Is there a limit to where a bill, which is designed to help people, becomes so compromised it is better to let it die? The obvious (and therefore suspect) answer is yes. There are times when the compromises required to pass a piece of legislation are such that it is better to let the bill die than let some of its provisions become law. This is the very definition of a “Poison Pill”. Barring something like the Stupak amendment (a classic poison pill), where does a bill become too compromised by compromises to be worthwhile?
I have heard from several folks on the blogs and in the meat world that the House bill, even without Stupak, is not worth passing. Their arguments are that it is too big a give away to the insurance companies. It does not have a strong public plan, it is nowhere close to single payer or even Medicaid for all and as such, it is not worth enacting. I think these arguments come from loosing sight of what we are trying to achieve. In a fight this big, this complex it is easy to lose sight of the overall goals and get bogged down in the tactics.
This may not be your goal, but this old hound sees the goal of this round of reform as two factors; cover as everyone (or as close as we can get) and establish any kind of not-for-profit insurance company, nationally. Everything else is window dressing. Yes, it would be best if we went to Medicaid for all. Hell it would be really best if we could have a full scale single payer system. And a pony, if we are going to wish, should always wish for a pony for everyone.
The real fight we are fighting here is not what kind of health care system we should have. It is not a fight about government run versus private; it is a fight about whether all citizens should have even have health coverage. This is an issue, which is still up for grabs as far as many on the Right are concerned. If you ask a conservative what they owe their fellow citizens the nearly universal answer will be “Nothing, not a damn thing. I work for what I have, so should they”.
This is part and parcel of their world view, this rugged individualism which looks at those less fortunate (for what ever reason) as losers and slackers who can’t get with the program. The fact these people do not have health insurance because they don’t make enough money or it is not offered at their work place why then it is some kind of moral failing.
It is this issue of whether insurance and access to good health care is a privileged or a right which we have to get past if we are ever to get to single payer or any kind of national health care. Sure it is dressed up as “Socialism” or “Communism” or even “Nazism” but the real argument is should all American citizens have health care, as a right of citizenship.
One of the things we will achieve by passing any bill, is the settlement of this argument. Once the idea of everyone being covered is settled, then we can and will move on to the issues of what that coverage really should be and how we actually pay for it. One of the main reasons the Insurance Cartel wants to kill this bill is they know once everyone is covered there will be no going back from that position. Coverage will become an expected right. The questions will then turn more directly to what we are paying for by using private insurance; they will no longer be muddied by the question of who to cover. This will lead to coming back to the limiting of profit, to the need for more competition to the inevitable realization that a private, for-profit, management of health care is inherently inefficient because it requires profit and marketing and multiple huge bureaucracies. This will allow us to make the changes we can’t seem to get done this time around.
There are other reasons to pass something over pulling the plug and passing nothing. One is the amount of time. The Republicans have done an excellent job of stringing this process out far longer than it needed to be. If we allow this bill to die we hand them a win and then have to start the process all over again. It makes real change even less likely, in fact, it makes any change less likely as the Republicans will know they have a winning strategy and will use it again and again.
Another problem with letting this bill die is the fact it leaves people without coverage in the same position they are in today. Let us not forget 44,000 of our fellow citizens will die this year because they do not have health insurance. 2,200 of them will be U.S. veterans under the age of 65. To me , some level of coverage is always going to be better than none. Of those who will die because they are not covered there are those who could have been treated with something as simple as antibiotics. There are those who could have had serious conditions, which eventually kill them diagnosed early where the chances of avoiding death are much higher.
Yes, there are problems with the cost. We are doing nothing to contain costs in these bills. There will be issues with subsidies for those who cannot afford coverage and sadly, the money goes to one of the most immoral and disgusting business in America. However, there will be progress. People who are not covered will get coverage. We will remove the preexisting condition situation, permanently. We will end the antitrust exemption, which makes it easier for insurance companies to maintain monopolies and keep raising prices.
On a purely political point of view, failing to enact a signature issue like health care reform weakens the Democratic chances in future elections. I am confident the Republicans are going to have their Civil War raging in 2010 and this will help the Democrats, but if we do not have this signature issue to point to, then we will be playing defense. When you are in the majority you never want to play defense, you always want to be trying to gain ground (even if it is not likely to happen). This failure hanging over us will not help.
Another political point is the longer we keep the nation tied up with this debate the less time there is to do other work. All kinds of issues have fallen by the wayside as our Congress proves it can not walk and chew gum at the same time. There is a critical need for a major jobs bill. The time to do it is now, but as long as we are fighting over HRC there will be exactly no serious movement on this. This is a critical need for the people of this nation (many, like the your diarist, are out of work and cannot find a job) and for the Democrats. While the public has made up its mind that the Republicans are crazy, they are the only place to go for a protest vote. People who are out of work and still smarting from the necessary but distasteful bail out of the financial sector are not always going to remember it was the Republicans who got us into this mess in the first place.
Is it frustrating that we cannot achieve the level of change we want? Of course it is. However if we are going even talk about scuttling this bill then we really have to look at all the factors. Is this bill so bad we are willing to leave those without access to health care in that position? Is the bill so bad the win of settling the argument about who gets coverage does not matter? Is the bill so bad it is worth continuing this long fight, to the determent of other agenda items and ballot box peril? These are the questions all of us have to ask ourselves.
The job of legislating is never, ever, done. Part of the reason for this is the near impossibility of getting all you want in any one bite at the apple. The way to long-term success is to get all you can, every time, and then start with that as your baseline and go forward. We have a chance to make a major step forward, to set the ground for the real fight to get to single payer health care in this country.I do not like all the things in this bill. There are major flaws and there are likely to be more flaws added before we get to the end. Nevertheless, given the goals of covering everyone and starting a public insurance plan are achieved the rest can and will be fixed. If the choice is one of having to take longer than we would like but achieving our goals and having the status quo stay, then the choice is clear to this citizen.
The floor is yours.
"Originally posted at Squarestate.net"



24 Comments




The cost of doing nothing is too high. Yes, the cost of doing something is high too, but we can not let the perfect be the enemy of the better. Progress is the goal here, we will get to the ultimate goal by making progress.
You should worry about the crappy being the enemy of the halfway decent.
Without some sort of check on premiums, this bill is about sacrificing the nation for the benefit of protecting the insurance industry profits.
I think you are missing the point. If we get everyone (or nearly) covered we will have to, sooner rather than later, come back to the issue of cost. But this time it will be the only issue and we can get the changes we need to move toward single payer. Even that time we are unlikely to get single payer, but we are likely to get Medicaid for all.
I’m not talking about single payer. I think you are missing the point.
There are no meaningful cost controls for premiums in this legislation. US treasure and hard working families will be subject to the insurance companies. Real people, who live paycheck to paycheck. Will be mandated to buy their products. Many of those people will buy insurance, but then be too poor to use it. 15% of peoples income and on up.
What the democratic party has delivered is a giveaway to pharma, in evergreening (and other concessions), a giveaway to AHIP in no good PO or cost controls, and they are throwing women’s rights under the bus to secure this industry giveaway.
You are free to support whatever incremental DLC triangulation you wish. You solicited opinion, and this is mine.
and further, the cavalier attitude that we can come back later and deal with costs, how do you think that will play out, in the interim for people?
And you are welcome to your opinion, of course. However you might hold off on slinging around names. I am not part of the DLC, and I don’t make disparaging remarks about your point of view. As for the costs of the insurance we are paying it anyway, what is wrong with getting 16 million people covered? What is wrong with getting the end of preexisting conditions?
Really this purity misses the point that 44,000 people will die because they can’t get insurance in the next 12 months. This caviler assumption we will be able to get anything pass if we let this die completely ignores the very real human cost of having to go around on this again. It will not be any quicker or more likely to achieve our goals if we let it die.
I don’t think I called you any names.
Purity?
what is wrong with getting 16 million people covered? What is wrong with getting the end of preexisting conditions?
there is nothing wrong with either of these, but to do so by mandating insurance, and then not providing some measure of cost controls is not just.
saying this bill solves, 44,000 people will die, isn’t true just by saying it. Again, there are people today, with Employer provided health insurance that is so expensive they do not use it, because they can not afford the co pays.
oh. perhaps, this:
You are free to support whatever incremental DLC triangulation you wish.
is me calling you something. I am calling the House bill this.
Proof that there are no meaningful cost controls? Last CBO report I read said there was…
But I’d like to add, short of a good PO, another good strategy is to lobby to reduce the size of the mandate penalty, or at least keep it low, as cassiodorus has brought up in other threads
“Really this purity misses the point that 44,000 people will die because they can’t get insurance in the next 12 months.”
No way.
i don’t recall any recent cbo report on total national health expenditures (am i forgetting something?). but the cms report, as i’ve previously quoted, predicted (for hr 3200, a better bill) increased total national health expenditures and no cost control on rate of increase (through 2019). here is a bit from the cms report:
more quotes (and link to full report) at the link to my previous comment showing why this may very well be best case (made a bunch of positive assumptions that are unlikely to be). also further in the thread comment by scarecrow on why this increased cost is to be expected.
bill, if i thought the policy could work i’d support it. can’t see that it does and furthermore i think the mandates will be hated by the public. out of control costs are what is doing in the benefits of the MA reform.
http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/12857
Which I believe we’ve discussed. But CBO clearly says public option would put downward pressure on prices.
The other objections raised by indipro – like out of pocket costs for employer sponsored plans – are dealt with in the House bill as well.
Sorry Dog.
The mandate is nothing but a 20% Corporate Welfare Tax. Stupak is repeal of Roe v. Wade.
Nothing at all is better than a bad bill.
And a bad bill is electoral poision for Democrats, if you care about such things.
You are also wrong about the prospects for fixing all the flaws you admit. They will never be fixed and the subsidies to Big Health will never end any more than the subsidies to Big Ag have ever ended.
Ever.
I find the Pangloss Pollyanna attitude on this subject amazing.
So
and, i think, concluded that the cbo report does not make any claims about total costs (total national health expenditure). here’s what you wrote:
Hi EK been a while. Help me out here, what is the goal you are trying to achieve with reform. Top only please as we all have a laundry list, but something has to paramount.
Gee…
How about affordable care for all Americans?
This bill mandates ALL Americans pay a 20% Corporate Welfare Tax to Big Health Care with NO MANDATE AT ALL that they will not refuse treatment if it’s too expensive.
Death panels for the sick.
And for that you’re willing to sacrifice Women’s Reproductive Rights.
Not much of a deal if you ask me, but perhaps you think it will change.
I think you’re dreaming. Read your own blog much?
Stupak Doesn’t Plan On Folding, A Lesson In Appeasement
By: Jon Walker Thursday November 12, 2009 12:25 pm
Your argument is fundamentally the same as those that argue for the Draft-
“Oh, If only ALL Americans suffer surely we will stay out of bad wars.”
Good luck with that.
Bill, We shouldn’t let the House bill die, we should affirmatively attempt to kill it or something like it in the Senate. Why? 1) Because it isn’t true that if this bill falls hcr is done. If it’s defeated because of progressive opposition finally refusing to pass a bad bill, the leadership and the Administration will be back within days or at least by the beginning of the new session with a new and better bill from the progressive point of view. So teh choice is not between passing a bad bill or passing nothing. It’s between passing a bad bill or passing an improved bill later. And 2) This bill as it stands is, not to put too fine a point on it, immoral. It is immoral because it doesn’t stop the 45,000 deaths per year, all the bankruptcies, and all the foreclosures due to lack of insurance, when it is perfectly possible to enact legislation that will do this.
By my calculations, the bill has a chance to reduce the number of deaths by an average of 45,000 annually to 31,000 annually in the first 3.5 years after passage. That still leaves us with 108,000 fatalities over the band-aid period of the bill before the operational date of the exchange. For any person with a moral sense this figure of 108,000 is simply unacceptable. Progressives cannot accede to a bill that allows this, because it is immoral to do so.
Even after the first 3.5 years, during the rest of the first decade the bill will leave 11,000,000 people in the United States still uncovered. That is not virtually universal coverage. Enough people will remain uncovered that 11,000 per year will still die. Over 7 years that’s roughly another 77,000 people. Again, that’s just unacceptable for a civilized country when every other major industrial nation has solved the problem of fatalities due to lack of insurance entirely.
I know you will say in reply to me that even if my calculations about are right passing this bill will save 14,000 people per year for the first 3.5 years, so isn;t this an improvement and isn’t it moral to pass this bill, and save these people? My answer is no. It would be the correct moral choice if we could not do better. But we can. We don’t have to accept a deal that will freeze reform for years due to its very structure and still leave 31,000 fatalities per year on the table. The only moral choice here is to kill this bill and let the President and the leadership know that if it wants a bill, it has to be one that will solve the fatalities, bankruptcies, and foreclosure problems caused by lack of insurance, and also let them know that if they don’t formulate a bill like that and attempt to pass it, they will not get any other bill through Congress before the 2010 elections.
Oh, btw, some diaries that make this case are:
http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/12323
http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/12391
http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/12543
http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/12548
The last one has an exchange with Scarecrow in the comments.
Sorry, the links didn’t work as I wanted them to in the above. the links are:
here,
here,
here, and
here.
Thanks for the reply, EK, but you did not answer the question. What is it you think the primary goal is? If you can tell me that I can better understand where you are coming from. I have given what I understand the primary goal to be, but it seems clear you have a different one. So, what is it?
Once we have that we can start to talk about your disagreement with my premise it is better to pass something and get some improvements than it is to let this bill die and risk getting no improvements. I ask because it seems to me you are not interested in making improvements if they don’t also stick it to the insurance companies. Now that is a sentiment I have some sympathy towards, but it is not in my primary goals so I don’t need it to be in the solution at this time. Is that where you are on this?
I don’t find the argument that letting people suffer because we might be able to do better on moral grounds to be persuasive. There is no guarantee we can get anything at all passed if we let the momentum die. So, since we have at least as good (if not better) chance of failure if we don’t move forward, trying to get something significantly better by risking getting something that moves the issue forward is a bad trade to me.
i don’t think anyone is making an argument for letting people suffer, we just have different ideas about how to minimize suffering.