Senators Consider A New National Health Plan, But The Devil's In The Details
Remember that just about anything can happen between now and the final version of the healthcare reform bill that comes out of the conference committee.
At first glance, this latest proposal seems like a workable compromise - but it really isn't. What are the odds that Blue Cross plans will undercut their own products? And why the separate plan, anyway? Why not just let people buy into the federal employees' plan?
President Barack Obama will meet Sunday with Senate Democrats on Capitol Hill, as a group of moderate and liberal senators weighed a new public option compromise in hopes of striking a deal by early in the week.
The president’s visit comes at the start of what will be a critical week for the health care reform bill. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) will attempt to reach a so-far elusive compromise on the public option, and begin taking the procedural steps needed to pass a bill by Christmas.
As the Senate convened a rare Saturday session, about a dozen Democratic senators continued intensive talks on the public option, with the goal of agreeing on a framework that can garner 60 votes.
There appeared to be serious consideration of a new proposal on the table: a national health plan similar to the Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan, which provides insurance to members of Congress and federal workers. It would be administered by the Office of Personnel Management, which oversees the federal plan, and all of the insurance options would be not-for-profit.
“So in other words, what we got is a national plan that the progressives would like, but that’s where that middle is, we’re trying to find that middle,” said Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa).
“There’s sort of a kind of a general agreement on where we’re headed on this thing,” Harkin added.
Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), a public option opponent who faces a tough reelection next year, said she was encouraged by the proposal.
“It’s one of the things that’s been talked about, and I think it bodes well for being able to do what we want to do, which is to create greater choice and options in the marketplace but also have a downward pressure on premiums on cost ,” Lincoln said. “Those are the dual objectives we've got.”
Boxer: "I live in the reality of this."
NO YOU DON'T, BOXER. YOU GET GOVERNMENT-RUN HEALTHCARE, purchased on a govt. run health care exchange. That's not the reality that's available to everybody else.
Congress is the LEAST realistic place in the whole world. Talk about living in the land of Oz.
Then, I don't understand why congress and the senate gets to decide whether the rest of us can get health care without any possibility of the American public voting on it, which should come back with an overwhelming "yes". At least so as long as there aren't any teabaggers or intimidators at the polls.
I wonder why in "the land of Oz", only they get to call the shots for the rest of us in reality.
is like a corporate proxy vote
Some stuff you can't make up!
Personally, I don't think governing by referendum works any better. If it did, California should be a great role model. In reality, though, California has been bankrupted by binding referenda calling for tax cuts on the one hand, and binding referenda calling for spending programs on the other.
If you govern by referenda all you get is tyranny of the majority at worst, and tyranny of minority interest groups at best.
There are other ways to fix the problem of an elitist oligarchy of plutocrats running things.
1. Term limits on Congress.
2. Campaign finance reform.
The second point should involve a new classification of businesses so that they are no longer protected by dumbass Supreme Court decisions like Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad that give corporations the same rights as people (such as lobbying Congress or influencing the political debate) while not giving them the same liabilities as people.
Doing this would be simple. Use legislation to create a new status for corporations where it is clear that they are not people, and not entitled to influence political decisions, and (as an incentive to get companies to re-define themselves by the new law) because they are not people, should not be subject to the same taxes. (Most corporations don't pay corporate tax anyway, due to some clever deductions, but I'm sure they'd like to get out of having to juggle their activities to take advantage of those deductions.) In the long run the country would be much better off having corporate interests butt out of the political process, which would more than make up for the minor loss of corporate taxes.
about having term limits and campaign finance reform. Unfortunately, getting that kind of legislation passed would not be "simple' as you say - keeping in mind that it is the very legislators we currently have - who are all bought and paid for by the corpora-fascists- who would have to be developing and enacting these new laws.
They have not, in my memory, (which is pretty darn long) ever voted for anything that would remove them from the gravy train.... (McCain-Feingold being a slight aberration, which has been pretty much circumvented)
"Egotism is the anesthetic that dulls the pain of Stupidity" - Frank Leahy
and increase their profits. You must have heard of it--corporate welfare? That which BHO was against? We make cigarette advertising illegal because cigarettes will kill you after they make you very sick, then we subsidize the tobacco industry to cover the loss of profits from declining sales from not being able to advertise. Do you see the foolishness and just plain stupidity that drives this country?
.
Boxer: "I live in the abject reality of this."
.
Starve the WAR Beast...
... Feed Americans.
of this."
While teabaggers may say, "no government takeover of my health care", the rest of us get to say "no more corporate stranglehold on my health care."
Health insurance CEO's profiting is surely not fair for the rest of us since it is so plutonomous and kleptocratic. Frankly, I don't really see what is overall popular to being a CEO nowadays, even though some kids still dream of that.
For sure, the way to get this economy and health care system back on track, corporations need to be taxed 90% for any profits they make like in the good ol' days...Before Reagan, before the empire, before trickle-down economics, and before the health care and economic industrial complex.
Although, Nixon may be gritting his teeth in his grave as a health care overall for less profit is pending. Otherwise, Nixon, Reagan, and the Republicans are the gifts that keep on giving - to the rich from the poor.
the progressives would like, but that's where that middle is, we’re trying to find that middle,' said Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa)."
What?
I think he's saying that the "progressive" view point is actually what most Americans want. Or at least that's what I'd like to hear him saying.
familiar with. First of all, it may be the liberal view, and it may not. But I cannot see it as the progressive view. Maybe I am wrong about that, but I thought single payer was the progressive view. However, to his "...but that's where that middle is, we're trying to find that middle...." Well, I can only say, what are you trying to say? Spit it out. This is weasel English. It means nothing. More empty talk to let people think they are going to get something besides screwed by those who are supposed to represent them. I don't care if he has an R or a D after his name. Bullshit is bullshit. This is bullshit.
whether are not we get our senators and congressmen to push for more regulation of corporations and insurance industries and allowing a public option in place. But, I wonder how much a public option is a reasonable compromise for a national health care plan for all of us. I would hope if there is going to be a public option, it would be win-win for all of us since private insurers will be forced to reduce health costs and have an even less expensive public option that's gov't-funded to go to when we're either ailing or sick.
get our senators and congressmen (congressPEOPLE, but that's for another time) to do anything. They never even put single payer on the table, remember? They are going to do what the private insurance companies want, and that is mandatory coverage purchased from private corporations with the premiums collected by the government for the private companies, like SS and medicare, and enforced by the government with fines and jail for those who do not comply. Doesn't this piss you off just a little?
Our congressmen/people and senators have the health care they need and almost never understand the needs of their represented people. It's like they're in the Emerald City of Oz with their cushy, gov't-run, health insurance, while the rest of us are in the woods under the rules of private insurers giving us too much of the shorter end of the stick by paying more and getting less. It's like we're trying to get by saying, "Nixons, Reagans, and Bushes, oh my!..."
is that I have have experience getting denied coverage with such insurance conglomerates such as Assurant Health and Blue Cross/Blue Shield, and they seem to get away with that with hardly any consequences even today. Their TV ads are most likely deceptive, even when they say they will no longer deny pre-existing conditions. Like Einstein said, "you can't solve a problem on the same plane it was created." - Therefore profiting and denying coverage surely defies all reason and common sense, which would otherwise be a crime in other industrialized countries.
.
No, I was just talking about the insurance companies that denied me coverage before I was able to find health insurance with Kaiser Permenente 3 years ago. They say they're not for profit, even though it costs me $200+ a month. So, I would hope that $ goes to good use for the Kaiser Foundation.
For a period of time 3 years ago, I had no adequate health insurance after my college plan had expired.
"Congressmen/people?" Try this "congressmen" or "congresswomen" or "congresspeople." Many here call them "congress critters," which I thought was too cutsie at first, but I see the wisdom in it now.
100% with you on "congresscritters." Way too cutsie... until you learn how useful/easy it can be. It also let's you get lazy on Senate/House differences when they don't really matter.
Just need a good Beverly Hillbillies link....
Corruption favors the wealthy.
Maybe I'm tired. How is this different from the house bill? Different administrators?
That's why such administrators, underwriters, and middle men often get things messed up in such unnecessary bureaucracies which leads to denial of coverage and costs in errors such as what has been with private for-profit insurance - where the REAL death panels are.
Bullshit is heavy.
it was to Biff running his car into the manure truck in BTTF.
.
...LOVED IT!
Starve the WAR Beast...
... Feed Americans.
Why can't we buy into Congress's existing plan? Oh, I don't know, maybe because we don't work for the government, and I don't know about you, but *I* certainly can't afford their plan without (an employer's) assistance. And from what I read from you Susie, neither can you.
If we can't get single payer, an option to buy into a non-profit (one who has all federal regulations and no way to convert to for-profit) sounds pretty damned good to me. A reasonable start to healthcare reform works for me. Canada didn't get national HC at first and social security and Medicare were not originally what they are today.
They're saying it will be open to any not-for-profit insurance company. Well, that's most if not all of them. They have a not-for-profit or non-profit as the holding company, and lots of for-profit subsidiaries - to whom they will steer their business.
You don't honestly expect them to cut their own throats, do you?
A former award-winning journalist and lifelong class warrior, keeping a jaundiced eye on the Washington elite.
Will they have to be vetted by the OPM? Will they be regulated? Are there controls in place for them to remain not-for-profit?
Those are a couple of questions I have off the top of my mind. I'm sorry but something reasonable is better than nothing. I prefer universal coverage, single-payer or a public option. But I also prefer something to nothing. We have to start somewhere.
know what section of the tax code allows non-profits to own for-profits. Is it case law or statutory? There is much going around in certain circles that makes me angry, like the article (in, I think, WaPo) the other day, by someone who is an attorney, saying it is legal for the government to require private citizens to be forced to buy private insurance. I strongly disagree. If what you say is true, and I have no reason to believe that it isn't true, I want to know how this got to be law. Please, please tell me.
... Canada had a plan. We don't.
Big f*cking difference I think.
Throwing sh*t at the wall and see what sticks is not necessarily the best way to paint a replica of the Mona Lisa. Even if it took Leonardo a long time to complete the original.
Canada had what plan?
you should at least know that before drawing parallels...
BTW, medicare et al have gotten significantly worse not better with time.
Since I live with a Canadian, I'm interested in what you think you know.
M. Taylor "Health Insurance and Canadian Public Policy. The Seven Decisions That Created the Canadian Health Insurance System and Their Outcomes". 2nd ed. Kingston, Ontario: McGill–Queen’s University Press; 1987.
C. Naylor "Private Practice, Public Payment: Canadian Medicine and the Politics of Health Insurance 1911–1966". Kingston, Ontario: McGill–Queen’s University Press; 1986.
Granted, I had access to them via the UC library service. But they are interesting reads none the less.
One of the interesting aspects was that some of the people advocating and implementing the reform were adamant at keeping the legislation as "health insurance reform" The fact that we already got a bad start by allowing private insurers to frame this as a "health CARE reform" (which is not) makes me very weary of our approach, and I would not dare to draw any parallels between this clusterf*ck of a reform and how places like Canada carried out theirs.
You're right about the framing of the HC debate. You're not so right about Canada. Their system started in one province (as a farm coop) - no plan for nationalization. It went so well, something similar was adopted by other provinces. It was more than 20 years for the Canadian federal government to become involved.
BTW, it was originated by a guy recently named the greatest Canadian ever, Tommy Douglas, who is Keifer Southerland's grandfather.
I suggest you check out the two books I just listed on the subject. The arguments you used to correct me seem to have been drawn from an oversimplified historical review.
The devil, as they say, is in the details.
Cheers.
Edit to add: another fascinating misrepresentation regarding the Canadian health care system, it is that their single payer approach is actually a compromise from some of the initial proposals. Which is ironic, that the system that was developed as a compromise in Canada it's seem as "too radical," to even be considered as a possibility... in this farce of a debate we have had so far regarding health insurance reform in this country.
It makes sense that some Americans consider a negotiation based on a position already compromised to the extreme, as being a viable approach to effect reform. Since we are the only nation, in the industrialized world, to be stupid enough to deal with their healthcare purely as a profit proposition.
to how stupid, if not powerless they know we are. the media and the washDC innercirclejerk really have nothing but contempt and disdain for all of us, not just the ignant repug base.
Some stuff you can't make up!
Right. Everyone who has both fab coverage and money to pay whatever is needed. It's sick that people pay attention to these rich, connected talking heads. As if they ever spend a day in the life of a regular American.
While I've always liked Barbara Boxer, I think the constant repetition of 'We're going to get IT done" does nothing to make me feel comfortable that IT is going to make any difference to the people who most need meaningful health care reform. IT.
like either Ted Kennedy or MLK, Jr did during the civil rights movement. Such leadership doesn't necessarily, and probably won't be made by a politician living in the Emerald City, err, working in Washington.
Perhaps it's hard to sympathize with someone "less significant" than the other when he/she feels high and mighty with money and power.
And Ed would have none of it. "Get it done" my ass. Like Clara Peller said, where's the beef, Barbara?
Good intentions are the path to hell. People die every day because of this insipid waffling and selling out of the public by Congress and others.
"We will find fulfillment not in the goods that we have, but in the good we can do for each other."
Robert F. Kennedy
... in some strange ways, suggesting a weakening in her previous position that isn't palatable to progressives. But what's the alterative -- Carly Fiorino? We need to keep pressure on Boxer and others to stay the course (sorry), but we'll be in worse shape if we give up on her/them entirely.
WASHINGTON – Casting health care overhaul as a legacy for the American people and failure as politically unthinkable, President Barack Obama on Sunday rallied Senate Democrats to deliver on their party's half-century quest to expand the social safety net by providing access for all. (Social Safety Net?)
The Reality
Obama's signature domestic policy goal — would provide coverage to more than 30 million additional people over the next decade with a new requirement for nearly everyone to purchase insurance.
More ironic is this is from the same blurb . . pitch . . article or whatever passes as news these days.
this doesn't surprise me. the people of this country are deep into "individualism". the "collective" we the people have been taken out of the process. i find it somewhat interesting. the... every person for themselves, the NOT talking to your neighbor, the dislike for people NOT like yourself....is at an all time high. the "collective" is NOT there on many levels. i understand the strength of "individualism" but i believe we are seeing/experiencing the weakness of NOT having a "collective" strength. i think it plays into the reduced/ no unions and also the new economy of selling/deceptive paper/deals. it's no longer about working together/loyalty....it's now about trumping your fellow citizen/deception in the market. it's not sustainable.
products and services all across the entire board are now notoriously unreliable and of extremely poor quality.
'poor quality' in many cases is by design. you know as well as i do many products are designed to fail/expire/weaken become out of favor to have an affect on mega ongoing consumerism. quantity over quality has ruled the last 10-15 yrs. to me it's part of the no loyalty.........just me me and volume. everything is disposable........it's no longer "hold" your stocks for the long run....now it's nimble trading. Now you can lose your job regardless of performance. unfettered capitalism/"individualism" has weaknesses.
open and lips pursed, he will do what is needed to sell us out and make it look like the other guy did it.
Well when the spin starts OFF goes the the TV i ahve DVDs' don't need the Main Strean Entertainment Media tell me what i see and hear isn't what i see and Hear.
Sure hope these assholes can get Party participation and people involment for their up coming election me I've had enough. Reach across the aisle and see how much help you are going to get.
SELL OUTS
Why not just let people buy into the federal employees' plan?:
Because it is simple, it would be effective and it would provide real competition to the corrupt private insurance companies.
Anyone who believes that we have a government of,for&by the people are just fooling themselves. We need to start over from the ground up, fire everyone and rewrite the rules to ensure the peoples will be done and damn the corporations.
The people have lost in the health care debate, and they lost long ago. Whatever comes out of Congress at this point, it is not going to be anything remotely like what the American people need. Anyone who thinks that the war was won when we elected Barack Obama President of the United States might finally wake up when he signs the final version of the bill, and turns around and begins to crow about what a great moment is it for the American people. A great moment for him, maybe, but for us? Forget it.
Tell the Senators, there will be two Bills. One bill will have all the reforms in it, “Pre-Conditions,” and "Rescission” and even an “Anti-Trust,” component, etc, etc. Water down the Abortion part, since there already is a Federal Law on the books (this parallel argument is horse Hockey, it’s stupid to even argue this point).
All the Health Bill absent the Strong Public Option, this shuts up the four Moderate Wider beasts Democrats.
Then, Put a Bill together with the Strong Public option all by it’s self, worked so it will stand the ten and twenty years rules of Rescission, mainly staying under cost for the two time periods.
I know, I know details, details, yes I know, it’s the devil in the details, but talk it up and I believe it’s workable. Bill one should past with 60 votes and the Bill Two should pass with 59 + 1 votes.
Ok have at it.
Ministerbruce
I meant 50 + 1 on the Second Bill THE SPO Bill.
Ministerbruce
STOP BUYING THE PRODUCT.
I did well over a year ago.
No money for insurance companies - no insurance company business, no money for lobbying legislators, no need for legislators to suckle on the Golden Teat.
or one of THEM!
Mister Harry (blowing in the wind) Reid? Seriously what the hell last time I paid attention to this clusterfuck of a health insurance bailout Reid was apparently saying he wouldn't compromise on the public option anymore. Next thing I read he's reinventing the public option to try and get a compromise out before Christmas?
">">high protein low carb diet
">nutrition weight loss
">weight loss supplements
low carb diet
The high protein low carb diet is a great way to loose weight but it is important to include weight loss supplements such as fibre in your diet SS.
Comments are closed on this entry