Skip to main content

View Diary: Pew: Widespread Support For Insuring Everyone, Obama Approval Steady (144 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  See my comment below (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Livvy5, fl1972

    But discussions around here are devolving into "any compromise is bad" discussions instead of thinking about how to compromise to actually pass something while keeping the core of what you want to see happen intact.

    •  I would say that there are two sides ... (7+ / 0-) that equation, and the other side are the people for whom "any compromise is good." Single-payer advocates can't get the core of what they want intact. And public-option advocates are increasingly concerned that they are in the same boat. The only people who apparently aren't going to have to compromise are the most conservative wing of the Democratic Party - although they undoubtedly will compromise with the Republicans who want NO OPTION.

      Some people would be better off not reading diaries they comment on, since they already have all the answers.

      by Meteor Blades on Thu Jun 18, 2009 at 10:43:42 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I think the issues have to do with... (0+ / 0-)

        corruption.  The congress is so completely dominated by the corporations that they have essentially given them veto power.  There is no effective compromise since the corps simply sabotage anything they don't like.  The corps don't need to negotiate or compromise.

        The ekpyrotic theory hypothesizes that the origin of the observable universe occurred when two parallel branes collided.

        by rubine on Thu Jun 18, 2009 at 11:01:02 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I know but I am really frustrated (0+ / 0-)

        That people haven't said, "We don't like the co-op option," and in its current form I agree that there's not much to like, "but we don't necessarily oppose it. Here's what we'd like to see."

        And I, who am a public option advocate to a point--I think Medicare for all sounds great but has huge holes, like the prescription drug benefit in it--would come up with this:

        1. Standard rates bargained by the federal government. To offset revenue losses for doctors, loan forgiveness for doctors who agree to take the co-op plan and tax credits for those who are no longer carrying loans.
        1. Some sort of regional administration, but a requirement that doctors take plans of patients who are out of their region if they take the co-op plan. (That is tricky and difficult to write legislatively, I know).
        1. Most critically, make sure these co-ops are non-profit co-ops.
        1. Ban the practice of for-profit insurance companies and hospitals paying their employees with stock options (see Dr. Gwande's article in the New Yorker for why).
        1. Have the co-ops be structured on a PPO model, with appropriate, but not outlandish, medical and drug deductibles. ($500 or something like that).
        1. An individual mandate that people be enrolled. But allow people to keep their co-op plan when they are laid off. A certain percentage of their unemployment check or disability check should be the premium.
        1. Fund it by a 2% across the board income tax increase and a 4% Capital Gains tax increase.
        1. The elimination of medically dubious, but life prolonging procedures, like Alzheimer's patients getting feeding tubes and living for 5 more years in a nursing home at a cost of $250,000 per person to Medicaid.

        And if you did that, what would you have? Basically, the German system. A system which spends 8% less of GDP on health care, and has quantifiably better outcomes than our system. If you free up 8% of GDP, you'll also quickly have budget surpluses...

        And really, what is this? It's a public option that is privately administered through non-profits. But people who have their heart set on Medicare for All--I'm still asking how are they going to address the total morass that would be Part D under such a plan--hear private and go nuts. Even though if they really thought about it, a plan like that would basically be a little of what they want--most of it actually--but compromise enough to satisfy the moderate Democrats who don't want to expand the deficit.

        •  But the co-op plan WON'T be like ... (3+ / 0-)

          ...your plan. And good luck on No. 8 (which I agree with having seen four parents and parents-in-law die in various states of deterioration, all but one of them living a year longer than they would have had there not been what I call "horrific" but doctors call "heroic" measures to keep them alive.

          Some people would be better off not reading diaries they comment on, since they already have all the answers.

          by Meteor Blades on Thu Jun 18, 2009 at 11:18:35 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  My point is that it won't be like my plan (0+ / 0-)

            Because people on the left are doing what they always do, which is called being ineffective. They're calling Senators instead of House Members. Let's say the House, a coequal branch, passes a strong public option. Let's say the Senate passes the garbage that is the Dodd bill (no public option, an individual mandate, a completely bogus new social security benefit that would provide up to a $5,000 incentive for patients to pursue what you call "horrific measures," and the list in the 615 pages goes on and on. I also think that the public reaction to Schiavo indicates that you overestimate the backlash to such a plan).

            So you have the House saying, "We have to have a public option, it's what we passed." And you have the Senate saying, "We don't have the votes for the public option."

            It's not unreasonable to expect something like the above, though you're right it probably isn't going to be the stuff of my dreams I think I'd still find it acceptable, coming out of conference as a compromise.

            It's worth noting that even the Landreius and Nelsons of the world--Senators who have said they're against the public option--have not indicated that they'd vote against cloture. In fact, Nelson seems to be hinting that he'd vote for cloture and then against the underlying bill.

            So instead of going to the point where they can make the most difference, and turn the product into something that is closest to what they want, they left throws tantrums at "apostate" Senators, irritates and annoys them into voting against cloture even if that wasn't their intent, and ends up with nothing.

            Politics as usual.

            •  It is amazing the way your analysis... (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Meteor Blades, fhcec

              completely ignores the influence of health care corporations.  This combined with your specific and utterly unrealistic health care plan suggests that you have no real idea what is going on in congress,

              They, congress, are not going to pass anything that takes profits or power away from their major contributors, not to mention lower the value of their investments (see here).

              You can imagine many scenarios regarding strategy, but it won't be realistic unless you factor in the extensive corruption on the part of our congress folks.

              The ekpyrotic theory hypothesizes that the origin of the observable universe occurred when two parallel branes collided.

              by rubine on Thu Jun 18, 2009 at 11:41:48 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  My plan is far more realistic than (0+ / 0-)

                Medicare-for-all platitudes.

                You have a frame through which you see the world, and that's fine. You're entitled to that. But you desperately want this issue to fit into that frame, and for once to "beat the evil corrupt corporations which are undermining Medicare for all, and buying off Senators," or whatever is the latest tripe of the moment.

                But what you don't get is that this is an issue that is about people's lives. And if you say, "Unless I get Medicare for All, I'm taking my ball and going home," then people will continue to suffer under this health care system.

                You place so much emphasis on the terms of the debate, and are so defeatist because your parading around screaming about corporate corruption on the part of Senators has been (not surprisingly) extremely ineffective in the past, that you don't see the whole field.

                Who cares if it is called a co-op or a public option if the details of it give people more access to health care and doctors more power to make medical decisions?

                I guess that's just not as much fun.

                And by the way, on the Medicare for All thing, how are you going to address the Part D morass? Do you really want cancer patients to be forced to shell out $10K a year for chemo? Because that is what Medicare for All would do...

                It sounds great, but it has real and big problems. Also, if we do this right, we can free up 8% of GDP, which would balance the budget (and then some) in no time.

                •  Yah, dream on. (0+ / 0-)

                  You can totally wonk out on this and imagine if you move this comma over there and put this number here somehow magically the world will be a better place.

                  But in the real world people are being given large sums of money to make sure that no real reform takes place (did you read the article on prominent congress folks who are heavily invested in the current system?).

                  Perhaps you don't mind that rich and powerful people are subverting our democracy, and by extension, our need for a real, effective, health care system.  Can you imagine what this process would be like if corporations were NOT exerting undue influence on our jelly like congress people?  Single payer would be a central part of this dialogue, not rejected out of hand.

                  Also I'm not desperately doing anything.  I'm just frustrated with trying to work with a system that prioritizes the wealthy and powerful over everyone else.  We can't afford that anymore.

                  There comes a time when you have to recognize that the system is broken and before anything can be accomplished it must be fixed.

                  The ekpyrotic theory hypothesizes that the origin of the observable universe occurred when two parallel branes collided.

                  by rubine on Thu Jun 18, 2009 at 12:10:52 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  You can be defeatist all you want (0+ / 0-)

                    And you can dream of some bizarro revolution which you, and the fringe left, dreams of. Or you can work within the system, and realize that yes there are people who take money that are our opponents, to make the system better and save lives because of it.

                    I prefer the latter. I like to be effective.

                    •  I'm not thinking of a "bizarro revolution"... (0+ / 0-)

                      I think we need to address electoral and lobby reform before we take on big progressive issues.  I want us to win.

                      Do you think that is bizarre?

                      The ekpyrotic theory hypothesizes that the origin of the observable universe occurred when two parallel branes collided.

                      by rubine on Thu Jun 18, 2009 at 12:17:38 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                •  I'm sorry, but who is the defeatist here? ... (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  ...You're saying the Senate is hopeless, putting forth a plan with several provisions that nobody is going to back - all some clever opponent will have to say is "German plan" - and implying that anybody who disagrees with you is naive, stupid and full of tripe?

                  Some people would be better off not reading diaries they comment on, since they already have all the answers.

                  by Meteor Blades on Thu Jun 18, 2009 at 12:35:56 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Really? (0+ / 0-)

                    "German plan," that is going to scare people off? Maybe "French plan," would scare people off, but since it is regarded as the best in the world, i don't see how that could happen if people who supported did their job. My point is that it's the responsibility of the left to argue for why real health care reform is needed--it frees up GDP, which is really the only way to solve the budget crisis--instead of obsessing over the terms used to describe it, and rejecting proposals that could work out-of-hand because they don't like the term.

                    To clarify, what I am saying is defeatist is the contention of the other commentator (that nothing will change until we ban lobbying and eliminate first past the post voting, so we shouldn't try anything). Sorry for not making that clear. You made fair points, fair points I have some disagreements with, sorry for not making that clear.

                  •  And, to be clear, what I am saying is tripe (0+ / 0-)

                    is the left's obsession with terminology instead of substance.

                    And I believe the words naive and stupid are words I didn't use. Tripe I did use though.

            •  Golly, finding out where Senators actually ... (0+ / 0-)

              ...stand and making it public is a "tantrum"? Putting the focus on the guys who don't yet support public option but may be pressured to do so is a "tantrum"? Amazing.

              Some people would be better off not reading diaries they comment on, since they already have all the answers.

              by Meteor Blades on Thu Jun 18, 2009 at 12:32:49 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  You don't start negotiating with your final (2+ / 0-)

        acceptable proposal.

        You start with the best and tweak it around the edges to get to the final acceptable point.

        Dems and people with little negotiation experience (like me - but I'm trying to learn) give it all away in the beginning in hopes of getting something acceptable  - without realizing the no change guys on the other side haven't moved a bit.

        Lack of negotiation skill is a little noticed byproduct of the failed union movement in this country.

        •  I agree (0+ / 0-)

          But you don't neglect the proposal that is most likely to be favorable to your side (the House's version) while being obsessed with the proposal you don't care for as much (the Senate's version), which is what the left is doing.

          That's my point. You don't say, "We won't even talk to people who vote for this. We will never support you again unless you give us what we want." Instead you find friends, craft as strong of a piece of legislation as possible, and then think about bargaining in good faith.

          The left is so obsessed with the Senate, that it is giving it all the power. And in doing so, the left is undermining its own cause.  

          •  well, we watch the moving target... (0+ / 0-)

            and until the end of this week, it was the Senate.

            Besides, they are so easy to be angry with.

            But you are absolutely right.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site