home

Incorporating GOP Ideas

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 01:45:46 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

When you actually look at the bill itself, it incorporates all sorts of Republican ideas - President Obama on the health bills

< Tuesday Lunchtime Open Thread | The New Progressivism: What Do Issues Have To Do With It? >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Incorporating GOP Ideas | 56 comments (56 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Please (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by kmblue on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 01:59:05 PM EST
    don't make me watch.

    He got so many extra votes too. (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Salo on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 02:02:41 PM EST
    The GOP were lining up in gratitude for incorporating.

    Indeed it does (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by ruffian on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 02:03:13 PM EST
    He might want to stop acting like that is a feature. He's talking his party out of a reason for being.

    It's stunning. Like the microaudiences (none / 0) (#4)
    by Salo on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 02:06:35 PM EST
    Are not plugged in to the overall subtext of what he's actually saying. Who was that consultant that Clinton got rid of who coined the term micromarketing?

    O is making that fat bloke look like a piker.

    Parent

    I believe that fat bloke is Mark Penn (none / 0) (#13)
    by ruffian on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 02:55:54 PM EST


    Parent
    This whole (none / 0) (#5)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 02:07:58 PM EST
    health care debacle has established finally and with ultimate clarity that the Democrats have no reason for being.

    And BTW, who has the highest insurance rates by leaps and bounds -- why it's Massachusetts!  Mandates don't equal cost controls.

    So brace yourselves everyone and be prepared to have much lighter pocketbooks in the name of for-profit insurance and Republican ideals.

    Largest tax increase EVUH.

    Parent

    MA (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by CST on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 02:29:12 PM EST
    had the highest health insurance rates in the nation before they implemented their plan - stuff just costs more here - especially medical stuff.  But that has more to do with the hospitals, the medical care available, and the fact that most people live near high-end medical care and choose to use it - than it does with anything else.

    It is still unclear whether the bill had any implact on costs one way or the other.  What is clear, is that we have the lowest rate of uninsured of any state in the nation.

    But no, mandates certainly don't equal cost controls.

    However, I think it's pretty clear that everyone's health insurance is gonna go up one way or the other no matter what - this bill doesn't really deal with the cost issue at all (a very severe flaw).  Although I'm sure everyone will be blaming this year's premium increase on the new bill, they will just as soon forget last year's and the year before's premium increases that happened anyway.

    Parent

    I was going to say (none / 0) (#26)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 04:44:48 PM EST
    MS has lower insurance costs than most other states for a reason- not many high quality care centers (and thus high costs- there are exceptions but the quality-cost link clearly exists) and not much required to be covered. If on the otherhand you have high quality care and require insurance cover more then your cost is going to be hirer- here's a dirty truth the GOP "deregulate insurance across state lines" proposoal would have lowered the average premium- it also would have dramatically lowered quality of care.

    Parent
    A tax would be acceptable (none / 0) (#6)
    by Salo on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 02:10:32 PM EST
    This has more to do with a corporate raid on the public purse.

    Parent
    It's a tax increase (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 02:26:04 PM EST
    paid directly to insurance companies...a very large one.  Care won't follow in many cases.  People will be unable to afford it after paying premiums.

    Parent
    Mass. has had very high (none / 0) (#20)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 04:07:46 PM EST
    insurance premiums for quite a while now, long pre-dating "Romney care," and I believe it has to do with the very long list of things insurers are mandated by law to cover in all policies.

    Parent
    Pretty much (none / 0) (#27)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 04:46:23 PM EST
    if you require high quality insurance its going to cost more-  if you allow junk insurance (which is what super high deductible policies are for all but the young, the lucky and the independently wealthy) then of course the cost is going to be lower per premium.

    Parent
    Reasonable, but wondering (none / 0) (#34)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 04:57:40 PM EST
    are the insurance companies there publicly traded? If so, are the shareholders taking a big chunk of the premiums in their dividends? How's the profit margin looking for those insurance companies? Bonuses being given out?

    Parent
    Obviously, that's problem (none / 0) (#41)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 05:14:16 PM EST
    its one of the reasons I've been in favor of public-private hybrids where the basic coverage is privately provided but non-profit and comprehensive coverage is the profit driver. But the basic principle is simple- crappy coverage with a massive deductible and tons of exceptions is always going to be cheaper than good coverage that actually provides healthcare.

    Parent
    85% of the premiums must now be (none / 0) (#45)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 05:20:53 PM EST
    spent on health services. Frame the shareholders, bonuses, and administrative overhead inside of that and we should all be bracing for huge increases in premiums to make sure their 15% gives them what they want.

    I would sure have liked it if the law had put them all back to Not For Profit status. The idea of gambling on people's health for one's personal wealth just rubs the wrong way.


    Parent

    Stealth candidate? (none / 0) (#55)
    by jawbone on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 07:26:34 PM EST


    Parent
    I wonder if Democratics will now start running (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Buckeye on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 02:12:31 PM EST
    on repeal and replace?

    Big picture (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by MKS on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 03:13:41 PM EST
    The big picture as viewed from afar by Sarkozy:

    "Welcome to the club of states who don't turn their back on the sick and the poor," Sarkozy said, referring to the U.S. health care overhaul signed by President Barack Obama last week.

    If health care reform is not repealed in whole, it will set the standard that government has the responsibility for providing health care for Americans.  That would be a big change....The question then becomes how the government does provide for that health care....

    It makes it an obligation for Americans (none / 0) (#48)
    by MO Blue on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 05:34:45 PM EST
    to purchase for profit health insurance that may or may not provide actual care.

    Parent
    I went to the main players in (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 03:38:35 PM EST
    the Democratic (nee "Progressive" (LOL)) blogosphere to see the angered reaction to this clip...I was certain someone would post it...

    What I heard?  (chirp, chirp, chirp, the sound of crickets).

    They report, you decide, apparently!

    Um (none / 0) (#32)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 04:55:08 PM EST
    Obama's incorporating some GOP ideas- thats not necessarily a bad thing its one of the areas that made Clinton so successful politically- co-opting clearly GOP things like Welfare Reform or expanding the Death Penalty (the latter of which was frankly wrong, the former could be seen as a pragmatic decision like Obama's moves on HCR).

    Parent
    Right (none / 0) (#38)
    by lilburro on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 05:00:29 PM EST
    but that is the essence of triangulation.  That's the point.  People like Booman are trying to split hairs to show that Obama is not triangulating, and they are simply wrong.

    The man ran against the Clinton years and triangulation.  He should be held accountable at a higher level with that in mind.  If you want to get rid of the triangulation tactic (and apparently we're not) you've got to do that.

    Parent

    Two thoughts: (1) and BTW, members (none / 0) (#8)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 02:13:04 PM EST
    of Congress will be in the exchanges?  Huh?; and (2) chilling to hear the words Social Security and Medicare entitlement reform.  

    P.S.  The President certainly interviews well:  Afghanistan and HCR.  He knows his stuff.

    Looks like FOX is correct and Pres. (none / 0) (#19)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 04:04:23 PM EST
    is incorrect as to whether members of Congress must get their insurance through the exchange:  Fox business

    Parent
    Technically, but (none / 0) (#21)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 04:14:48 PM EST
    MacDonald is picking a nit.  She admits further down in the piece:

    "If Congress wants to continue with the rich government plans largely paid for by US taxpayers, then they have to buy them through the new insurance exchanges."

    Hokay.  Congresscritters do not have to use the exchanges, but if they don't, they forego the very generous employer-paid (ie, taxpayers) contribution to their premiums.

    The piece as a whole is a pretty good factual rundown of what's in the bill as far as this issue goes.  Her conclusion, however, is disingenuous.

    Parent

    Didn't the President say on the video (none / 0) (#23)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 04:22:23 PM EST
    Congress had to go on th exchange?  That is inaccurate per the portion of the bill cited in the Fox link.  As there is an escape clause.

    Parent
    They can it'd be stupid as heck (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 04:48:59 PM EST
    but they can- its just like the mandate doesn't actually require you to buy health care you can pay the penalty (basically if you're going to argue that Congress is exempt then you should also realize that noone is required to purchase insurance- in both cases not doing so would be fiscally stupid).

    Parent
    Yes, but as I say, it's a nit (none / 0) (#30)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 04:51:37 PM EST
    Effectively, they are required to use the exchanges.  In this case, fwiw, I have no objection to Obama or anyone else using that shorthand.

    Parent
    If you are correct (not the way I read the (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 04:55:24 PM EST
    pertinent part of the statute though) this is huge.  It would mean the bargaining power of the federal executive branch on behalf of members of Congress and their staffs would also benefit everyone else eligible for the exchange.  

    Parent
    I can only repeat what I read... (none / 0) (#39)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 05:01:11 PM EST
    Does MacDonald's rundown in that Fox Business piece conflict with the way you interpret what's in the bill?

    (I should add that although she's Fox Business and fairly conservative in her views, every time I've seen or read her, she's been pretty insistent on sticking to actual facts.  I've never heard things like "government takeover of one sixth of the economy" or "socialist views" come out of her mouth, iow.)

    Parent

    Pertinent part of newly-enacted (none / 0) (#49)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 05:37:07 PM EST
    legislation:

    (D) MEMBERS OF CONGRESS IN THE EXCHANGE.--

    (i) REQUIREMENT.--Notwithstanding any other

    provision of law, after the effective date of this subtitle,

    the only health plans that the Federal Government

    may make available to Members of Congress and

    congressional staff with respect to their service as a

    Member of Congress or congressional staff shall be

    health plans that are--

    (I) created under this Act (or an amendment

    made by this Act); or

    (II) offered through an Exchange established

    under this Act (or an amendment made by this

    Act).

    President described the exchange to Matt Lauer as a pool of people across the country, "including, ty the way, members of Congress, . . ."

    I guess it depends on whether, prior to the effective date of "this subtitle" Congress creates a dufferebt plan outside the exchange for itself and its staff members.

    Parent

    BTD, feel free to jump in here. (none / 0) (#50)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 05:49:13 PM EST


    Parent
    Why would they do that? (none / 0) (#53)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 06:42:43 PM EST
    They already choose their plans through an "exchange," just one that's limited to federal employees.  The same plans the government offers them now will be offered to them under the new exchange.

    I must be missing something because I'm just not seeing an issue here.

    Parent

    Obama Said (none / 0) (#54)
    by squeaky on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 06:51:10 PM EST
    That the same exchange Congress members belong to, would be open to all Americans.

    Parent
    Very Appealing To Me (none / 0) (#51)
    by squeaky on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 06:00:15 PM EST
    That is the one thing which seemed as if it could directly benefit me. I have very expensive rate because I am in an individual plan. People with the same plan as I have but who are in a group, pay 40% less than I do.

    Parent
    If the President is correct that (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 06:02:28 PM EST
    members of Congress and their staff members will be included in the exchange, that's a good thing for everyone else eligible for the exchange.  Should be talking point # 1.  Campaign promise fulfilled.

    Parent
    Even access to the federal employee (none / 0) (#56)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 12:05:34 AM EST
    exchange wouldn't give people the same plan access- the reason federal employees get such great plans is two-fold- the exchange, and the massive employer contribution.

    Parent
    Obama needs a 2012 progressive challenge (none / 0) (#11)
    by BobTinKY on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 02:30:46 PM EST
    it's the only way we're going to get meaningful reform on any number of issues.  The sooner a challenger announces and starts getting money, after Nov, the better Obama will be, a la Specter.

    And who will it be? (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by Buckeye on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 03:01:20 PM EST
    Jane Hamshir?  Armando?

    Every progressive I know of got rolled like bread.

    Parent

    It'd have to be someone with absolutely no (none / 0) (#29)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 04:51:29 PM EST
    political future- Did Kucinich run against Clinton in 1996? It would seem to be a similar situation- running to force a guy to the left (though to be honest all it would really do is boost Obama's popularity with moderates- he could simply say he's obviously in the center as the "far-left" is opposing him). The obvious difference between Specter and this is that here no challenge would be serious in any real way.

    Parent
    Doubt it (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 04:17:12 PM EST
    If Obama gets a challenger from the left, we'll get lots anud lots of rhetoric about meaningful reform.  I see no reason why he would then actually produce it after the election any more than he did after the 2008 election.

    Parent
    Exactly right (none / 0) (#12)
    by ruffian on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 02:54:19 PM EST


    Parent
    "Starts getting money." From where? (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 03:21:10 PM EST


    Parent
    A challenge from the left (none / 0) (#15)
    by MKS on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 03:05:19 PM EST
    is more likely to succeed or get traction, if Afghanistan comes apart at the seams.....

    Parent
    I don't see Afghanistan coming apart (none / 0) (#24)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 04:39:00 PM EST
    at the seems.  Particularly now that Pakistan is coming online with us.

    Parent
    Oops.....teh seams (none / 0) (#25)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 04:41:47 PM EST


    Parent
    It seems to me, (none / 0) (#35)
    by KeysDan on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 04:58:13 PM EST
    that it has already come apart at the seams.  But the seams will seem to be stitched over, at least to the naked eye.

    Parent
    The nudity of the eye (none / 0) (#37)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 04:59:05 PM EST
    I suppose is in the beholder.

    Parent
    True, an outcome of (none / 0) (#40)
    by KeysDan on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 05:14:10 PM EST
    "we will know it when we see it" is helpful when the goals are not explained.

    Parent
    It is true that it is hard to (none / 0) (#42)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 05:16:51 PM EST
    discover for yourself what the true goals are, even though from my perspective there do appear to be some.  If you tell everyone though, and then stuff happens, you could get bad press :)  When you have to change the goals people could notice too and say stuff :)

    Parent
    I know its unpopular with some on the left (none / 0) (#31)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 04:53:11 PM EST
    but Obama's Afghanistan policy is starting to look really good with the apparent buy-in by the Pakistani government (of course one could argue that such a buy-in is either a ruse, or simply the actions of one faction consolidating power).

    Parent
    I can't say the buy-in is a ruse (none / 0) (#36)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 04:58:16 PM EST
    My spouse may feel jilted that he did not get to meet his CIC.  But of the people who visited the particular area he worked in and that he did meet in person is General Casey, General McChrystal, and Pakistan's leading General.  It isn't a ruse.  But it is pi$$ing off Iranian crazies hugely.

    Parent
    I worry (none / 0) (#43)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 05:17:11 PM EST
    its a crack-down just enough to get the benefits of allying with US (and cracking down on de-stablizing elements within Pakistan) but not so far as to actually crush some of the militants w/in the tribal region (who have traditionally served as a threat/arm of the ISI).

    Parent
    This is a long term commitment (none / 0) (#44)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 05:19:39 PM EST
    to creating a social fabric and a social justice system.  This is a 20 year job.  Will it be our job for 20 years?  I dunno

    Parent
    If we had spent the time, attention (none / 0) (#46)
    by MKS on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 05:22:54 PM EST
    and money on Afghanistan that we did on Iraq, then we would have had a much better chance in Afghanistan.

    Parent
    You have no idea the" what if" (none / 0) (#47)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 05:31:27 PM EST
    converstaions I've heard since we have actually made such progress in such a short period of time.  What if the other President had cared about the real problem instead of trying to take over someone's oil?  I read Stratfor once giving Bush a pass on Iraq because he needed to show force in their assessment.  They said there were no good options.  As if a NATO response like we would have had to Afghanistan right out of the gate was going to be perceived as just a bunch of wussies.  I wonder what Stratfor will have to say about it all in another year or two....the whole history of America and our Afghanistan and Iraq crappy doings?

    Parent
    Incorporating GOP Ideas | 56 comments (56 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment