Against Incrementalism When It Comes To The Public Option

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 12:21:43 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Ezra Klein writes:

This will not be a popular post, I fear. But one of the themes I'm seeing in a lot of the commentary is that the absence of a public plan is essentially equivalent to the absence of cost control, and the presence of a public plan is pretty much the presence of cost control. For the public plans on the table, that's not true, at least not in any way I can see. . . . The strongest public plan on offer is in the bill being considered by the House of Representatives. . . . The vast majority of Americans would be ineligible for the public plan, even if they wanted it. The CBO estimates that by 2019, the public plan would have a likely enrollment of 10 million Americans . . . The end result is that the public plan is unlikely to have a very large customer base, which means it will be unable to use market share to bargain prices far lower than private insurers.

So, Ezra argues, the public option is badly flawed because it is too incrementalist (and implicitly, not an important part of health care reform.) Of course, Ezra can not imagine the public option being expanded later. But Ezra is not usually so skeptical of potential expansion of health care reform initiatives in the future. When it is an initiative he likes, Ezra is gung ho for incrementalism:

It is one of the paradoxes of the legislative process that something that is substantively quite timid can also be quite bold. This version of health reform is far from what the country needs. It is far from what any health-care experts would develop left to their own devices. But it is still a monumental initiative and, if passed, it would be the most significant step forward since the creation of Medicare and Medicaid.

That was Ezra defending the Finance Committee health care reform framework sans the public option. Interesting when Ezra sees value in incrementalism and when he does not.

I wish he would just come out and say it - he is not for a public option. We all know it. He just needs to say it.

Speaking for me only

< Who Are The Dems Against A Public Option In The House? | The Key To Health Care Reform: Call Centers? >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Against Incrementalism When It Comes To The Public Option | 75 comments (75 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

It's really amusing (5.00 / 2) (#3)
by andgarden on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 12:33:29 PM EST

He's taking one from column A and one from column B. And somehow, he ends up right there with Baucus!

: Struggling to maintain (5.00 / 3) (#4)
by gyrfalcon on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 12:40:34 PM EST

his Village eligibility so he can climb another rung or two on the ladder.

: He's Not With Baucus, He's With Obama (5.00 / 2) (#34)
by BDB on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 01:32:28 PM EST

To me, Klein signals where Obama is on all of this. I don't think he cares two whits what Baucus or the Senate think. I do think he's hoping to be one of the WH favorites at his new gig and wants very badly to be on its good side. So I take this as a sign that this is either where Obama is or this is where Klein thinks he is.
And I think it's a pretty good bet Klein is right. Obama has signalled all along he was working through Baucus and his committee and not the other efforts (and that alone should tell you something about the final plan - done with a conservative Senator, who gets more Big Healthcare money than anyone, on the Finance - as opposed to the HELP - Committee). Endorsing Obama last year appears to have gotten the late Ted Kennedy and the still there Chris Dodd* absolutely nothing.
* I will never forget watching Chris Dodd explaining why he was supporting Obama over Clinton - that Obama's opposition to the Iraq war made him more qualified than she was to be president. Nevermind that Chris Dodd voted the same way as Clinton on that issue and during his own presidential campaign didn't seem to think it made Obama more qualfied than he was.

The only bright spot of Ezra's (5.00 / 3) (#6)
by Anne on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 12:44:48 PM EST

post is that maybe - possibly - some people who do think the best-of-the-worst versions of the public option is worth taking a stand for will realize that it is, sadly, not worth much of anything at all. That it isn't better than nothing, and isn't designed to be improved upon or expanded, but stands a greater-than-average chance of being abandoned when it becomes clear that it is not expanding access to CARE, isn't improving outcomes, and isn't saving money.

Maybe some of them will say, "2019? WTH? It's 2009, and we have close to 50 million people with no insurance and some great number of them are just getting and staying sick because there is no part of the CARE they need that they can afford, and you're telling me that under this 'best' public plan, only 10 million people will be getting some kind of help in the next 10 years??? This is the best they could do for us???"

So, for possibly planting that little germ of truth in the heads of people who read his column, today - and maybe only today - I will thank Ezra.

I disagree with you (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 12:51:11 PM EST

but at least you are consistent.

Ezra is a hypocrite.


: He's one of the WaPo Boyz now... (5.00 / 2) (#20)
by Anne on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 01:10:04 PM EST

what did we expect when he joined the paper - the same paper that canned Froomkin - that he would be speaking truth to power? His Village membership card has been laminated, for crying out loud...
That he contradicts himself from one proposal to another is not what I was focusing on; whether it was luck or inadvertence, he did manage to get a few things right: the public option IS inadequate and is horribly flawed.
If Congress and the president are not planning to do better than this, I'm hoping more people realize just how bad these plans are and just how pathetically craven these legislators are and just how many billions/trillions will be finding their way into the pockets of the insurance/pharma industry.

10 mill because (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by waldenpond on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 12:46:40 PM EST

(I didn't realize this) low pay workers will be forced to take corporate offered insurance and barred from continuing with Medicaid.

Mike Taibbi (page 5)

[Walmart is the most notorious example -- of offering dogsh!t, bare-bones health insurance that forces employees to take on steep co-pays and other massive charges. Low-wage workers currently offered these plans often reject them and join Medicaid, effectively shifting the health care burden for Walmart employees on to the taxpayer. If the HELP committee's grandfather clause survives to the final bill, those workers who did the sensible thing in rejecting Walmart's crap employer plan and taking the comparatively awesome insurance offered via Medicaid will now be rebuffed by the state and forced to take the dogsh!t Walmart offering.]

Waldenpond (none / 0) (#10)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 12:50:23 PM EST

You of all people know there is no profanity allowed.

Please rewrite your comment w/out the profsnity so I can delete it.


Sorry missed it (none / 0) (#18)
by waldenpond on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 01:06:43 PM EST

There was profanity in the article, I thought I had gotten it all.


: OK can't find it (none / 0) (#19)
by waldenpond on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 01:09:49 PM EST

I replaced the 'I's with ! exclamation points. I can't find the profanity that will stick in the filter. What did I misss?

: Looks like my mistake (none / 0) (#21)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 01:10:25 PM EST

I just noticed the exclamation points. I use asterisks myself.

I wish Ezra would come out and (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by MO Blue on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 12:47:05 PM EST

just say that he is willing to accept anything no matter how bad that has the label Health Insurance Reform on it.

Ah yes (5.00 / 3) (#9)
by lilburro on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 12:50:00 PM EST

Ezra over at The Strawman Post. He is so myopic it is duplicitous.

Meanwhile, Krugman:

Oh, and about the public option: yes, it should be in the speech -- and not just because it will lower costs. From personal discussions I know that the individual mandate really gets peoples' hackles up,because they see it as a giveaway to the insurance industry (you may recall that many Obama supporters made precisely that case during the primary). Yet the individual mandate is necessary -- so it's crucial to have the counter-argument that look, people can choose the public option. Yes, some senators will fight against that option tooth and nail -- but that's for later.

Ezra or Ezn'tra? (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by Dadler on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 12:55:31 PM EST

I bet he'd say, well, at the time, it looked like the best, yap yap yap, yadda yadda yadda, therefore I am beyond reproach.

After all, he seems to save his greatest passion and venom for those who criticize him harshly, as opposed to those in power whome HE is supposed to be steely-eyed skeptical about.

harshly is not correct (none / 0) (#16)
by Dadler on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 12:58:40 PM EST

for that implies excessive and i certainly don't think he gets excessive criticism by any means. i'd say he saves his real venom for those who keenly and logically criticize him.


: and, of course, (none / 0) (#17)
by Dadler on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 01:00:22 PM EST

he'd also claim there is no evidence that he opposes the PO, even in the face of the evidence, as provided here by BTD.

Yeesh (5.00 / 1) (#23)
by s5 on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 01:18:58 PM EST

This is so easy to understand. Passing a public option now that "only" covers 10 millions people makes it easy/possible to expand it to cover more people later.

Not passing a public option means we have to debate this whole thing all over again, and fight the same uphill resistance to a public plan.

It's really hard to get from 0 to 10 million. It's comparatively easier to get from 10 million to 100 million.

So, if the battle for 0 to 10 million is winnable now, then we have no excuse for not trying to win it.

We'll still end up with a fight (5.00 / 3) (#28)
by cawaltz on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 01:27:04 PM EST

either way. All you need to do is look at SCHIP to see that there will be a fight tooth and nail against expanding coverage. The big question for me is will 10 million people's coverage be enough to provide a compelling argument for the program later on or does it end up on the chopping block later on down the line because it only effects a small minority of the population so most people don't see the self interest in keeping it around for the trade off of higher taxes or fees.

I don't think 10 million is enough.


How much later? (5.00 / 1) (#61)
by Anne on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 02:01:12 PM EST

I mean, first, we'd be asking people to wait until 2013 - that's over three years - then, it's another four to six years to get just 10 million people insurance. Note that I wrote "insurance," not "care."

Much of the effort - almost all of it, it seems, has been on getting people some kind of insurance, perpetuating the myth that having insurance means you have care. And there hasn't been much discussion about what the insurance will cost, only that there will be subsidies to help people pay for it.

Interesting read today:

Congress Is Back, and Health Care Tops the Agenda. Here's How Some Americans Might Fare Under Reform.

Keep in mind that health care is not just an issue for people who don't have insurance - it's just as much an issue for people who do.

And no one is talking about what happens to all of us between now and when any reform that is passed is implemented.


: It won't matter at all (none / 0) (#66)
by hookfan on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 02:27:29 PM EST

for actual healthcare if Insurance companies maintain the right to recission, no matter who they supposedly cover nor at what cost. The current rate of denials runs about 30% iirc. But they keep their money!

And since when was 10 million people (none / 0) (#24)
by s5 on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 01:21:11 PM EST

not enough people to be worth helping? That's ten million people.


and in context (none / 0) (#29)
by cawaltz on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 01:28:45 PM EST

47 million lack coverage and millions more are uninsured. When you look at it that way 10 million doesn't appear to be enough.


Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#53)
by Steve M on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 01:53:51 PM EST

I'd really like to throw the Democrats out of office because they only proposed insuring 10 million additional people. Maybe in 20 years when they get back into power they'll say "ok, point made, we'll insure all 47 million."


ooops (none / 0) (#30)
by cawaltz on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 01:29:22 PM EST

should read underinsured,not uninsured.


more than the public option for the uninsured (none / 0) (#33)
by s5 on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 01:31:44 PM EST

There's also an expansion to Medicaid, for example.


: A problem (5.00 / 2) (#41)
by cawaltz on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 01:41:40 PM EST

with Medicaid is the differences from state to state and the fact that many providers won't take it.
I gave an example earlier on. My sister is covered by Medicaid. She has one provider who takes it in her area(Which means so much for any second opinion). In order for them to pay out her bill has to meet or exceed $485. If I were Joe Average I'd not be happy to be paying higher taxes to afford that. In Va. we have a similar problem with accessability. The lady I spoke of on disability just got on Medicaid for a primary provider she had one option. He was a total jerk to her(he basically told her she didn't really have a disability and was just lazy.) She was more fortunate with her specialist who has found she does indeed have a problem(and is actually basing it on a test that she would never have been able to afford without Medicaid).

Yep (none / 0) (#27)
by katiebird on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 01:26:59 PM EST

Passing a public option now that "only" covers 10 millions people makes it easy/possible to expand it to cover more people later.

Of course we already have that public plan, Medicare, which you think could be expanded just as easily. Which makes me wonder - just a little - about the expandability of any public option.


I think there's a difference with Medicare (5.00 / 1) (#32)
by s5 on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 01:30:43 PM EST

We're used to thinking about it as the "safety net for seniors" program, so there's a natural resistance to expanding it to other people. I mean, my ideal policy is Medicare-for-all, but I understand the crazy universe we live in that makes the politics of that difficult. I don't think expanding the public option would face the same resistance as opening up a program which is supposed to be just for seniors.


If it was made (5.00 / 2) (#36)
by cawaltz on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 01:33:52 PM EST

as an "option" you might see less resistance. People like to think they have a choice.


Resistance from whom? (5.00 / 1) (#50)
by hookfan on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 01:52:27 PM EST

Remember, if the current "public option" passes with mandates along for the ride, where all that money will be going. Strengthening your enemies financial position doesn't seem like a wise way to promote any advances in incremental changes for the future. And remember, strengthening them financially is not just once but forever. I bet they can buy even more politicians with our money. And we'll be strapped for cash to support ours as they willy-nilly and whimsically raise premium costs. I'm going to love to see how that incrementalism works out while we are forced by law to support the insurance companies, making sure they remain not only viable but dominant.


I'd agree (5.00 / 1) (#55)
by cawaltz on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 01:56:11 PM EST

that the public option being offered isn't substantial enough. What I think the majority want to see is some sort of option open to them but not mandated for them. That way if the insurance companies decided to hike their insurance 20%, they would have an alternative. I don't think they are ready for a single payer system that usurps the policies without their say so.


Where are mandates taken off table? (none / 0) (#65)
by hookfan on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 02:23:11 PM EST

They seem only consistent thing that across the board to stay. Otherwise the insurance industry won't play and all that money goes to elect republicans(or so I believe president Rahm thinks). Our choice doesn't appear to be of any importance to either the Obama administration, or the senate, though Obama did campaign on it. And Obama is an honorable man. . . or something. . .


They aren't off the table (none / 0) (#70)
by cawaltz on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 04:01:54 PM EST

I just posted in another thread the proposal being floated that addresses what kind of penalty would be charged for those who didn't buy insurance.

It looks like we are going for the Massachussets model.


: Mandates are important (5.00 / 1) (#72)
by s5 on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 07:46:22 PM EST

Without mandates, then we have to throw out community rating, and we can't accept people with pre-existing conditions. Otherwise everyone would forgo insurance until the day after they get diagnosed with cancer or get mauled by a truck.
Mandates are fine, as long as there is choice and a public option. (Or single payer.) Otherwise the system falls apart. The whole point of insurance is spreading out risk. If we don't put everyone into the risk pool, then the system will spend way more money than it takes in, and the system collapses.
Of course, it's easier under single payer paid for with taxes, but that's not what we're getting. So the magic formula is mandate + public option + community rating + pre-existing condition coverage. Pull any of those cards out and the whole house collapses.

OMG (5.00 / 1) (#45)
by lilburro on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 01:45:35 PM EST

hilarious - Ezra favors incrementalism vis a vis the Baucus plan because it sets up a call center:

The emphasis here, however, is on making them easy to use: "The exchange will provide a standardized enrollment application, a standard format for describing insurance options and marketing, call center support and customer service." It's not clear why you'd do all that if you weren't planning to let them expand.

So whereas enrolling 10 million people is meaningless, setting up a call center is a monumental gain in health care reform destined to bring us to universal health care. WTF???!!

But will the call center (5.00 / 1) (#47)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 01:48:40 PM EST

be mutilingual?


Not sure (5.00 / 2) (#48)
by lilburro on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 01:51:23 PM EST

it is up to Congress, for the President has no power.


: Heh (none / 0) (#56)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 01:57:00 PM EST

Nope, just Hindi. (5.00 / 1) (#54)
by steviez314 on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 01:55:07 PM EST

: You mean it's not going to be automated? (5.00 / 3) (#59)
by cawaltz on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 01:59:39 PM EST

If your insurance company is scr*wing you over again and you believe we should activate the "trigger" press 1........If you had to sell your house to pay your premium or deductible press 2...........

Haven't you heard? (5.00 / 1) (#58)
by andgarden on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 01:59:23 PM EST

Obama says "our children must learn Spanish so they can communicate with illegal aliens".

Obviously you will have to testify at the death panel in spanish.


: Heh (none / 0) (#60)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 02:00:18 PM EST

Medicare has an extremely good (5.00 / 1) (#63)
by MO Blue on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 02:05:43 PM EST

call center already set up and great customer service. If the criteria is

a standardized enrollment application, a standard format for describing insurance options and marketing, call center support and customer service

all those things already exist in Medicare. Why reinvent the wheel? Lets give people the choice to buy into Medicare.

If I were better at using google, I'm sure I could find information on call centers that have been closed because the product they were selling was defective.


And now, for a historical look (5.00 / 3) (#73)
by Cream City on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 08:37:39 PM EST

at incrementalism in reform and how well it worked.

Abolition of slavery: See Missouri Compromise, 1820; Compromise of 1850, inc. Fugitive Slave Law; Kansas-Nebraska Act, 1854; Civil War, 1861-65; 13th, 14th, 15th Amendments, 1866-1869 . . . and actual enforcement of 14th and 15th Amendments? A century later, 1960s.

I'm also reminded of that great incrementalist Wendell Phillips, who informed woman suffragists in 1866 -- almost 20 years after the Seneca Falls Convention -- that it was not women's "hour."

And after that generation of suffraigsts was dead and gone, another great incrementalist, Woodrow Wilson, informed woman suffragists -- 60 years after the Seneca Falls convention, 60 years after women started having to win suffrage town by town and territory by territory and state by state -- that women could wait "a little longer."

It has been 60 years since Truman's plan for national health care. To quote woman suffragists: Mr. President, how long must we wait? They didn't wait; they wedged Wilson into a corner until he had to cave and support woman suffrage -- and the 19th Amendment became law years sooner than projected when Wilson waffled.

(I'm not a great fan of incrementalism. . . .)

I oppose the current House (none / 0) (#1)
by dk on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 12:26:59 PM EST

bill as well, precisely becuase of the inadequacies that Ezra points out. IMO, I think it would do more harm than good in achieving the goal of single payer.

But acknowledging the inadequacies of the current House bill yet supporting an even weaker bill is just crazy. But then, I've never really understood where Ezra is coming from.

Ezra's logic of (5.00 / 3) (#2)
by Fabian on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 12:29:29 PM EST

"It's not enough, so let's do even less!" escapes me as well.

I'm not sure why anyone reads him.
Hmmmmm...wonder if Krugman has anything to say on the topic. I might learn something from him!


Ezra is a birght fellow (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 12:52:47 PM EST

attractive and young. He is on his way to the top of the Media Village.

My criticisms of him are not personal. For whatever reason, his voice is considered an important one in this debate and I feel the personal need to combat it.


"bright and young" (5.00 / 1) (#44)
by Fabian on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 01:45:23 PM EST

I wish that didn't have to be such a two edged sword.

I wonder where his career will take him. The world could use smart, insightful people who see what is in front of them. "First Sight" is what Terry Pratchett calls it - the uncommon ability to see what is in front of you instead of what you think you should see or even what others will tell you is there. It's not skepticism, it's objectivity. Such a simple concept seems so hard to come by.

The people who are the most objective tend to be the science and math nerds, who don't usually have winning ways with words or the inclination to educate others in what ought to be obvious. Probably why exceptions like Krugman are so rare.

I'm beginning to think the only use pundits have are to tell us what other people are thinking, not to inform and educate us about what is going on in the real world. Spin, instead of substance. The Bush years gave me enough spin for a lifetime. I know there is no such thing as a spin-free administration, but I was hoping for less bull, more truth and more action from the Obama administration and even from the Beltway Boyz.


"bright, attractive, and young" (none / 0) (#67)
by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 02:55:40 PM EST

It's a trifecta/triple-edged sword - official side-arm of the Obama campaign - available now on QVC.


"and male" (5.00 / 1) (#69)
by Fabian on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 03:51:54 PM EST

is the implicit assumption.

Not that I want to see more "Monica Goodling" types, but I would like to see more women achieve success while they are "bright, attractive and young".


I want to see (5.00 / 1) (#74)
by Spamlet on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 11:23:17 PM EST

more women achieve success who are bright, no longer so young, and maybe not so attractive.


: I've seen that (none / 0) (#75)
by Fabian on Wed Sep 09, 2009 at 11:41:18 AM EST

It seems like you can't be "serious" until you reach a certain age. Before then you get to be a spokesmodel or cheerleader. (Mika on Morning Joe)

He's coming from the place that earns you (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by esmense on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 12:43:20 PM EST

a column in the Washington Post. Which is not a place that supports consistency (or integrity?) at any place on the political spectrum other than the Right.


What utter nonsense (none / 0) (#13)
by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 12:54:54 PM EST

The government option will do nothing to control costs. Covering 46 million more people (10 to 15 million of which are illegal alians) is an expansion of cost.

Cutting off hip replacements and heart bypass for those over 70 does not reduce the cost for those operations, but merely shifts those costs to the elderly or their kin.

: What on earth are you talking about? (none / 0) (#49)
by gyrfalcon on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 01:52:08 PM EST

Good post, BTD. (none / 0) (#15)
by TomP on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 12:57:17 PM EST

Exactly right. he wants it both ways: incrementalism when it favors rejecting a PO and no incrementalsim when it favors a PO.

As you said, he just does not want the PO.

But the Village likes Ezra now.

Woah (none / 0) (#22)
by lilburro on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 01:14:56 PM EST

over at TPM I have located an even loonier piece of analysis. Why the bills are awesome from "a reader":

It would leave the present system intact in most of its essentials, thus assuaging the fears of the vast bulk of the electorate. One substantial group of voters - those for whom the subsidies render health insurance more affordable - would be fairly pleased. A smaller group, mandated to buy coverage it can scarcely afford, would be discontent, but mostly because the Republicans had thwarted Democratic efforts to help it - and, in cold political terms, this isn't a constituency likely to defect. And the public at large would see that Obama had promised health care reform, and then delivered it, with few painful trade-offs or compromises. A fairly clear-cut political victory.

That person needs their (5.00 / 2) (#25)
by nycstray on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 01:25:28 PM EST

health insurance and access to health care restricted . . . perhaps they would then fall into the "smaller group, mandated to buy coverage it can scarcely afford" . . . "and, in cold political terms, this isn't a constituency likely to defect."


: yeah (5.00 / 3) (#39)
by ruffian on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 01:41:12 PM EST

I'm sure they will reason that it is the Republicans' fault and not blame the Dems at all. Cuz that's exactly how the average voter thinks about things.

LOL (5.00 / 3) (#38)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 01:37:18 PM EST

A smaller group, mandated to buy coverage it can scarcely afford, would be discontent, but mostly because the Republicans had thwarted Democratic efforts to help it - and, in cold political terms, this isn't a constituency likely to defect.

Discontented, eh? to put it mildly.
They can scarcely afford mandated health insurance, but even though a Democrat was in office and implemented this "plan", they'll blame it on Republicans, because they're rock solid constituents eh? A Democrat changes their standard of living for the much worse and they'll blame it on Republicans, eh?

I'm jealous. I want what this person is smoking. I definitely don't have enough mind altering substance in my world.


: Reminds me why (5.00 / 2) (#42)
by ruffian on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 01:42:20 PM EST

this is the only comment section I read on any blog anymore! We may not all agree, but at least there is some semblance of reason at work.

: The sad thing is (5.00 / 1) (#51)
by cawaltz on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 01:52:36 PM EST

he's in a small sense right. The poor are pretty much stuck with nowhere to go since neither party does anything then play lipservice and games with them.
Where I disagree with him is in the idea the GOP couldn't pick off the poor constituency. If we pull out that ol' map andgarden was using earlier it's easier to see the poorer states trend red, not blue.
It's a bit shortsighted for him to believe that the poor can only be manipulated by Democrats, not when history says something entirely different.

Discontent? (none / 0) (#52)
by gyrfalcon on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 01:53:36 PM EST

DISCONTENT?


What would you choose if the choices were (none / 0) (#26)
by steviez314 on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 01:26:14 PM EST

between the House's public option that covers 10 million by 2019, and a Senate version that has a trigger (written to be very strong) that if set off results in a robust public option available to all within 2 years.

Only because that's my uninformed guess of what the choice will be.

based on your details (5.00 / 1) (#31)
by cawaltz on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 01:30:27 PM EST

I'd say the Senate version was stronger.


Now, they'd have to let me write the trigger (5.00 / 3) (#35)
by steviez314 on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 01:33:23 PM EST

though.


Heh (5.00 / 1) (#37)
by cawaltz on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 01:35:56 PM EST

As it stands we're probably looking at a trigger that would be farther off and legislation that wouldn't take affect until 2013. I figure they honestly seem to believe Americans can wait 10 years for reform. It's insane.


So that's not the trigger . . . (5.00 / 1) (#43)
by nycstray on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 01:43:11 PM EST

which I heard (iirc) couldn't kick until after HCR (2013) failed for 5yrs.


That's MY trigger (5.00 / 1) (#46)
by andgarden on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 01:47:34 PM EST

But I'm glad to have your support!


If we could implement your suggestion (5.00 / 2) (#68)
by MO Blue on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 03:07:43 PM EST

to abolish the Senate, we wouldn't have to deal with a trigger at all.


: I actually kinda LIKE that one (none / 0) (#71)
by cawaltz on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 04:11:14 PM EST

and We could achieve a SAVINGS of 17,400,000 in a single year. Over the course of 10 years we'd be looking at $174,000,000. That is just base salary. If we start adding in perks like health care we could make an even bigger dent.

From what I have read (5.00 / 3) (#40)
by lilburro on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 01:41:14 PM EST

so far, public option.

Snowe's trigger sucks. It doesn't seem to trigger a real public option either - it only extends to areas "in which private insurers could not cover 95% of the people in their regions with plans costing no more than about 15% of the individual's or household's annual income." I don't see how it produces a stable framework for health reform.


Trigger's date? (none / 0) (#57)
by MO Blue on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 01:57:13 PM EST

Two years from the date of legislation or two years from full implementation of the legislation? Doubt seriously that the trigger would go into effect 2 years after the legislation is written since none of the components that Congress feels could change the dynamics would be in place.

I would like to see the source(s) that mention setting the trigger at two years and the start date of the trigger that gives you any belief that your guess would occur.


I said UN-informed guess. (none / 0) (#62)
by steviez314 on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 02:02:23 PM EST

: I could say that the trigger (5.00 / 1) (#64)
by MO Blue on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 02:12:51 PM EST

will be 10 years (Kerry) and that it will be structured like the trigger in Medicare Part D so that it never happen (Schumer) and actually provide sources to back up the possibility.