This weekend Health & Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius kicked up a fuss when she seemed to signal that that the Administration might be willing to jettison the "public option"-a government-run insurance program akin to Medicare-in an effort to get some kind of health care reform passed. Outrage ensued: Howard Dean told CBS News that "You can't really have reform without a public option," while Matt Taibbi angrily (surprise!) observed that "the Democrats had in reality already managed to kill the public option by watering it down to the point of near-meaninglessness. But the notion that our president not only does not have any use anymore for a public option, but in fact 'will be satisfied' if there is merely 'choice and competition' in the market is, well, disgusting." The White House is already "clarifying" the remarks, claiming that Sebelius "misspoke" or "the media misplayed" her comments. But, as the video above notes, there's a lot of wiggle room. So basically, nobody knows anything. You wonder why the White House might have put it out there in the first place.
Monday, August 17, 2009
13
This is probably a good thing in the long run. the way this "reform" was packaged it was at best a mild improvement in our current system. the lack of a public option ensures a faster complete implosion and a subsequent meaningful overhaul of the fundamental system.
HOWEVER: if you are a card carrying democrat this should signal to you that at the very time when your party should be most powerful, it is a simpering, spineless collection of appeasers more concerned with keeping its corporate IV in than in actually doing anything for anyone. pathetic.
Or, we could just vote for Ron Paul and get designer hairshirts.
"Lots of wiggle room " reminds me of the time Cintra Wilson wrote a review of JCPenney for the NYT and subsequently issued an apology, then an unapology.
To my understanding (via the BBC this morning), this "lack of a public option" really amounts to a government-funded but privately-run non-profit health insurance group. Which sounds basically like a public option to me. So, I dunno. More a semantic move than anything else?
I have to agree, though, that I CANNOT UNDERSTAND why the Dems give two shits what the wingnut fringe of this country think about reform. BROS! Some people just will never like you. You have to accept this.
Well, essentially most Dems don't care. It's the "blue dongs," a very small bunch of Dems, that care. This group is from traditionally red voter areas. But after Bush they were able to sneak in as moderate liberals (e.g., they are Dem but oppose things like Cap and Trade and abortion). 2010 is coming and if they don't fold to these wingnuts they will be voted out for these areas' traditional GOP rep. SO, for those supporting this reform, the ems are what's holding it up because the weak dem leaders can't bring their whole party in line. It's not the GOP.
It's not semantics - the co-ops they're talking about instead of the public option will be state or regional, i.e., they won't really have as much bargaining power as a public option would, so they will be less attractive to eligible people and less useful as an alternative to private insurance. they're the appearance of a public option without any real impact.
I read this briefly as 'Is Public Opinion Dead?' and my reaction was that insofar as it means a rational, thought out debate buttressed by facts - well then, yes it is.
no. you are wrong.
And, for what I am sure will not be the first time even in this calendar year, my decision to raise my children in Canada is validated.
Are you canadian? Serious? You know, I have heard this "Then I'm leavin'." argument/statement orbiting this health care debate and I think, while making its point, does a disservice to the possibilities. Canada's system, while nowhere near the terrible thing it's made out to be, certainly has its share of drawbacks an american used to having health care here would be repulsed by. The grotesqueness of the american system is that we are so extraordinarily rich and yet have all these problems.
No, former US moved to Canada two weeks ago. It has its drawbacks, I'm sure, but at least everyone gets more-than-adequate care. Hell, my last week in the US I had kidney stones and they gave me an MRI; five years ago I had a kidney stones and they gave me an X-ray. Is an MRI really better than an X-ray for checking out kidney stones? Not at all. But it can be billed at a higher rate or. In Canada, my guess is I'd get an X-ray if it ever happened again. Some would make a lot of the x-ray vs. MRI thing, but if it means more people who would not get an X-Ray at all get to have an X-ray instead of just a few of us getting an MRI, then that's fine by me.
This exhausts my understanding of the health care system. Apart from the last two years spent filling out forms, some over and over again for repeated claims for the same exact service, for Empire BC/BS. I'll never have to suffer through that crap again, thank god, and the money that was put into pushing that paper can either be channeled to real health care spending or used for productive purposes in the economy.
Duuuuuuuuuude. Kidney stones are the suck. Stop drinking tea.