have to make him do it.
Tonight, sorry as it was, is not the end. Congress still writes the laws.
You guys need to correct your email you just sent out about Obama’s speech. Near the bottom you state:
P.S. If you don’t think it’s imperative to pass a public option, consider this: without a public option, individuals without health insurance will be fined $3800 for not paying up to the insurance companies. If that won’t be an issue in 2010, nothing will.
That $3800 is supposed to apply to a family, not individuals. I believe the proposed penalty for individuals is $750. Please correct this information asap, before the crazies start accusing you of fear-mongering.
Either way, how despicable. Forced Insurance under penalty of law. Nice work, douchebags.
And, point of fact, no one else can possibly afford to. My legal expenses for a comparatively minor family issue are absolutely beyond the pale. Of course, the Personal Injury attorneys generally only collect if they win. But if they win . . . oh, never mind. I want a pony.
I and everyone I talk to say they are bailing on their Blue Cross/Blue Shield etc and taking the public option if it is available.
My understanding is that anyone who *has* insurance, no matter how crappy, is stuck with it, and not eligible for the PO.
WaPo ran this story and it seems Barack did this whole healthcare show before. Who knew?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..9090801345
And it seems his “success” in Illinois is about equal to what we would expect nationally.
Yep. Good analogy. Weak tea is just another way of corps to rip off the public while the ripping is good.
Yeah, Kuccinich is just too much for delicate American sensibilities.
In case anyone’s reading, Obama’s speech (and the position of government in general) shows how the whole of public thinking is totally backwards about what the country needs and how to get it.
First, there’s the confusion of “insurance” with “care.” People don’t need health insurance, what they need is health care. They’re not the same. Insurance is simply one possible path to an outcome, while health is the outcome we want. Saying insurance it what’s important is like saying it doesn’t matter where we go, we need to be on a certain highway.
What people need is health care, and even more importantly health.
Second, the whole “we’ll depend on our trusted free market principles” is exactly wrong. The “free” market (heh) is all about self-interest. Care is about the other person. So we’re trying to solve this problem with an attitude of “I’m willing to ‘care’ about you, but first…what’s in it for me?”
Lastly, all this “Let’s do it for Teddy” and “we came here to shape the future” and “we will not accept the status quo” is the essence of blind narcissism. The statement ought to be “Let’s do what’s best for America.” But instead the blind focus is on what happens inside the club, what matters to them, what they want to do (even if that’s something ostensibly altrustic).
It’s a consciousness problem, the sociopathology of the previous administration in a new guise. There isn’t the ability to feel one’s impact on the other, or to even see there’s an other at all.
That’s doesn’t mean we as a society won’t ever develop empathy and care for each other. Just that using what we allow to be our government as the measure, we’re not very close. I hope that people will eventually watch all this and realize that the people we’ve sent to Washington will never be able to change our society, any more than a person we toss into a hole can be the person to pull them out.
We’re the ones who have to change. Our “leaders” will then follow us.
Welcome to the reality-based distinction between descriptions of the public option promulgated by its boosters and the actual public option as described in the bills (not to mention the even more drastic hobbling of the option if Obama’s words are to be believed–see my comments upstream).
Marion you are alright with me!
Meaning I think there is indeed merit, and meaning I think you are extremely knowledgeable, marvelously subtle, and would be a very bad person to piss off.
(mangled syntax, I know)
(((eCAHN)))
Your hypothesis requires that elected officials care what the people think. They will still be corp tools in two years, or five, or ten…
Commit, as in threaten to veto? Mind if I bring out a bit of history on the last time this was attempted?
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/fo…..page2.html
* Threaten to use vetos
* Democratic Party suffers serious internal divisions over compromise
* Supporters rally but in late September are surprised by a GOP filibuster
* Reform defeated
Any lessons we can draw from this?
this is why I think there is something to be said for Rep. Fazio’s HR1583 to repeal the antitrust exemption provisions in McCarran-Ferguson. It’ll put the insurers under even more pressure, at a time when public outrage is already directed them. And they’ll raise rates even more quickly as a result, putting them under the DoJ’s lens post-repeal. They’ll drop people like flies, and in a year’s time we could dictate any bill we wanted. Not that I think such a scorched earth policy is the right thing to do, but it does bear some thought.
nightheat: knock it off. Seriously.
Marion is a long-time member of this community and does not deserve your ad hominem attack.
Your comment in the other thread referring to Obama as the worst president ever was completely out of line and she called you on it; the man hasn’t even been in office eight months, has been saddled with an economic depression and the remnants of two wars along with batting cleanup after eight years of lawlessness, and you think he’s worse than George W. Bush?
Marion was right. Knock it off.
That’s funny. The one thing I was inspired to do (and did) after hearing Obama’s speech was to sign this petition
http://kucinich.us/index.php
and make a contribution.
Howdy – heard the speech via earbud on my train commute home, and couldn’t hear it perfectly. But judging by the “choppiness” of the waters on the Lake here, there was no firm commmitment to the PO?
Sure.
Unfortunately too many people think democrats are to blame for all government debt… Deficits go up more under Republicans, but we aren’t having much luck getting people to learn that.
I was looking for something to show the President understood his credibility with Democrats has been badly damaged by precisely this kind of ambiguity. The fact that he continues this mode means he and those around him don’t get it or they don’t think it matters.
My reaction? Swing and a miss. I thought the R’s actuially had a chance to give an effective response. I mean, bullshit. But they could do it effectively. Somewhat. So they get a birther who 1 minute in says “Americans want to start all over.” Jeez. I don’t tthink they’ll be going to Louisiana for their rebuttal guys any more
I think they have to offer the PO just like another insurance company, if it is going to be framed as “competition.” It is supposed to be an option.
The whole problem with the current U.S. medical system (I’d appeal to all to use medical instead of health, since the medical system delivers treatment for problems, which are only a part of the issue of health) is in the “private” part. The govt parts (Medicare, Medicaid, VA) are not as good as in other developed economies, but they are much better than the U.S. private part.
Thx.
I may be the only one here to think so (who isn’t a troll), but I have said and I will continue to stay that I strongly support the individual mandate. I actually do believe that it is critical to the success of any cost containment mechanism, and it ideally needs to be combined with a strong public option.
Seemed to me like he officially threw PO under the bus (again).
Man the lifeboats! We all gonna die!
Part of my hypothesis is that there is a level of public outrage that could overcome the lure of corp campaign donations. We’re not there yet but it could happen.
In the House Bill, access to the exchange, and hence to the public option, is limited to those who are uninsured, self-insured, or with very small business (few employees or small payroll). That’s how it starts in 2013. In 2014, the eligibility expands slightly to somewhat larger employers. In 2015, expansion to more/larger employers is at the discretion of the Sec. of HHS. So it could still be limited a little, a lot or opened up. That’s a battle for 2014-15. Also, there are provisions in the various bills that say even if your employer offers insurance, you can say “no” and get access to the exchange if you can show that the cheapest plan offered by your employer is too expensive, as defined by a percentage of your income. In Baucus’ plan, that’s about 13%; in other bills, that percentage is lower.
So in theory, how large the public option could be depends on which year you mean and what you assume about whether/how fast the eligibility rules are expanded in future years.
Axelrod, Boxer, and Barney Frank to be on Maddow.
Hmmm. Grrr.
That’s not what I’m talking about at all. Under 3200, if you’re self-employed, or employed by a suitably small business, you are exchange eligible (and so PO-eligible), regardless of whether you’re currently carrying insurance. Obama said tonight that you’d only be PO-eligible if you’re uninsured. That’s a tremendous walk-back, unless he misspoke.
It’s just the way it is, unfortunately. Not one of my kids saw the presidnet’s speech yesterday? Totally disrespectful. I asked one principal why not:
Mr. Beerfart,
Mrs. Teacher shared your concerns regarding your future radical son not being able to view President Obama’s speech. Unfortunately, the President’s speech generated many parental concerns throughout Dipshit County and the country, as did President George H. Bush’s speech in 1991.
Our district’s policy on the speech was for individual principals to make the viewing decision for their school. Personally, I felt the speech had generated too much political controversy, on both sides. Therefore, I made the decision to not have our children be placed in the middle of adult politics. It continues the sad commentary on partisan politics in our nation. The 1991 speech resulted in a congressional investigation by the opposing political party.
The school’s website has a link to the speech. This link will provide you will the opportunity to view the speech with your future radical son and discuss the importance of the President’s message. Again, thank you for your input.
I’m trying to recall when if ever I have witnessed such a level of outrage. By the late ’60s opposition to the war in Vietnam was pretty strong but it went on and on and on… Boom times for defense contractors, though.
thanks for the clarity. I still don’t understand how the cost containment is supposed to work in all this.
You don’t understand the economic structure of the medical industry. All the economic power lies with the provider, not the customer, owing to the knowledge gap between buyer and seller. Plus, the customer is vulnerable (sick), making him even more vulnerable. Individuals have no ability to overcome such an economic disadvantage. It takes group action, like the buying power of large corps, who are rapidly dropping coverage, or the govt, to counter such a structural problem. Under those circumstances, mandating individual coverage is just transferring income from consumers to medical providers, with no ability to control costs, insure quality, etc.
I want to take a moment to thank the behind the scenes technical folks who kept the servers humming during the live blogging. Tons of comments flying very quickly and I didn’t see a single hiccup on a page load.
Thanks!
That public pressure didn’t end that damned war.
I absolutely agree.
Axelrod is telling Rachel Obama will fight for the public option.
I just got an e-mail from Jane with a link to a tool for sending letters to the editors of local papers. It was really easy. I hope all the firepups use it right away.
Something we can agree on 100%. They did a great job.
Funny, I don’t see much outrage yet among the general public. Here, that’s a different story, but as I remember recent stats, the general public is still reasonably statisfied with their coverage. (Remember most people don’t get sick within a period of time.) But let the burden get a lot greater, and they will. General theory is that it takes a crisis to generate change (though not necessarily productive change, to be sure). I’ve been harping on this issue since 1991, and patiently watching how the realization of what I saw so many years ago works itself into the body politic. We’re not there yet.
If anything, escalation of the war paralleled rising opposition at home.
Yeah, to the wonderful unacknowledged heroes of FDL!!!
Scarecrow’s observation that “Everyone will read what they want to read” is pretty accurate.
Depending on one’s attitude and understanding, one may have heard or read stronger support for the public option, while others hear prevaricating and collapse. And still others may have heard careful parsing designed to evade certain and specific traps.
The one factor most of us have not discussed has been the amount of money actually on the table, and how corporations will respond when they are cornered and threatened (go to OpenSecrets.org and look at how much money the insurance industry spends on campaign contributions – that’s just expendable chump change to them). They’ve already shown they are willing to spend money on riling up some of the very worst elements in our society, as the hostility of teabaggers at townhalls has shown — and they are likely to do worse.
Personally, with that kind of obvious threat, I wouldn’t expect the first African American president to do anything but tread carefully to achieve goals.
A par-for-the-Obama-course commitment to an anemic PO.
Thanks.
Maybe Obama is soft pedaling his support for the public option in the name of bipartisanship.
Wilson apology statement posted at CNN:
Heh.
I think that Obama after tonight’s speech will soldify the loss of support he has had up to this point. I don’t see him recovering it. Indeed I don’t see him even trying to recover it.
I used to think that when the economy hits the wall in 2011 that worsening social and economic conditions would force the issue, but I think the Republicans and Democrats are simply too far gone, too incompetent to address, let alone resolve any problem that reform won’t happen even then. 2012 is looking more and more like the year of the populist Presidential candidate. The problem is that a populist can either restore balance or disrupt it even further.
ROFLMAO.
Axelrod is telling Rachel Obama will fight for the public option.
and Rachel is hitting right back with questions that Axelrod can’t/won’t answer.
At least he acknowledged his “friends on the Left” while in the act of dismissing them.
Shun him.
He also said that it may have a trigger.
I heard him say over and over that if you already have insurance you can keep it. What I didn’t hear him say and what I am most afraid of is how much more is that crappy insurance going to cost me.
Rachel asks axelrod if Obama is going to get in the trenches… Axelrod is saying he’ll be enlisting the American people on the hustings. Getting everything out of committee means we’ll see action on floors of both houses.
Boxer next.
Axelrod: “I don’t know if it will have triggers or not.”
Axelrod on trigger: “We’ll see.”
Hope that helps.
Boxer up next.
He RIPPED Rethugs, he sold out to corps.
End of story.
I’m STILL not sure how much WE THE PEOPLE benefit.
THAT will come with the final bill.
And then, I think folks will be REALLY pissed off.
But, time will tell as to the reality of all this.
Once again, we are swerved to waiting to rebel.
Interesting.
FWIW, some commentator on NPR was evaluating the speech in terms of “who looked the happiest afterwards” – the Blue Dogs.
I’d love to know who got hold of him and told him to get that on the record, and muy pronto.
Not good enough. If the dems were civil enough to hold their tongues durring the bush babble sessions this idiot could have done the same. He should resign.
oh I get it, believe me You and I just disagree on relative priorities. Other mechanisms must be there to prevent that income transfer from occurring or at least limit its adverse effects… which is why I back the strong PO and why I want to learn more about the president’s ideas for his cost control commission. But you still need sanctions to prevent moral hazard in individual decision making – the 25 year old who opts not to have insurance and then makes the rest of us pay for him when he has to go to the emergency room (and believe me, people like this exist in abundance). This isn’t just about equity. It’s about making the math work, and, unfortunately, people will get hurt regardless. I wish it didn’t have to be that way, but I don’t see a way around that. As I outlined before, the new health economics has to have the following components:
- government price-setting (whether through a strong PO or otherwise)
- complete portability, including between public and private
- no recissions or refusals to cover on the part of ANY industry participant, public or private
- universal mandate with strong (including possibly criminal) sanctions for employer non-compliance and strong fiscal penalties for consumer non-compliance
Any plan without all of these elements will eventually fail as underlying costs continue to rise uncontrolled.
does Lake Wobegon have a public option?
In order for this to happen, the MSM needs to be reformed. Otherwise, they will be pushing the ‘populist’ option. Think about the townhouses alone as an example – How just a few people with many cameras covering them were able to turn health care reform into ‘The Summer of Discontent’
At least he acknowledged his “friends on the Left” while in the act of dismissing them.
shouldn’t we have at least gotten dinner first?
Populist candidate is???? As I typed in 127, I’ve been watching the problem and the public and political and corp response since 1991. I don’t see any resolution yet, but think that if it gets a lot worse, there might be one. And, as a professional forecaster, I always considered it part of my job to identify the agent of change. Otherwise, forecast that things will continue on the same path.
Yeah, we really did well with THAT one, huh,
I appreciate challenging Obama, but losing Carter for Reagan was the biggest fuck up since getting Bush’s.
Not the best analogy I’d use to make a case for challenging Obama. Not fucking by far.
Geebuz . . . . . *rollseyes*
You are correct. He danced around every question she asked about the public option. What he did speaks volumes.
Yeah, even in the statement he’s still flinging shit at Obama on something where it is so easy to see that Wilson is the one lying.
That part I heard very clearly.
I was also able to hear pretty clearly that he said also the word “lies” as well as distortions. I heard dome punches about demogogery. BUt it was maddening to be commuting and trying to listen to NPR’s (the least objectionable radio source, believe me) in Denver on my way home.
I’ll have to find video and see the whole thing I suppose.
Michael Duvall, perhaps.
Marc Antony: “and Brutus is an honorable man . . .” ??
KMA, she was right.
Yer killin me.
Get another blog to haunt.
From Marcy’s twitter stream there was a reference to McCain saying he’d better apologize fast.
PLEASE everyone email your own Reps telling them you want them to censure Wilson for his disrespectful outburst during the President’s speech.
Classic.
Apology as Policy.
That’s quintessential Republicanism.
Duvall, the dirtbag who likes to screw and spank lobbyists for money, apologized today, too.
Absolutely classic.
I was glad to learn it was comparatively minor. Hopefully they can take steps to reduce his risk.
THANK you. Spot effin on, hoss.
Harkin will head HELP committee.
How does mandating individuals paying for their own medical insurance contribute to achieving the outcomes you describe?
Not until he gets a good thrashing on the floor of the House.
I dunno, don’t we need a bipartisan consensus first?
Gosh, I get yelled at for simply agreeing with Scarecrow. Glad to be of service.
Boxer is cheerleading. She forgot to bring he pom poms.
Has anybody run the numbers on the Senate recently?
How much of the parsing we’re seeing is because we’ve got a couple of asshole Dems who have already refused to vote on any bill with a public option — like Joey “Short Ride” Lieberman?
Isn’t this the big part of the problem here, that we haven’t managed to get these DINOs under control?
He also resigned. scum that he is
Most of the cost containment is focused on Medicare/Medicaid. There are proposals to change the incentives doctors/hospitals have to provide too much and but not quality — as in too many tests when fewer are warranted, too expensive tests/procedures when less expensive one with equal effectiveness are available. There would be pilot programs to test these ideas, because no one is certain what will work.
But to reach the rest of the health sector, you have to affect how doctors/hospitals treat people who aren’t eligible for Medicare/Medicaid. so the question is whether you can use the insurance handle to influence the incentives these providers have to lowering costs — and that’s even more uncertain. It’s possible a strong public option could influence the providers linked to it, and provice incentives for those provider networks that found ways to lower costs, and if that influence worked, then private insurers might be induced to follow suit to stay competitive. But it’s an untested theory and we — or I — don’t know what will work. I think this is the hardest problem to solve.
wow…. if you need a momma bear to poke someone just let me know!
to let you….. I am on long term disability both from SSDI and employer based until 11/20…… then will be making less than $1900 income, only insurance will be cobra of my employer plan and will NOT qualify for Medicare for another 18 months……
AND I found out why there is a wait…… people that were younger than 50 or so approved for ssdi were too young and really don’t’ medical care.
That’ll teach ya. No good can come from agreeing with people.:-P
Obama sold us out. If I get sick, I’m gonna die. A lot of people are going to die.
I want to leave the US so badly, yet, sadly, my skillset won’t gain me entry to another nation and be able to work.
America is finished. The corporatists have won the final battle.
I hope I get sick, so I can die.
I don’t think so. I finally realized earlier today that the real reason for tackling health insurance reform early in the first term and postponing the effective date until after the 2012 election, is he intended to sell-out to Big PhRMA and the insurance companies, get a crappy bill through Congress, declare victory, and hope everyone will forget about how bad it is before the 2012 election. When people realize how bad it is around mid 2013, midterms will be over a year away and the next national election won’t be until 2016.
GOAL: Minimize blowback.
I think this is what is meant by three dimensional chess and we’re finally realizing that we were the opponent rather than the Republicans and corporations.
I’m pretty sure that’s going to happen either way. Bet there won’t be a puke standing up to rebuke him though.
Why would you use an ages old white man’s phobia about black men doing white girls to discuss what we saw tonight?
Cuz that’s what you inferred, with all yer code words and such.
Who are you? What’s yer point?
You’ve failed on all counts to make a point.
But your analogy tells your story.
Yer sick.
I didn’t say veto threat. I said an outright commitment to the principle of public health insurance as an option. he didn’t do that tonight. Indeed, he made the case for why progressives shouldn’t let it stop insurance reform.
thanks.
He can afford it. But let it be known he is a diehard Dem. In 2004, he traveled all over the state, doing fundraisers for state candidates. He charged nothing for his time. Arrived early, left late, schmoozed with the folks and then made generous donations to the candidates afterwards. I had the great good fortune to squire him around (like GK needs squiring) an event in my community. He is being treated at Mayo Clinic. Hmmm. Where have I heard of that place before?!
Here you go:
*lol* *lol* *lol*
Primary him with Hillary — who would have won by 12% in 2008 compared to Obama’s 7%.
And who was strong on several public options and doesn’t back down.
Wow, I really do believe we’re screwed after watching Axlerod and Boxer.
He also resigned.
That is actually a very insightful formulation. We don’t know who a populist candidate might be. He or she will capitalize on a widespread sense of injustice and both express and exploit public anger and despair. This can be done to achieve constructive ends but it is a hell of a lot easier if they are destructive. If in 2011 or before we get fullblown depression. We could well enter a pre-revolutionary state similar to that of the Great Depression. It has been said lots of times but Social Security and public works projects had a great deal to do with heading off revolution.
True, Duvall did resign — but did he really have any other option? He was so disgusting that his constituents would surely have tarred, feathered and run him out of town. (Don’t take this statement as a judgment on sex; he had no business sleeping with lobbyists nor talking about it in a public chamber during public business. Ugh…)
It looks like Wilson gave Obama one hell of a political gift tonight. The law of unintended consequences is still working 24/7.
Fair enuff . . . . we’ll see, won’t we?
I hope for the best, and plan for the worst . . .
Thanks for you comment. A good one.
And my bad, thanks Mz. Hamsher, BMAZ, and you, Scarecrow, and Phoenix Woman, for all the coverage on this issue from long ago thru tonight.
You folks keep me coming back for more. And so many others, too.
Again, thanks. I was ‘away’ festing for 6 daze. Nice to catch up! *G*
Not a public one.
Yes, the slipperyness of Axleshaft followed by the sickening sweet nothings of Boxer – who spoke for several minutes and managed to say nothing – gave me that same screwed feeling.
So? What’s next?
50 Americans die every day for lack of health care insurance.
What are we going to do about it?
And for crying out loud, try being pragmatic — what can we do which will get our point across?
Personally I’m for a national strike and mass protests at both offices of members of Congress and at all local television news stations. For starters.
Righto. But you can’t make a forecast on the basis of facts not in evidence (well, everyone’s free to forecast anything on any basis, but more likely to be right if you base your forecast on what is apparent, or on historic patterns). It’s the historic pattern of crisis generating change that I’m working on.
What is your skillset? (Asking from New Zealand)
Hahahahahahahah…………..
I tried to answer that above – without removal of moral hazard risk linked to individuals intentionally opting out, the public will have to bear the full cost of those individuals getting sick, when they show up for care anyway. Or, more importantly, when the public plan has to pick up their coverage at a later date (since individuals cannot, thank goodness, in the new system be turned away for existing conditions) after they get sick and sign up when they do. Basically, nothing will prevent someone from saving money by intentionally not insuring themselves until they either become sick or become at risk of getting sick – then they buy in, effectively forcing the system to bear the cost of their illness without them having had to pay premiums into that system for years running, actuarially speaking. This is a recipe for disaster for any system – even Medicare. The fine will decrease the incidence of such moral hazard behavior.
From what I have read he has been telling these stories to lots of people for quite a long time and that they were very uncomfortable with it. Why didn’t the Rs try to stop him? They should have known that it was going to surface at some point.
There’s a recession on, haven’t you heard?
Blub, the committee’s coming up to bring Senate and House together is where the shit’s gonna get done.
All this pre committee has been kabuki, to pressure the committee process.
It took me a few good reads over the past year about that, from FDL’ers and more to GET it.
Following the kabuki as told by FDL has been enlightening.
Knowin the committee is comin, is frightening.
My question is: “What do we do about the committee process?”
I’ve not heard DINK about that, and it’s the whole ballgame ending.
Anyone?
(duplicated in #199 above)
A Boxer staffer had an inane post up at the Seminal earlier today:
http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/7958
My favorite line in it was:
It explains perfectly why Democrats are so screwed up.
Point, set, and match.
Nicely sturck G-
Campaign financing, soon to be sunk fully.
Spot on.
Bet you one of two things already happened with Duvall: he was told to knock it off or at least be more discreet, or he is part of the network of C-Streeters who think they are above it all because God has smiled on them.
If he’s the latter, there’s probably more dirt there somewhere, but somebody has been batting cleanup for him.
If it’s the former, well, they left him to hang himself. The responses of other Repubs in his area suggest this is the case, although they are doing a pissy job of salvaging their own brand.
Me too!
Very good.
Good night all.
so that we means that, wrt dinner first, we’re buying?
You are right of course but I still think that the economy, and the way it is hitting the skids, and is preparing for a mammoth splat, is the great imponderable. The whole insurance debate is taking place as if the current state of the economy was only marginally pertinent. My forecast is that it will render most or all of the current debate irrelevant before all is said and done.
OK. I missed that. So what % of the costs is that? I have a hard time believing that 20-somethings showing up in emergency rooms is a large part of the problem . Getting them to pay for medical coverage they won’t use is just and income transfer from the young to others. And the young are not highly likely to be able to afford it.
Since when is an unfair mandate to buy crappy insurance about elimination of moral hazard?
Hear, hear!
Bravi, backstage crew!
FWDiva
WTF? You’re letting your own unconscious racism show there, pal.
Nothing in anything I said had anything to do with race. The fact that that’s what *you* see tells us – and you – about *you*.
Damn, Mike.
This is one of the greatest comments in all the years.
Man that was well typed, said, and sent.
Really, REALLY, like it.
Spot on.
Are you new here, or am I just memory deficient?
Thanks for your comment. Beautiful.
We wait. Pitchforks sharpened, torches ready to light.
But we wait, yet, a bit more.
Hard, and frustrating. Yeah.
But we wait.
Hella post, Mike, thanks again.
The other part of forecasting is timing. I once calculated that the gold bugs of the 1920s turned out to be right if they had bought gold then and sold it at the peak of gold prices in the 1980s (or whenever that one was), i.e., they would have outperformed other investments if they had done that. But what kind of a forecast was that, if you had to wait 50 or 60 years to be proved right? Useless from a practical POV. So one key is to wait until there is an initial sign that the “inevitable” outcome is actually on the cusp.
Go for it, take the action you feel is necessary.
Dunno,
Dem honchos on KO and Rachel are really, really happy with it…
FWDiva
I agree with you. Seduction is a traditional pol ploy, regardless of race.
My 20 year old only has health insurance because she is a full time student which allows my husband to keep her on our insurance. She also works full time, the money she makes would NOT be enough to afford a mandated plan just for her. This part is bullshit on a grand scale. How will she pay for her insurance and her student loans? She is going to be drowning in debt before she ever gets started in life.
Yep.
*G*
but therein lies the whole problem. At the end of the day here, IMO, there is ONLY one real problem – runaway costs. Everything else, including the large and increasing numbers of uninsured or insured who are getting dropped, who cannot afford to pay for care even insured, etc., arises from the structural problems in the healthcare industry’s cost structure – that we pay twice or three times as much for the same level and quality of service any other OECD citizen gets. Rapacious insurers contribute to this problem but they are not the only source of it.. they’re even the major source of it – every overpaid care provider and pharmacorp and every wasteful element in the wider healthcare supply chain is to blame for an entire industry that probably functions at well below its own production-possibility curve. And I don’t buy the argument that this structural inefficiency is the price of American innovation, because most studies suggest that 1/3rd to 1/2 of ALL industry revenues go to non-productive dead loss.
The president said as much in the beginning of his speech, but then he offered NO solutions to addressing this problem. Without solving this problem, adding people to the insurance rolls or preventing insurers from dropping people, etc., etc either just make people feel better and more secure (falsely) or just buys time. Even single payer would just buy time, since underlying service costs under Medicare pretty much track the private system’s runaway costs in terms of annual percentage growth (albeit with the benefit of the spread from Medicare’s much more efficient insurance administrative costs). Eventually, in any case, the system fails. I’m all for greater equity and social welfare and justice and all that other stuff y’all say you want.. at least as much as the next Dem, but none of it matters unless someone gets runaway healthcare costs under control.
“That ain’t no part of nuttin.”
-BMonroe
Right now watching for signs of coordination. There’s a lot of back channel chatter going on right now between progressives across the blogosphere, hoping we’re going to see more shoe leather ponied up and put to use in the immediate future.
I’m personally still working on Jane’s call for local party folks to demand the public option. Will be at a local party meeting tomorrow night and hope to get a resolution passed which goes to state party and congressional delegation. That will be 3 of 4 notches in my belt.
My 28 year old son has no medical insurance and is highly unlikely to need it. Family genes are such that he would be paying into a black hole. Other than routine dental care and ONE, and only ONE, medical treatment of approximately a hundred dollars, in the last decade, he has required NO medical care. Now all young men of his age don’t have his great genes (at least for sickness) but the population his age in general don’t consume a lot of medical services. So if they pay the average rate, they are subsidizing others. Is that fair? Wouldn’t it be better if the rich were the ones to bear that burden? Of dearie me, how uncapitalisitic that would be.
about 12-17% of underlying healthcare system costs, but that’s NOT the scenario I’m concerned about. It’s the case I tried to outline in my reply in #199 which presents the real moral hazard risk to a system with true portability and open enrollment regardless of pre-existing conditions or past behavior.. not the emergency room scenario. And its not just the twentysomething. It’ll come to be the behavior of choice for any rational economic actor who isn’t an idealistic liberal, an ethical humanist or a guy any religious injunction to be completely honest and ethical with his or her behavior: don’t pay premiums until you need the care. The fine is absolutely necessary to prevent this behavior from happening in any scenario where true portabilty/no-denial is mandated – regardless of whether that system is public or private in a nature. This applies even to single payer systems like Medicare.
On the subject of terminology, I use “health” very intentionally: because that’s the ultimate goal. It sounds like you may hear “health” as simply a physical thing, instead of the largest possible measure of well-being.
Medicine only exists to promote health. It’s simply a means (and not the only one) to that end. And so, since I believe it’s important we always stay focused on our goals, rather than confuse any particular path to a goal with the goal itself, I choose to use the word “health.”
I support what I believe is your goal of looking at things from larger perspectives (as well as doing things from a very specific perspective, to balance insight with action).
Runaway costs is the whole problem. I am not familiar with how other developed economies handle that, but guess that it is price controls. As an economist, price controls would normally be anathema. But having following the problem for so long, I see no other solution. Not taxing people who can’t afford it.
and probably wrote it for him.
amen.
The much much larger moral hazard is on the part of medical insurers. Making healthy people subsidize them will contribute to the problem, not the solution.
Could not agree more.
no.. even the rich shouldn’t be forced to bear the moral hazard cost of the less than ethical or socially responsible.
But health is much more a function of genes and lifestyle than medical care. To attribute “health” to the medical industry gives them more political power than they deserve.
See my 231.
There we differ. Take the housing bubble. It was easy to see years in advance of its bursting. Action in 2005 would have gone a long way to mitigating its consequences. As it was, nothing was done. Now that the bubble would burst was a certainty. But when it would burst was more difficult to predict. That depended a lot on crowd psychology, greed, and the supply of suckers. If I were doing long term analysis, I would say anytime after mid-2006. If I was looking mid-term, I would have said that anytime from early 2007 onwards the bubble was showing signs of wear. But it was only with the problems with the Bear Stearns associated funds in July that the clock really started ticking. But even so, it might have been up to 3-4 months out for a definitive event. As it was that event took place on August 9, 2007 with the freeezing of the BNP Paribas funds.
So we can say, if current trends are not changed, for example, we will go into depression in 2011. The fundamentals are already almost there. Only the trillions injected into the financial system are masking this by pumping up the stock market, and along with it equity prices and commodities like oil. But at some point the Treasury and Fed are either going to decided or be forced to retrace and that will expose just how bad the economy really is. And all we will have to fix it are the same clowns we have now: Obama, Geithner, Summers, and Bernanke.
Obama and the Democrats have been engaged in a happy talk campaign on the economy for months, but they have done nothing to fix the fundamentals. Their math doesn’t begin to add up, neither do their assumptions.
Thanks.
I also think what’s important here is not to simply identify it as a political ploy, but more importantly to recognize our own role in this, our own willingness and desire to be seduced.
We could try to change the world (changing the politicians), or we can change ourselves. Since changing the world is impossible anyway, for what is the world but my projection of myself, if I want to actually change anything it’s important to know where to apply my efforts.
In this case it’s not turning Obama into less of a player, it’s our becoming unwilling to fall for it.
Since we’re talking about health care, I’ll use a health analogy: it’s like developing an immunity. The seduction shows up to *teach* us how not to fall for it. Which then leads to the beautiful acceptance that the “disease” is actually the first and most important part of the cure. The real “disease” was our unconsciousness. :-D
But the value of a forecast is to warn of a problem soon enough in advance to allow for change but not so far in advance as to make the forecaster seem like a fool. I personally experienced this inn the 2000 tech bubble. I knew exactly what was happening, but couldn’t convince anyone until on the cusp, at which point I was gone from Wall St. Perhaps we differ on what the purpose of a forecast is. My goal was to convince investors, for their financial health. Turns out that wasn’t possible unitl they could see the whites of the eyes. Pols seem to require even more evidence, i.e., they respon after the fact, which is why you need disaster before anything can get done.
Political ploys only work if there is a willing seducee.
well.. with price elasticity of demand being what is for healthcare, I think most other OECD countries (or at least those without fully socialized systems) have realized that governments must synthesize a competitive system by forcing private industry participants to play against not the market demand mechanism but rather against a public price-setting/rationing mechanism, which is what I hope the strong PO would do and why I don’t think the Medicare-for-all version of single payer won’t work. Still.. this is wishful thinking, and most likely the only way would be for our government to do things the way every other advanced economy does it – manage prices for not just insurance but for underlying services as well, either through a Canadian single-payer + public hospital/clinic network system, a Singaporean-style hybrid/tiered risk system, or a fully nationalized VA-for-all national health service. At the end of the day, I suspect that’s where we’re going to end up.
Unfortunately, to get there, we will have to face a lot of pain. We’ve let costs get too far out of control, and a rollback is necessary… and, yes, that will mean brutal cost cutting by somebody, somewhere, somehow. And the longer we fail to take decisive action, the worst this adjustment is going to be. Rethugs should take note that the failure to act now WILL mean death panels later.
I don’t think I attributed “health” to the medical industry. That’s certainly the opposite of what I believe. Can you show me where I may have done that?
Part of the problem, to me, is exactly as you stated – that medicine isn’t health.
We confuse one path back to health – medicine – with health itself. And since we’re blind to true health, we of course then have no ability to see when we are healthy, keep ourselves there, or see why we’ve moved away when we’re not.
even after no-denial is instituted? You do see what I’m concerned about don’t you? I suspect that you and I will just have to agree to disagree on the universal mandate. On this point, I think the president’s right, and I’m very happy to trade the mandate for no-denial. But those two policies must IMO go hand in hand.
The problem with that argument – where the larger moral hazard is – is that it’s just another way of standing still. Absolutely the corps are morally bankrupt and need to be reined in/demolished. But split that apart from the moral hazard of the individual actor.
Basically, health insurance is gambling. You ante up and hope you DON’T win, because winning = getting alot of $$ = you got really sick/injured. Or you opt out of the game all together, although in the real case (health care and not poker) there are big public health implications to that…) But what you CAN’T do is wait until you see your cards, realize you’re going to win big, and THEN ante up. Or, back to reality, you can’t wait until you realize you’re sick and then buy into insurance.
I know that’s a hard argument to like given what bad actors insurance companies are. I’m no more inclined to be nice or fair or anything else to them than the rest. But suppose just for the sake of argument that the other pieces are in place – subsidies for low income people, tax credits, etc to make things affordable. (And hopefully at least a PO…) Then you can’t have “no denial for pre-existing” without mandating that you buy in.
DING DING DING!
I was hoping you’d get there.
Deal with the largest moral hazard first, I say…espceially since those causing the biggest moral hazard have the most wealth.
FWDiva
Medical insurance corps will find another way around whatever restrictions are instated. Game changer required.
Ah. Shorter version of what I was trying to say – thanks!
I think there was a brief point in Obama’s speech when he mentioned how all the pieces are intertwined and the importance of handling them all together. Assuming I’m not just indulging in some wishful thinking, that was an important point that needs more hammering. You can’t have mandates without affordable quality options. You can’t have non-denial without mandates. And on and on.
But by far the biggest problem is with the corps.
Exactly.
And this is yet another way in which we the people are exactly like our government. My old saying was “people always get the government that reflects them.”
None of our politicians have any willingness (or perhaps even ability) to ask “how have I contributed to this problem? How have I caused this? How am I responsible? I’m sorry, and how may I make it up to you?”
Until we’re willing to look at our own desire to be seduced (in this case, to believe that anyone else can take care of us so we don’t have to ourselves, that if we just elect the right savior we won’t have to face the things we don’t like), we’ll keep getting politicians who fuck us over.
exactly. under any no-denial system, any rational economic actor would simply refuse to pay health insurance premiums until they think they might need healthcare imminently, unless there was a penalty for not buying in. Oh, I wouldn’t do that, because I’m a Christian and a liberal, but a lot of people would. And that’ll break the whole system. It’s not about insurance company misbehavior, which needs to be stopped and sanctioned through other mechanisms. It’s about human nature, tragically.
Not gambling. People have a good idea of whether they’ll need medical insurance. I.E., they have a good assessment of the odds. I don’t know much about gambling, but would guess that if you have a fairly accurate assessment of the odds, some other term might be applied. See my 246 for how insurers will game the system. They know much more about how to do it than individuals. Hard to devise a system to get them to stop. So cut them out.
I’m a web geek but I have no degree.
fine. So let’s work together to achieve the only solution that’ll work to both our satisfaction and avoid both insurance company abuse and individual moral hazard: – full system nationalization and no insurance at all ;-) ‘course we’d probably have to disband the Pentagon to pay for it, but that may not be a bad thing….
Which is why I suggested that we wait to do anything before the public is really pissed off. I’m going a couple of flights upstairs.
In the political sphere prediction is about accountability. Greenspan, Bernanke, and many on Wall Street and in the media hid behind the mantra of “No one could have predicted.” But that is in fact what many of us did predict. Yes, it would be great if Bush or now Obama had enacted responsible plans to address the financial crisis. Instead they decided to prop up the old crony system and mount PR campaigns about how they drew the economy back from the brink. But for myself, and I would assume many around here, we want to know the truth behind the hype. That pretty much entails that we do our own financial and economic forecasting. Reality is our barometer of how well we are doing. If I can see what is happening and will happen to the economy with my limited resoureces there is no excuse for Obama, the Republicans or the Democrats.
The bursting of the housing bubble was predictable, even down to the timing.
It came in sync with the rise in fuel prices and subsequent inflation.
You want to know when the Repubs will really feel the heat about health care reform and a public option?
If fuel prices happen to skyrocket again. One supply chain disruption and it could happen.
see my #100. The scorched earth stratagem I first suggested a couple of weeks ago here.
Well, yeah. I’m all in favor of cutting them out as well.
But regardless of the insurance approach, whether it’s well-regulated for-profits (ick) or PO (sigh) or single-payer, or… you still have the individual moral hazard. Look around at all the countries we are/could be learning from – you don’t opt out of coverage. Apart from the public health issues, it’s not how sane risk management works. In fact, in a fairly simplistic way that’s how we got ourselves into the housing/financing muck so badly – by not recognizing the risk pools we had built.
As for knowing whether you are going to need medical insurance – of course you are. Unless you engage in a multitude of high-risk activities or are just really unlucky. At least, you should HOPE you will need it, because that would imply you live to a sufficiently ripe old age that you’ve injured yourself a couple of times or developed a condition or two. The question isn’t WHETHER, it’s WHEN. And what’s not fair is to wait until WHEN, and then buy in.
Well yes and no. The housing bubble and excess speculation both took off in 2004. You can look at the year over year changes and figure the precentages. My old Bush scandals list did this as part of item 365. What happened in 2007 was that as the housing bubble began to burst speculative action in oil, but also other commodities, spiked because they were now the only game in town. Speculation eased however as credit tightened and political heat grew.
With the bailouts and the renewal of credit lines speculation has picked back up. Oil has been trading in the $70 range despite a worldwide glut and reduced economic activity. If you took these other factors into account, it should be down in the $35 range.
Marion, #4: “I’m so tired of people’s tantrums if they don’t get everything they want…”
Big winners:
- The insurance industry will clean up at taxpayer expense.
Moderate winners:
- My corporate-employee friends will have an easier time changing jobs (but not starting their own businesses.)
- The truly poor will get a bit of help with the insurance they’ll be required to purchase.
Half a loaf:
- My writer and artist friends will be required to spend scarce money on insurance at unregulated rates. Same thing for the baristas. There may actually be a health advantage to a lower income.
Maybe we’ll get a public option. Maybe. Obama’s support is pretty tepid. Probably, though, the lower middle class is going to pay for this advance. Thanks, guy. That was wasn’t the change I voted for.
Croak!
It is unjust to tax the lower middle class to enrich the insurance companies, yet that is what it seems the Democratic plan will do.
I watched the speech. I think he made a clear commitment to the public option and did now show himself open to triggers. He clearly said we can’t keep kicking this can down the road.
Meant to comment to Jane’s post. Sorry.
No mention of how he will stop the unsustainable explosion in the cost of purchasing health insurance without a public option that will force the insurance companies to lower their premium prices in order to compete. That’s the whole point. It seems like lowering the price of insurance premiums is the central issue,if he want to make health care affordable, and I didn’t hear him say anything about it.
That is what the Obama plan will do, whether this is the Democratic plan or not depends on the progressives and whether they are willing to dig in. The President gave them a crumb or two in the speech. It may be enough to further weaken their resolve to back a strong PO plan. Medicare for All is still of the table. Only very large-scale demonstrations will get it back on.
Neither did I, and with 4 years to go before the exchange is operational, there’s plenty of time for the insurance companies to raise prices entirely out of sight before they even have to compete with one another. BTW, when do themanadtes kick in? Was that “small detail” in the speech. If they kick in right away, but the exchange and whatever weak-PO, quasi-PO device that comes out is passed in the end is also not operative until 2013; there’s going to be hell for the Democrats to pay. The Rethugs will eat their lunch. I think it may be time to start a new party without the corporate taint. I’d be for Russ Feingold to run for President in 2012 if he wasn’t nutty about the “balanced budget” BS.
Take a drink every time a pundit or interviewed rep says the po is dead. lots of times.
David Brooks is totally in love with Obama now. How scary is that?
The left … far left even … elected Obama because his supposed stance was more left than Hillary re the war. And now he equates the moralists and true pragmatists fiscally (removing the bloated exploitation of corporations) with the crazed wingnuts on the right as “ideologues” and maybe the best have a few good ideas but yuck. Mr. Middleman. The middle is a strong argument in geometry, Obama, morality is living on the left right now. The citizens are constituents in name only (CINOs). The true constituency is the top 3% of the population or less, the corporations, the moneyed power brokers.
Threw out rhetoric. I did not like his using Teddy Kennedy’s name because the man does not respect Kennedy’s moral vision. He, Obama, doesn’t have one. How sad for him and us.
And corporate media, well the Weiners don’t get much air time on this. But I am going to fight for Single Payer. And keep calling the sell outs. Because it keeps me sane and honoring the sane choice.
1000 page bill ultimately, no po or an insulting trojan hores of one, and all the corporations will have their lawyers approving and rewriting it with loopholes to screw us further.
Lucy and the football he played last night. Really pissed me off one more time. He can say anything. Like he will end the war? But will he followup? 900 billion, a good deal, less than 1 trillion. Wow. how much for medicare for all. What would that be. This is an insurance bailout. They won’t say that on the tube, they are corporate media. we have to say it. corporate welfare … and it will be worse than in obama’s speech. that is his opiate always, say one thing, do what serves one politically and with cred with the fat cats.
And the biggest insult is Mr. Change candidate is now… people trust their insurance and we don’t want to upset them, even though he said earlier trusting an insurance that will probably not prove to be trustworthy when you need it is also true. And God forbid, the citizenry can’t handle serious CHANGE when that was his friggin’ campaign platform he even had the foreign countries excited. Now as they fear the us militarism with Israel’s to do list.