Skip to main content

View Diary: If this bill is so good for insurers and so bad for Dems ... (204 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Reconillation may or may not work . . . (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Seneca Doane

    We may or may not be able to get a better deal in 2010 or 2013.  These are all risks.

    If the goal is simply to provide near-universal coverage at the highest possible cost, then that's the end-game.

    On the one hand, I understand the argument that you get people in first, and worry about costs later.  However, my sense is that it will be harder to achieve that outcome if you effectively increase the leverage of private market participants.  Where is the precedent for doing things this way?

    Stand with Dean, don't crawl with Lieberman! -- Dr. Fatman

    by NotGeorgeWill on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 12:11:27 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  I don't see our getting a better change to (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      enact reform if we don't enact this reform this year.  If we enact reform, and fix it further in popular ways, I do see our being able to improve it in years to come.

      Inflection points don't get much more inflectiony than where we stand now.

      •  We see things differently . . . (0+ / 0-)

        I think history can be a useful guide sometimes, but in this case, I think this issue is likely to become more urgent in the near-term, not less.

        Clinton's plans fell off the map in part because of the robust economic recovery removed some of the urgency connected with the health care system.  

        The rate of wage increases offset the increases in health care costs -- at least in part (e.g. perhaps Clinton's failure wasn't a complete failure, in that it kept the industry in line for a time)

        The conditions in 2009 strike me as different than 1993.  The rate of increase in the near term will be painfully apparent, because of the high rate of unemployment and likely wage stagnation.  My sense is that more ambitious reform could be more likely than not in the near term.

        Undoubtedly that's a big part of the reason that we're arriving at different conclusions -- we have different assumptions about where the trend lines and the political calculus might go in the near future.  I can see the GOP making inroads in 2010, but I see the Dems damaging their own prospects even more if they're seen as too partial to one sector of the economy -- especially in light of what's happened in the financial sector.

        Stand with Dean, don't crawl with Lieberman! -- Dr. Fatman

        by NotGeorgeWill on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 12:24:22 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I don't disagree with you about the need (0+ / 0-)

          I disagree with you about (1) getting either Lieberman's or Snowe's vote or (2) being able to guide a seriously worthwhile policy through reconciliation.

          If we had won three more Senate races last year, we'd be laughing at Lieberman.  If we had won three fewer, we'd be in no position to pass a goddamned thing.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site