It is actually quite different and the "public option" as a fallback is toothless and would help only a very small fraction of people.
A single-payer model would be preferable, but having the public option available at all, and having a reasonably-priced plan negotiated with insurance companies, is still better than what we have now. Progress takes time. I think the insurance industry reforms in the bill will have enough impact by themselves.
But a public option that isn't available to almost anyone, is only offered in some states, and offers almost no coverage is useless. I am not comparing this to a single payer, I am comparing the option to what it once was. I think the insurance industry reforms are so weak and that this "progress takes time" crap is nonsense. This is progress in name only - it is hollow, toothless, bullshit and what little good it might do will be moot if a new Republican President or Republican Majority in the Senate is installed before 2013 (which is the date at which point the bill will become active). Almost nothing about the health care debate has changed since the Clinton years. We are at a stalemate because political officials cater to insurance lobbies before they cater to the needs of their constituents. If you see this as progress, I highly encourage you to re-read the proposal and seek out further analysis.
But a public option that isn't available to almost anyone, is only offered in some states, and offers almost no coverage is useless
Where are you getting that information? The most recent Senate bill shows the creation of a community health plan (granted, it's not quite the same as a public option) that is available through the Exchanges (though states may choose to opt-out by enacting a prohibitory law), is available to anyone who wants to purchase it, and provides the minimum coverage necessary to be considered a "qualified health plan," including the stipulated 4 service levels. Until the full details of Reid's proposal are known, you're just speculating.
I think the insurance industry reforms are so weak
So ending coverage caps, reducing shared costs, and eliminating denial of coverage based on pre-existing conditions and a variety of other conditions is "weak?" Mandating that 90% of insurance revenue be used to provide coverage is "weak?" Limiting the ability of an insurer to adjust your premium is "weak?" Have you read over the full extent of the proposed insurance industry reforms? They're massive changes that will help bring the cost of insurance down, and that in and of itself will provide the most sweeping health care changes.
that this "progress takes time" crap is nonsense
That's not "crap," that's reality. It would be wonderful if everyone in this country started agreeing on everything, and sure, I'd love to see everyone think along my lines, but the fact remains that they don't. The whole reason we haven't had effective reform before now is because Republicans have been blindly sticking to an unrealistic and idealistic worldview. You can't answer blind idealism with more idealism.
Progress takes time because it has to, not because we want it to, and if you don't see this as real progress, then your expectations were unrealistic in the first place. I'm not about to throw out good changes simply because it's an insufficient amount of change. Call me crazy, but I'll take anything that makes healthcare easier to obtain and more affordable for anyone.
That could be said to any one of us in any thread. Let's try not be petty.
Some of us do have Twitter accounts. And Facebook accounts. That is where I post most of my trite snarky comments. It's not unreasonable to ask the same of someone else.
I wholeheartedly agree with Pete. The very fact that the bill has gotten this far despite all the fighting to kill it is a welcome and necessary change. If this bill had nothing else in it but the restrictions on insurance companies Pete recited, I would be very pleased.
Pete recognizes that change of this magnitude takes time. Health Care has been compared to the Civil Rights struggle. That particular change was called a "struggle" because it took so long and the fight was so difficult. It didn't happen overnight, and often the changes seemed minor when they were considered separately. The cumulative effect of the changes, however, was profound.
Once the health care changes go into effect and people like the teabaggers see that we don't all go to hell or that the communists don't invade Bumfuck, USA, they'll be ready for more change. I'm hopeful that we'll eventually have a European type system, but I am prepared to wait for it because I know the strength and tenacity of the conservative opposition is going to fight desperately every step of the way. Calling health care change useless because of a lack of something specifically labeled "public option" is one of their tactics. Don't fall for it.
Once the health care changes go into effect and people like the teabaggers see that we don't all go to hell or that the communists don't invade Bumfuck, USA, they'll be ready for more change.
Well, I don't think the teabaggers will ever be ready for change. I foresee them precipitating out of the Republican party and forming their own thing, thus fracturing the party. The remaining Republicans will probably be somewhat reasonable, and that may foster true cooperation.
Well, I don't think the teabaggers will ever be ready for change. I foresee them precipitating out of the Republican party and forming their own thing, thus fracturing the party. The remaining Republicans will probably be somewhat reasonable, and that may foster true cooperation.
Even if they don't, they will be in the minority, and perhaps the Democratic majority can accomplish something major.
I know.Making a post pointing out a MAJOR change in the health care bill is petty.
The post was short and to the point, and free from an ad hominem attack on anyone.
Yeah... there is no double standard here.
If I wax on about the matter, I'm criticized. If I am concise, I am criticized. The goalposts move and move...
No, it's more about the fact that you keep double posting. Besides, no-one called you petty, she called Gunter petty because he told you to post on twitter if you are going to keep triple posting. We were ragging on your forum etiquette, not the content.
This article sums up many of my concerns about the bill. The only sliver of light offered in this rather stormy cloud is precedent of allowing younger people (55) to buy into Medicare. Again, this is fairly weak unless it is followed up swiftly by drastically lowering the age to, let's say, 18.
@Pete: The "reality" is that we allow our elected officials to favor rich lobbies over our interest. I see this reform as a tiny baby step that can easily be reversed if the Republicans take power prior to 2014.
This articlesums up many of my concerns about the bill.
That article is primarily speculative. Whatever the case, rates will be more competitive, the cost of premiums will be controlled, insurers will not be able to have lifetime insurance caps, and insurance will be available to more people for less. It also appears that there will be two different public insurance options available (the CO-0P and a system of community health plans), but any state can opt out of it as long as there are still qualified plans available in that state's exchange. The states can also opt out of the exchange, but they have to institute something that meets the same requirements. Some people are worried that some states will offer poor oversight, but poor oversight is an obstacle to absolutely any government program.
I'd much rather have full access to a public option than expand Medicare. Medicare pays very little to providers, and, well, medical care is expensive. If we subsidized medical school AND expanded Medicare, that would be one thing. I thought that the majority of providers supported a public option (contrary to what the article says), and that was primarily because the proposals paid out more than Medicare.
The "reality" is that we allow our elected officials to favor rich lobbies over our interest. I see this reform as a tiny baby step that can easily be reversed if the Republicans take power prior to 2013.
Lobbying has been around for a while. It sucks, but we don't "allow" it to happen, it just happens. All we can do is vote out the assholes. There's nothing stopping somebody from becoming an asshole once they're in office.
The insurance industry reforms are effective immediately once the bill passes. The exchanges won't be enacted for a while, but they'll take time to set up. The Medicare expansion would also take a while longer. Most of the bill would take effect immediately, so it's not like this thing will be useless once it's enacted.
Pete, all of the claims you are making are "incredibly speculative". You are making claims as to what the bill will do, but not pointing out how it will do it. I am not saying that it is utterly useless, but your claims of what the bill will do are pie in the sky and the bill is just shifting some of the regulation from the State to the Federal level. What difference this will make in the end is yet to be seen. I would also like full access to a public option, but expanding Medicare essentially provides that. As for Medicare being expensive, it is far less expensive than most private insurance (for lower overhead costs alone) and would at least allow some coverage to those that do not/cannot get it elsewhere.
The problem is that we don't vote out the assholes and we don't support the leaders that are working for genuine, sweeping, and lasting reforms with enough vehemence to drown out the teabaggers.
Pete, all of the claims you are making are "incredibly speculative". You are making claims as to what the bill will do, but not pointing out how it will do it.
Well, yes, to be fair, I'm not citing the text of HR3590 as it currently stands in the Senate. I can do so, if you'd like. There's quite a lot of text there.
the bill is just shifting some of the regulation from the State to the Federal level.
Well, not exactly. Much of what the bill does is create completely novel regulations for the health insurance industry.
I'll quote selections from the bill when I get home tonight.
What difference this will make in the end is yet to be seen.
This is true. It's possible that these reforms would bankrupt the insurance industry completely. Of course, from what I've read about the speculation around Reid's proposal, that would just wind up creating an environment that would trigger a public option.
No, we don't know how well any of these reforms will work, which is why it's even more important to make smaller, incremental changes, rather than broad and sweeping legislation. The only governments that would implement broad, sweeping changes were various forms of monarchies and other single-leader systems. Once you get into a multi-faceted style of government, things take longer.
After reading the last 10 posts or so, I hope people see their hypocrisy when the criticize my posts.
I don't really care, It's just having a bit of fun, taking the piss a little, and you gotta admit, you do mention the famous goalposts a fair bit. It's almost your trademark, at this point, You're on the verge of a case against every major sporting good suppliers for failure to pay royalties. To put it bluntly, You speak of people moving goalposts a hell of a lot, and we're taking the piss out of you for it.
Seriously, now, Joe has a whole thread dedicated to the running joke about his age(I belive the scientific consensus is resting somewhere around mesozoic), and the only thread where I've not made a fool of myself and been made a fool of in turn at least twice a page is the thread about Devices on airplanes(Though this is purely practice and a good dose of luck). If you can't take a little good-spirited humor about yourself, that's cool, say the word, and while I can't speak for anyone else, I'll back off. But I'm pretty sure you're not that much of a princess, because you can bring the heat pretty goddamn well yourself, and you don't seem the type to put out what you can't take, so loose up a little bit, the squabbling about American politics will invariably resume very soon.
Theorem: Criticizing everyone else, includiing the President; but then whining like a little girl that subsequent criticism of oneself is hypocrisy = hypocrisy.
Lemma: Dishing it out but not being able to take it = crybaby.
Corollary: Limited vocabulary and overuse of cliched phrases as a substitute for thought = appealing target for jokes and teasing.
Lieberman is not going to vote for any version of the Health Care Bill if it includes a Public Option. Where will the 60th vote come from?
Lieberman expressed interest in Reid's as-yet unknown proposal. It includes a public option as an item of last resort, from what I can gather from news reports.
Lieberman is not going to vote for any version of the Health Care Bill if it includes a Public Option. Where will the 60th vote come from?
Lieberman expressed interest in Reid's as-yet unknown proposal continuing to sell out to insurance companies based in his state. It includes a public option as an item of last resort, from what I can gather from news reports.
Right, great, but we still don't know what the text of the proposal is, do we? I have yet to find it.
The only information we have for certain is text of the bill currently being debated in the Senate, and that one includes two different public options (the CO-OP and community health plans) that don't mention anything about being a "last resort" exclusively. That's why I'm saying that all these news articles are just speculation and fear-mongering; until we see the actual proposal, we can't really draw any conclusions.
The bill, as it stands now, creates numerous reforms in all health insurers (limitations on recissions, limitations on the variations in premium costs, no lifetime or annual limits, no preexisting condition exclusion, no discrimination based on health status or need, etc); it then goes on to define a "qualified health plan," which requires certain minimum amounts of coverage to be met, mandates the creation of exchanges, and then requires the states to have at least one qualified health plan in said exchange. Technically, if you read carefully, every state must actually have at least TWO qualified plans available because of this little gem:
(D) ASSURED AVAILABILITY OF VARIED COVERAGE THROUGH EXCHANGES-
(i) IN GENERAL- The Secretary shall assure that with respect to qualified health plans offered in any Exchange established pursuant to this title--
(I) there is at least one such plan that provides coverage of services described in clauses (i) and (ii) of subparagraph (B); and
(II) there is at least one such plan that does not provide coverage of services described in subparagraph (B)(i).
That's from the section governing abortion rules. There must be 1 plan that covers abortion services for which there are no federal funds, and 1 plan that does NOT cover those services. Hence, every exchange has to have at least 2 plans available.
Any state can opt-out of the exchanges provided they set up something equivalent, and any state may elect to not implement the community health plans should they legislate as such. However, they still have to provide at least 2 qualified health plans in the exchange or whatever system they set up.
So I hardly call this "selling out" to insurance companies. They're putting tight regulations on insurance practices and mandating that those companies expand their coverage.
I don't really care, It's just having a bit of fun, taking the piss a little . . . If you can't take a little good-spirited humor about yourself, that's cool, say the word, and while I can't speak for anyone else, I'll back off.
I have no problem with that, however, I expect the same courtesy in return. That courtesy is most definitely not afforded to me. My posts are treated with hyper-scrutiny compared to others here. It doesn't necessarily bother me, but people here really need to take a good look in the mirror and ask if they have truly been equitable.
And for the record... you guys seriously haven't figured out that the "goalpost" comments from me are said to get a rise out of everyone? (although it's only used when true) Give me a little credit. You get to have fun, and so do I. ;-)
That's from the section governing abortion rules. There must be 1 plan that covers abortion services for which there are no federal funds, and 1 plan that does NOT cover those services. Hence, every exchange has to have at least 2 plans available.
That's a crap compromise, in my opinion. Extra bureaucracy, cost, and complication to placate idiots is the last thing we need in an already complex environment.
And for the record... you guys seriously haven't figured out that the "goalpost" comments from me are said to get a rise out of everyone? (although it's only used when true) Give me a little credit. You get to have fun, and so do I. ;-)
I remember there was a time when we discussed what health care reform should be, and didn't whine endlessly about what's currently going on 20 miles from me.
That's a crap compromise, in my opinion. Extra bureaucracy, cost, and complication to placate idiots is the last thing we need in an already complex environment.
I concur, but I also expected this sort of thing. I actually think it's sort of funny, though, that this wording is necessitated by so-called "conservatives" who pay lip service to things like "smaller government." The hypocrisy is blinding.
The best part, though, is that if this wording goes through, it'll just create a greater chance that some sort of public option will be made available, because the states have to offer at least one of each kind of plan. The idiots who stonewalled because of abortion issues have actually made things a little worse for themselves.
EDIT: Really, I don't see any of this "placating idiots" going away until the Republican party actually starts to fracture. The other issue is that, by and large, the Democratic party is more reasonable and thus willing to compromise. If we were all a little more irrational and unwilling to see things from a different perspective, we'd present a unified front like the Republicans do.
Damn us and our excessive ability to reason.
EDIT 2:
I remember there was a time when we discussed what health care reform should be, and didn't whine endlessly about what's currently going on 20 miles from me.
I don't recall that time. On these forums? Maybe, but not nationally. The current opposition to health care reform was around 13 years ago, when this was last attempted. The difference is that now it actually seems to stand some chance of being enacted.
Comments
I think the insurance industry reforms are so weak and that this "progress takes time" crap is nonsense. This is progress in name only - it is hollow, toothless, bullshit and what little good it might do will be moot if a new Republican President or Republican Majority in the Senate is installed before 2013 (which is the date at which point the bill will become active). Almost nothing about the health care debate has changed since the Clinton years. We are at a stalemate because political officials cater to insurance lobbies before they cater to the needs of their constituents. If you see this as progress, I highly encourage you to re-read the proposal and seek out further analysis.
Progress takes time because it has to, not because we want it to, and if you don't see this as real progress, then your expectations were unrealistic in the first place. I'm not about to throw out good changes simply because it's an insufficient amount of change. Call me crazy, but I'll take anything that makes healthcare easier to obtain and more affordable for anyone.
The post was short and to the point, and free from an ad hominem attack on anyone.
Yeah... there is no double standard here.
If I wax on about the matter, I'm criticized. If I am concise, I am criticized. The goalposts move and move...
Pete recognizes that change of this magnitude takes time. Health Care has been compared to the Civil Rights struggle. That particular change was called a "struggle" because it took so long and the fight was so difficult. It didn't happen overnight, and often the changes seemed minor when they were considered separately. The cumulative effect of the changes, however, was profound.
Once the health care changes go into effect and people like the teabaggers see that we don't all go to hell or that the communists don't invade Bumfuck, USA, they'll be ready for more change. I'm hopeful that we'll eventually have a European type system, but I am prepared to wait for it because I know the strength and tenacity of the conservative opposition is going to fight desperately every step of the way. Calling health care change useless because of a lack of something specifically labeled "public option" is one of their tactics. Don't fall for it.
The only sliver of light offered in this rather stormy cloud is precedent of allowing younger people (55) to buy into Medicare. Again, this is fairly weak unless it is followed up swiftly by drastically lowering the age to, let's say, 18.
@Pete: The "reality" is that we allow our elected officials to favor rich lobbies over our interest. I see this reform as a tiny baby step that can easily be reversed if the Republicans take power prior to 2014.
I'd much rather have full access to a public option than expand Medicare. Medicare pays very little to providers, and, well, medical care is expensive. If we subsidized medical school AND expanded Medicare, that would be one thing. I thought that the majority of providers supported a public option (contrary to what the article says), and that was primarily because the proposals paid out more than Medicare. Lobbying has been around for a while. It sucks, but we don't "allow" it to happen, it just happens. All we can do is vote out the assholes. There's nothing stopping somebody from becoming an asshole once they're in office.
The insurance industry reforms are effective immediately once the bill passes. The exchanges won't be enacted for a while, but they'll take time to set up. The Medicare expansion would also take a while longer. Most of the bill would take effect immediately, so it's not like this thing will be useless once it's enacted.
I am not saying that it is utterly useless, but your claims of what the bill will do are pie in the sky and the bill is just shifting some of the regulation from the State to the Federal level. What difference this will make in the end is yet to be seen.
I would also like full access to a public option, but expanding Medicare essentially provides that. As for Medicare being expensive, it is far less expensive than most private insurance (for lower overhead costs alone) and would at least allow some coverage to those that do not/cannot get it elsewhere.
The problem is that we don't vote out the assholes and we don't support the leaders that are working for genuine, sweeping, and lasting reforms with enough vehemence to drown out the teabaggers.
I'll quote selections from the bill when I get home tonight. This is true. It's possible that these reforms would bankrupt the insurance industry completely. Of course, from what I've read about the speculation around Reid's proposal, that would just wind up creating an environment that would trigger a public option.
No, we don't know how well any of these reforms will work, which is why it's even more important to make smaller, incremental changes, rather than broad and sweeping legislation. The only governments that would implement broad, sweeping changes were various forms of monarchies and other single-leader systems. Once you get into a multi-faceted style of government, things take longer.
And then Joe was a goalpost-mover.
Seriously, now, Joe has a whole thread dedicated to the running joke about his age(I belive the scientific consensus is resting somewhere around mesozoic), and the only thread where I've not made a fool of myself and been made a fool of in turn at least twice a page is the thread about Devices on airplanes(Though this is purely practice and a good dose of luck).
If you can't take a little good-spirited humor about yourself, that's cool, say the word, and while I can't speak for anyone else, I'll back off. But I'm pretty sure you're not that much of a princess, because you can bring the heat pretty goddamn well yourself, and you don't seem the type to put out what you can't take, so loose up a little bit, the squabbling about American politics will invariably resume very soon.
Lemma: Dishing it out but not being able to take it = crybaby.
Corollary: Limited vocabulary and overuse of cliched phrases as a substitute for thought = appealing target for jokes and teasing.
The only information we have for certain is text of the bill currently being debated in the Senate, and that one includes two different public options (the CO-OP and community health plans) that don't mention anything about being a "last resort" exclusively. That's why I'm saying that all these news articles are just speculation and fear-mongering; until we see the actual proposal, we can't really draw any conclusions.
The bill, as it stands now, creates numerous reforms in all health insurers (limitations on recissions, limitations on the variations in premium costs, no lifetime or annual limits, no preexisting condition exclusion, no discrimination based on health status or need, etc); it then goes on to define a "qualified health plan," which requires certain minimum amounts of coverage to be met, mandates the creation of exchanges, and then requires the states to have at least one qualified health plan in said exchange. Technically, if you read carefully, every state must actually have at least TWO qualified plans available because of this little gem: That's from the section governing abortion rules. There must be 1 plan that covers abortion services for which there are no federal funds, and 1 plan that does NOT cover those services. Hence, every exchange has to have at least 2 plans available.
Any state can opt-out of the exchanges provided they set up something equivalent, and any state may elect to not implement the community health plans should they legislate as such. However, they still have to provide at least 2 qualified health plans in the exchange or whatever system they set up.
So I hardly call this "selling out" to insurance companies. They're putting tight regulations on insurance practices and mandating that those companies expand their coverage.
And for the record... you guys seriously haven't figured out that the "goalpost" comments from me are said to get a rise out of everyone? (although it's only used when true) Give me a little credit. You get to have fun, and so do I. ;-)
The best part, though, is that if this wording goes through, it'll just create a greater chance that some sort of public option will be made available, because the states have to offer at least one of each kind of plan. The idiots who stonewalled because of abortion issues have actually made things a little worse for themselves.
EDIT: Really, I don't see any of this "placating idiots" going away until the Republican party actually starts to fracture. The other issue is that, by and large, the Democratic party is more reasonable and thus willing to compromise. If we were all a little more irrational and unwilling to see things from a different perspective, we'd present a unified front like the Republicans do.
Damn us and our excessive ability to reason.
EDIT 2: I don't recall that time. On these forums? Maybe, but not nationally. The current opposition to health care reform was around 13 years ago, when this was last attempted. The difference is that now it actually seems to stand some chance of being enacted.