Conviction vs. Compromise

[The_Lillard_King]

I read that Obama has backed off his health plan. In particular, the part he went to bat about the public health insurance. He is now saying he would consider a co-op type of health care facility (instead of public health care).

I wonder if we want a president who will stand by his convictions or a president who is willing to compromise his beliefs to get legislation passed or pass the public opinion poll? Obama has the senate and house . . . isn't this a time to take advatage of a democratic congress and have things his way? I'm not saying Obama is right with his plan, but if he believes in it, why compromise?

I'm not sure how I feel about this . . . after Bush, I'm not used to a president willingness to bend in the face of public scrutiny. Again, is this a good thing?

 

[maxiep]

If Barack Obama hadn't tried to hide who he was to get elected, he could stand more on his principles.

 

[Idog1976]

If Barack Obama hadn't tried to hide who he was to get elected, he could stand more on his principles.

That's the number one thing that creeps me out about Obama. I could never read the guy, not even a little.

If Obama had wanted to take a principled stand he would have gone for Single Payer Universal Health Care while allowing private companies to compete. Just like in England. My ex-fiancee was English. She went to the NHS all the time and never had any complaints. She had a wealthy cousin who would only visit the prestigious doctors on High Street in London. The only real concern I have with Universal Single Payer is the cost although it would undoubtably be cheaper the what this country and it's citizens and corporations (the few that still offer full coverage) pay. The weight of the Insurance and Pharmaceutical companies not only harms the poor and uninsured. I believe it is a huge albatross around the neck of corporate America that few of it's competitors abroad have as a cost of doing business.
As far as Obama's change of stance. Well that's just politics.

You know I really miss Bush for his genius in oration. Truly people don't realize that Bush was our greatest...ever...comedian. A black comedy comedian who relied heavily on twisted gallows humor, but a comedian of grandiose stature who's full brilliance will only be understood by the comedic historians. Truly he knew no bounds to his humor. No subject was off limits for Bush's hilarious commentary. They say true genius isn't recognized while the person is alive. But I saw your mastery of the craft Bush, I bear witness!

 

[maxiep]

That's the number one thing that creeps me out about Obama. I could never read the guy, not even a little.

If Obama had wanted to take a principled stand he would have gone for Single Payer Universal Health Care while allowing private companies to compete. Just like in England. My ex-fiancee was English. She went to the NHS all the time and never had any complaints. She had a wealthy cousin who would only visit the prestigious doctors on High Street in London. The only real concern I have with Universal Single Payer is the cost although it would undoubtably be cheaper the what this country and it's citizens and corporations (the few that still offer full coverage) pay. The weight of the Insurance and Pharmaceutical companies not only harms the poor and uninsured. I believe it is a huge albatross around the neck of corporate America that few of it's competitors abroad have as a cost of doing business.
As far as Obama's change of stance. Well that's just politics.

You know I really miss Bush for his genius in oration. Truly people don't realize that Bush was our greatest...ever...comedian. A black comedy comedian who relied heavily on twisted gallows humor, but a comedian of grandiose stature who's full brilliance will only be understood by the comedic historians. Truly he knew no bounds to his humor. No subject was off limits for Bush's hilarious commentary. They say true genius isn't recognized while the person is alive. But I saw your mastery of the craft Bush, I bear witness!

It was almost if he thinks if would have run based on what he truly believed, he wouldn't have been elected.

 

[mook]

As much as I'd prefer a true British model, it would've been tough for Obama to run on that platform and win. Fringe politicians have the luxury of being ideologically pure. But Obama had no intention of being the liberal version of Ron Paul.

I'd really prefer to see something a little more bipartisan go through, but what's left of the Republican party has moved so far to the right that there's not a lot to compromise with.

As Paul Krugman wrote in his latest piece, we're moving toward a Swiss-style health care system:

Finally, the third route to universal coverage relies on private insurance companies, using a combination of regulation and subsidies to ensure that everyone is covered. Switzerland offers the clearest example: everyone is required to buy insurance, insurers can’t discriminate based on medical history or pre-existing conditions, and lower-income citizens get government help in paying for their policies.
In this country, the Massachusetts health reform more or less follows the Swiss model; costs are running higher than expected, but the reform has greatly reduced the number of uninsured. And the most common form of health insurance in America, employment-based coverage, actually has some “Swiss” aspects: to avoid making benefits taxable, employers have to follow rules that effectively rule out discrimination based on medical history and subsidize care for lower-wage workers.
So where does Obamacare fit into all this? Basically, it’s a plan to Swissify America, using regulation and subsidies to ensure universal coverage.

It's not ideal, but it's a lot better than what we have.

 

[maxiep]

As much as I'd prefer a true British model, it would've been tough for Obama to run on that platform and win. Fringe politicians have the luxury of being ideologically pure. But Obama had no intention of being the liberal version of Ron Paul.

I'd really prefer to see something a little more bipartisan go through, but what's left of the Republican party has moved so far to the right that there's not a lot to compromise with.

As Paul Krugman wrote in his latest piece, we're moving toward a Swiss-style health care system:



It's not ideal, but it's a lot better than what we have.

And here's the rub. There are going to be people who are going to be FURIOUS if they're required to buy health insurance; they want to spend their money on something else. That number is estimated to be 18 million who make enough, but choose not to buy it, 8.4 million between the ages of 18-25 who don't think they need it, 9.4 million who are between jobs, 8 million kids who are covered but who haven't been signed up by their parents and 3.5 million who are eligable for government healthcare who haven't signed up. The remainder are illegals who shouldn't be eligible for us to pay for their health care period.

The only people for whom I have sympathy are the 9.4 million who are between jobs (and if they still have the COBRA option, that sympathy is gone) and the 8 million kids who would have coveraage if they were signed up by their parents. So, let's be generous and say the pool is 17.4 million. Out of 300M people in this country, you'll have to excuse me if I don't think we should overturn the entire policy for less than 0.6% of the population.

But back to the Swiss system and our solution. Right now, we're only proposing half of it. We're saying that people can't be turned down for a pre-existing condition, you can get insurance at any time, but you're not required to have health insurance. That's a sweet deal. You don't have health insurance until you get really sick, then you sign up and are covered. It's the very definition of moral hazard and is simply untenable.

If you're going to force the insurance companies to cover everyone regardless of pre-existing conditions, you're going to have to require health insurance coverage.

 

[barfo]

And here's the rub. There are going to be people who are going to be FURIOUS if they're required to buy health insurance; they want to spend their money on something else.

They'll get over it. People are angry they have to buy car insurance, but they (occasionally) do it anyway. Some won't buy health insurance even if it is required, also.

The only people for whom I have sympathy are the 9.4 million who are between jobs (and if they still have the COBRA option, that sympathy is gone) and the 8 million kids who would have coveraage if they were signed up by their parents. So, let's be generous and say the pool is 17.4 million. Out of 300M people in this country, you'll have to excuse me if I don't think we should overturn the entire policy for less than 0.6% of the population.

Unless I misunderstand your argument, you meant less than 6%, not less than 0.6%.

barfo

 

[mook]

And here's the rub. There are going to be people who are going to be FURIOUS if they're required to buy health insurance; they want to spend their money on something else. That number is estimated to be 18 million who make enough, but choose not to buy it.

Yep. Some of that 6% of the US population will probably be furious. (I used to be among that 18 million. I don't know that it would've really made me mad to have to buy coverage back then, though. I think I would've felt the same way I do about seat belts. I know it's good for me, but I only actually use it because the government forces me.)

Should we abandon universal health care because some fraction of 6% of our population will hate being forced to buy coverage?

So, let's be generous and say the pool is 17.4 million. Out of 300M people in this country, you'll have to excuse me if I don't think we should overturn the entire policy for less than 0.6% of the population.

I think your math is wrong. It's 6%.

But back to the Swiss system and our solution. Right now, we're only proposing half of it. We're saying that people can't be turned down for a pre-existing condition, you can get insurance at any time, but you're not required to have health insurance. That's a sweet deal. You don't have health insurance until you get really sick, then you sign up and are covered. It's the very definition of moral hazard and is simply untenable.

If you're going to force the insurance companies to cover everyone regardless of pre-existing conditions, you're going to have to require health insurance coverage.

My understanding is that there's no final bill right now, and there are a number of options are on the table. One is mandating coverage, something Obama was against while running but is now in favor of (heh, getting back to the whole point of this thread).

I think the basic compromise that's been worked out between the Dems and the insurance companies is that in exchange for outlawing the cherry picking of customers, everybody will be mandated to buy insurance. This almost certainly seems to be in the cards for reform (assuming it happens).

The big question, as I understand it, is whether the Dems can include a public insurance option in the final bill.

 

[barfo]

I read that Obama has backed off his health plan. In particular, the part he went to bat about the public health insurance. He is now saying he would consider a co-op type of health care facility (instead of public health care).

I wonder if we want a president who will stand by his convictions or a president who is willing to compromise his beliefs to get legislation passed or pass the public opinion poll? Obama has the senate and house . . . isn't this a time to take advatage of a democratic congress and have things his way? I'm not saying Obama is right with his plan, but if he believes in it, why compromise?

Being willing to compromise in a negotiation can come from a few different angles. One is lack of conviction or not really caring what the outcome turns out to be. That's more or less what you are suggesting.

Another is having a weak bargaining position and facing the possibility of compromising and getting something or sticking to your guns and getting nothing.

A third, and in my experience the most common situation, is having an idea in mind of what you consider an acceptable outcome, and setting your initial position a bit beyond that such that you can "compromise" away some things you don't really have to have in order to reach the acceptable outcome.

barfo

 

[maxiep]

Yep. Less than 6%, not .6%. Fucking calculators have ruined me. Thanks for the correction barfo and Mook.

 

[maxiep]

My point isn't that the 17.4MM (less than 6%) will be angry, but the other 29.6MM (a shade less than 10%) who will now be forced to buy health insurance. The 6% are the ones who should be covered and who aren't. Color me heartless, but if you can afford to buy health insurance and don't, and something happens to you, then you get what you deserve. Lose your house paying for your healthcare? Too bad. If you're an illegal alien and you go in for health care, you get deported.

 

[MrJayremmie]

Color me heartless, but if you can afford to buy health insurance and don't, and something happens to you, then you get what you deserve

I agree with this.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

I read that Obama has backed off his health plan. In particular, the part he went to bat about the public health insurance. He is now saying he would consider a co-op type of health care facility (instead of public health care).

I wonder if we want a president who will stand by his convictions or a president who is willing to compromise his beliefs to get legislation passed or pass the public opinion poll? Obama has the senate and house . . . isn't this a time to take advatage of a democratic congress and have things his way? I'm not saying Obama is right with his plan, but if he believes in it, why compromise?

I'm not sure how I feel about this . . . after Bush, I'm not used to a president willingness to bend in the face of public scrutiny. Again, is this a good thing?

I want both.

First, I want a president of strong convictions. It beats one who governs by polls or special interest groups.

Second, I want a president that realizes that his convictions may not be the same as those shared by the citizens and that sometimes it is more important to listen to what the people really want and adjust accordingly.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

They'll get over it. People are angry they have to buy car insurance, but they (occasionally) do it anyway. Some won't buy health insurance even if it is required, also.barfo

First, I don't equate health insurance with auto insurance.

Second, I think your point is a bit too cavalier when people who can barely afford that auto insurance is being ordered, under penalty, by the federal government to buy health insurance regardless if they afford it or not- or else.

While I do understand the rationale behind it, I strongly disagree with it. There are much better ways to do this than threatening and ordering the citizenry around.
.

 

[barfo]

First, I don't equate health insurance with auto insurance.

Ok. There are differences, obviously. One involves cars, and the other the human body.

Second, I think your point is a bit too cavalier when people who can barely afford that auto insurance is being ordered, under penalty, by the federal government to buy health insurance regardless if they afford it or not- or else.

Not sure I understand your point. People are essentially ordered to buy auto insurance whether they can afford it or not. [You can argue that one can just not drive, but that's not very realistic for many people].

While I do understand the rationale behind it, I strongly disagree with it. There are much better ways to do this than threatening and ordering the citizenry around.
.

Every law consists of 'threatening and ordering the citizenry around'. Why is this (proposed) one different?

barfo

 

[rocketeer]

Ok. There are differences, obviously. One involves cars, and the other the human body.

of course, no one is required to have car insurance because people aren't required to have cars.

[You can argue that one can just not drive, but that's not very realistic for many people].

i don't think that's really all that unrealistic.

 

[barfo]

i don't think that's really all that unrealistic.

It depends on who you are. If you live in a city, then taking mass transit to work is probably pretty doable. If you live in a rural area, it may not be realistic at all.

barfo

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

barfo, I guess the thought of compelling people to spend serious money on healthcare when there are better alternatives strikes me the wrong way. There are easier and much cheaper ways to provide basic healthcare to anyone and everyone. Why we have to go thru a bureaucratic hell that is so costly as to doom it before it starts and then force businesses and middle-high income people to pay for it all is a plain stupid idea. Obama is stuck on his single-payer national healthcare plan and destroying insurance companies and frankly doesn't see the forest thru the trees. It's as if he's placing his presidential legacy on this plan. He gets kudos for trying, I suppose.

 

[Idog1976]

barfo, I guess the thought of compelling people to spend serious money on healthcare when there are better alternatives strikes me the wrong way. There are easier and much cheaper ways to provide basic healthcare to anyone and everyone. Why we have to go thru a bureaucratic hell that is so costly as to doom it before it starts and then force businesses and middle-high income people to pay for it all is a plain stupid idea. Obama is stuck on his single-payer national healthcare plan and destroying insurance companies and frankly doesn't see the forest thru the trees. It's as if he's placing his presidential legacy on this plan. He gets kudos for trying, I suppose.

I actually agree with most of this. This um..."Swiss" mode is freaking bullshit. I also think mandatory auto insurance is a scam by the auto insurance agencies. If you're covered and someone hits you fine. If not and you could afford it see Maxie's point above. If you can't afford insurance maybe you should take the bus. Single payer universal health care is the only way. This middle way is bullshit and is a nightmare of bureaucracy and strikes me as a virtual protection racket for select insurance companies.

If we did it right we could probably tax corporations at a rate that would be less then what they currently pay for employee health care through the silly insurance companies. I believe that if we do this and put insurance people out of jobs then we ought to pay to retrain them for another position and/or put them to work (if they want to) in the government handling the single payer system. I don't like the idea of average Americans who work in our ridiculous health care system losing jobs and I feel something ought to be done to offset that.

I feel single payer universal health care would free up a tremendous amount of capital for our other corporations and might allow them to pay higher wages in some instances, such is the enormous expense of our current system. It of course would also free up capital among the middle and lower classes which would either be spent, saved or invested all three of which help our economy in different ways. Some might disagree with me that saving money is helpful to the economy, but I feel that you are creating an economic safety net. It's a pity for most people that we didn't have a savings mentality prior to this recession. When they run out of Unemployment that's gonna be it. We're looking at a couple million coming off the rolls in the next 3 months unless another extension is given. If we had savings it would boost retail etc. as people would still have some money to spend even if they didn't have a job. I digress, point is universal single payer health care for the win Obamacare for the loss. Oh and the whole medical history digital thing creeps me out in combination with our big brother spying apparatus.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

Idog1976- Here are a few reasons why the single-payer system won't work.

1) Right now trhe insurance companies add a huge layer of bueracracy to health care as they stand between patients and the healthcare field. If the federal government stood between you and the healthcare industires, the levels of bueracracy would be several. Special interest groups (unions, plaintiffs associations, multiple leftie & rightie organizations, NAACP, AARP, SPCA...) as well as every pork-laden spending bill that comes down the pike. It would the ultimate nightmare storm.

2) According to what I read, the cost would increase 4-5 times as high as we spend now per person and only increase. I know it increases now, but I think it makes sense to dafely say all the more with the scenario in #1 above.

3) Quick acsess would be a thing of the past. Gone forever.

Do we want to make healthcare a political tool? I think not.