Democrats begin discussing smaller health bill

[Denny Crane]

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100121/D9DC3FF00.html

Democrats begin discussing smaller health bill

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Barack Obama and his Democratic allies are conceding for the first time that they may have to accept a less ambitious health overhaul bill than the massive one they've struggled for a year to assemble.

Shorn by Massachusetts voters of their pivotal 60th Senate vote and much of their political momentum, the White House and congressional leaders are considering a more modest version of Obama's top legislative priority. It could focus on curbing insurance company practices like denying coverage to sick people and on helping low-earning people and small businesses afford coverage, officials said.

Also fueling the Democratic search for a fresh health care strategy is a conviction by many in the party that it's time for an election-year focus on jobs and the economy, which polls show are easily the public's top concerns.

...

By all accounts, Democrats have made no final decision on their options, which included breaking the health legislation into several smaller bills. But without the 60th Senate vote they need to kill Republican delaying tactics - thanks to Tuesday's stunning Massachusetts special election win by Republican Scott Brown - Obama and others were talking about legislation that would attract broad support.

 

[Denny Crane]

I don't get to give props to the Democrats and Obama much, but this is just great news. Electing just the one republican may have the truly good effect on them. Focus on jobs and the economy? AWESOME. It's the economy stupid, after all. And they'll get 100 votes for a smaller bill that spends $0 but cracks down on these insurance company practices.

The omnibus style bill they were trying to pass was just bad legislation. This approach, breaking it up into bits that are easy to define and defend. It brings both parties together where they agree and forces the really big spending ideas to be put to the scrutiny that is appropriate for such things.

It gives the Dems a chance to figure out a public option without taxing and spending $1T in a bill that didn't have one. If it takes another year to get it right, so be it.

 

[MrJayremmie]

And they'll get 100 votes for a smaller bill that spends $0 but cracks down on these insurance company practices.

How much you wanna bet they will get near 0 pub votes?

It isn't even about the bill, the repubs wanted Obama to fail. In the e-mail they said it will be his waterloo so they need to do whatever to stop this bill. They could give a shit less about the bill, they don't want the dems passing anything that will be seen as a "victory" for the left.

Its pure politics. The American people don't matter at all.

 

[Sug]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/20/obama-backers-more-commit_n_429673.html

Massachusetts voters who backed Barack Obama in the presidential election a year ago and either switched support to Republican Senate candidate Scott Brown or simply stayed home, said in a poll conducted after the election Tuesday night that if Democrats enact tougher policies on Wall Street, they'll be more likely to come back to the party in the next election.

A majority of Obama voters who switched to Brown said that "Democratic policies were doing more to help Wall Street than Main Street." A full 95 percent said the economy was important or very important when it came to deciding their vote.

In a somewhat paradoxical finding, a plurality of voters who switched to the Republican -- 37 percent -- said that Democrats were not being "hard enough" in challenging Republican policies.

It would be hard to find a clearer indication, it seems, that Tuesday's vote was cast in protest.

The poll also upends the conventional understanding of health care's role in the election. A plurality of people who switched -- 48 -- or didn't vote -- 43 -- said that they opposed the Senate health care bill. But the poll dug deeper and asked people why they opposed it. Among those Brown voters, 23 percent thought it went "too far" -- but 36 percent thought it didn't go far enough and 41 percent said they weren't sure why they opposed it.

Among voters who stayed home and opposed health care, a full 53 percent said they opposed the Senate bill because it didn't go far enough; 39 percent weren't sure and only eight percent thought it went too far.

The firm Research 2000 conducted the post-election survey Tuesday night on behalf of three progressive organizations -- the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, Democracy for America and MoveOn.org.

Taken from interviews of 500 Obama backers who voted in the Senate election and 500 Obama backers who sat out the election, the firm discovered that 18 percent of Obama backers who voted in the Senate race ended up casting ballots for Brown.

Of that group, 82 percent said they favored a public option for insurance coverage, with 14 percent opposed. Of those who sat out the election, 86 percent favored the public option, while only seven percent opposed it. The findings suggests that progressive arguments that disappointed Obama supporters deserted have serious merit.

UPDATE: With little, if any, historical precedent for the current situation in Congress, anything is possible on Capitol Hill over the next few weeks. Progressives have seized on the chaos and the polling numbers above to argue that the message voters sent was that Democrats haven't been bold enough. So far, more than 100,000 people have signed a petition calling for the Senate to put the public option back into the health care bill and pass it using the parliamentary maneuver known as reconciliation, which only requires 50 votes plus the vice president. Meanwhile, top Democrats are taking the idea seriously.

"Congressional Democrats have now been given fair warning by voters about what they expect in 2010: faster change, bolder change, and a willingness to fight big corporations on behalf of the little guy," said Adam Green, whose organization is leading the petition effort. "The Lieberman-Nelson strategy lost Ted Kennedy's Senate seat. Now it's time to push the public option through reconciliation -- and then, on to strong Wall Street accountability."

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

It isn't even about the bill, the repubs wanted Obama to fail. In the e-mail they said it will be his waterloo so they need to do whatever to stop this bill. They could give a shit less about the bill, they don't want the dems passing anything that will be seen as a "victory" for the left.

Its pure politics. The American people don't matter at all.

A part of me agrees. We've been seeing both dems and pubs doing this since Bush, Sr was Prez. Often it's not about the bill but sticking it to the opponent.

And that's where leadership comes in. Leadership at the White House and in Congress. Clinton & Bush, Jr were poor presidents and poor leaders. Obama had all the earmarks of being a good leader, but has been just a far left socialist with no real desire to bring both sides together. Pelosi & Reid are bigots and liars who have an honest disdain for people they supposedly 'serve'. NOT because they're dems, the pubs also had horrible leadership when they controlled Congress recently.

If we had good leadership in DC, maybe we'd see some real change and see things get better rather than worse.

 

[yakbladder]

It gives the Dems a chance to figure out a public option without taxing and spending $1T in a bill that didn't have one. If it takes another year to get it right, so be it.

So out of curiosity, Denny, how do you see getting a public option w/o taxation?

 

[maxiep]

How much you wanna bet they will get near 0 pub votes?

It isn't even about the bill, the repubs wanted Obama to fail. In the e-mail they said it will be his waterloo so they need to do whatever to stop this bill. They could give a shit less about the bill, they don't want the dems passing anything that will be seen as a "victory" for the left.

Its pure politics. The American people don't matter at all.

What in the previous bill do you believe contained ideas and policies Republicans could support? Do you really believe they were being obstructionist just for the sake of obstruction? Is it at all conceivable that the idea of a first step to a single-payer system might be against Republican philosophy?

 

[The_Lillard_King]

I don't get to give props to the Democrats and Obama much, but this is just great news. Electing just the one republican may have the truly good effect on them. Focus on jobs and the economy? AWESOME. It's the economy stupid, after all. And they'll get 100 votes for a smaller bill that spends $0 but cracks down on these insurance company practices.

The omnibus style bill they were trying to pass was just bad legislation. This approach, breaking it up into bits that are easy to define and defend. It brings both parties together where they agree and forces the really big spending ideas to be put to the scrutiny that is appropriate for such things.

It gives the Dems a chance to figure out a public option without taxing and spending $1T in a bill that didn't have one. If it takes another year to get it right, so be it.

So you think the president has a direct effect on the economy of teh US?

 

[blazerboy30]

So out of curiosity, Denny, how do you see getting a public option w/o taxation?

If I read Denny's post correctly, he didn't claim that we could get a public option w/o taxation.

He said the Dems were taxing and spending $1T in this bill, which didn't have a public option.

 

[yakbladder]

Is it at all conceivable that the idea of a first step to a single-payer system might be against Republican philosophy?

The problem with that mindset is that it defeats all compromise. Compromise involves giving up something. If you're always thinking by giving up something you're going to end up ten steps down the line, you never give up anything.

And yes, I definitely think the GOP is being obstructionist. I think they are playing politics rather than looking at policy and I think the Dems have done it before. I don't think either side is right for doing it.

 

[maxiep]

The problem with that mindset is that it defeats all compromise. Compromise involves giving up something. If you're always thinking by giving up something you're going to end up ten steps down the line, you never give up anything.

And yes, I definitely think the GOP is being obstructionist. I think they are playing politics rather than looking at policy and I think the Dems have done it before. I don't think either side is right for doing it.

We'll agree to disagree, then. And the idea of compromise on the Democratic side regarding this health care legislation has been a joke. You shouldn't pretend otherwise. This isn't just some usual bill. They tried to freeze out an entire party to transform 1/6 of the Nation's economy. It's indefensible.

 

[Eastoff]

they'll get 100 votes for a smaller bill that spends $0 but cracks down on these insurance company practices.

you really think all those republicans voting no were because of the government spending?

But yes, this is good to break it up into small chunks. Hopefully some of this gets passed atleast

 

[Eastoff]

Obama had all the earmarks of being a good leader, but has been just a far left socialist with no real desire to bring both sides together.

oh you

 

[blazerboy30]

you really think all those republicans voting no were because of the government spending?

But yes, this is good to break it up into small chunks. Hopefully some of this gets passed atleast

Like which parts? Which parts of the current bills do you like?

 

[Eastoff]

We'll agree to disagree, then. And the idea of compromise on the Democratic side regarding this health care legislation has been a joke. You shouldn't pretend otherwise. This isn't just some usual bill. They tried to freeze out an entire party to transform 1/6 of the Nation's economy. It's indefensible.

so you don't think removing the public option was a huge fucking compromise?

 

[Eastoff]

Like which parts? Which parts of the current bills do you like?

I like the idea of health care providers not being allowed to have "pre-existing conditions" as a loophole. I don't like how our pharmaceuticals cost so much more than the rest of the world. I would like a public option.

 

[blazerboy30]

I like the idea of health care providers not being allowed to have "pre-existing conditions" as a loophole.

Then you have to mandate purchasing insurance. That may be fine with you, but to me it isn't ok for the government to tell me I am required to purchase a product.

I don't like how our pharmaceuticals cost so much more than the rest of the world.

Drug development costs a lot of money. Where do you think 95% of new medical products are introduced?

I would like a public option.

Then you should be glad if these bills get killed.


So you are upset that the current bills will get killed, even though only 1 of 3 things you wanted were addressed?

 

[yakbladder]

Then you have to mandate purchasing insurance. That may be fine with you, but to me it isn't ok for the government to tell me I am required to purchase a product.

Okay, but only on one condition. If you ever get sick you are unable to use any public or private facility that is supported by money from other people. Is that fair? Otherwise you're tapping our resource. And if you get anybody else sick you have to pay for their health costs as well. And you can't be buried on our dime either. Also, let's get rid of car insurance, that seems worthless as well.

Drug development costs a lot of money. Where do you think 95% of new medical products are introduced?

Well, to be honest, probably Europe as things around here get approved 10 years after they've already been in Europe. And what kind of line is that? So we as Americans should fund all drug research and be happy the rest of the world gets it for uber cheap? Talk about pro-pharma. Nevermind the fact that NIH (taxpayer supported) pays for a ton of health research.

 

[blazerboy30]

Okay, but only on one condition. If you ever get sick you are unable to use any public or private facility that is supported by money from other people. Is that fair? Otherwise you're tapping our resource. And if you get anybody else sick you have to pay for their health costs as well. And you can't be buried on our dime either.

Really? Then, do I also get to stop paying taxes?

Do you want to start appropriating how much of the public resources I get to use based on how much in taxes I pay? I would gladly make that trade. I don't think you would.

Also, let's get rid of car insurance, that seems worthless as well.

You didn't honestly try to bring up the "health insurance mandate is similar to auto insurance mandate", did you?

I thought we were past that beyond idiotic comparison.

Well, to be honest, probably Europe as things around here get approved 10 years after they've already been in Europe.

95% of new medical industry releases are in the US. Europe isn't going to magically just improve and increase their research because the US decreases theirs.

You seem to be in favor of shrinking the "pie".

And what kind of line is that? So we as Americans should fund all drug research and be happy the rest of the world gets it for uber cheap? Talk about pro-pharma. Nevermind the fact that NIH (taxpayer supported) pays for a ton of health research.

It's called an economy. One that the US is fortunate to have.

 

[Denny Crane]

How much you wanna bet they will get near 0 pub votes?

It isn't even about the bill, the repubs wanted Obama to fail. In the e-mail they said it will be his waterloo so they need to do whatever to stop this bill. They could give a shit less about the bill, they don't want the dems passing anything that will be seen as a "victory" for the left.

Its pure politics. The American people don't matter at all.

I have heard Mitch McConnell, senate minority leader, say many many times that these sorts of modifications are what republicans favor.

I would hold them to their word.

 

[Denny Crane]

So out of curiosity, Denny, how do you see getting a public option w/o taxation?

There are 3 ways to do health care: private, single payer, and socialized. A combination is possible.

Private is where you pay the doctors and hospitals yourself, or get insurance.

Single payer is where the doctors and hospitals are private, but they bill the government for any service performed.

Socialized is where the government builds and owns the hospitals and pays the medical staff as govt. employees.

The democrats proposed to make their health care bill work over 10 years. In my view, over 10 years and $20B/year, we could build a lot of hospitals and clinics. Mostly clinics. $20B a year is chump change in a $3T budget (and they should cut back to that level, IMO).

With education grants the govt. already gives out, they should pay for doctors' education if they'll work for the government hospitals or clinics for 5 years.

People who go to these clinics and hospitals pay for services they receive. They can buy plans for $250 a year and up that entitle them to a certain minimum level of services. $250 might pay for flu shots twice a year, a couple of doctor (clinic) visits, and a set of lab tests. $1500/year buys you heart surgery or brain surgery (expensive procedures). If people show up for heart surgery and didn't pay the fees beforehand, they or family members get their paychecks docked until their fair share is paid in.

I'm describing something of a govt. run HMO, or like the VA but for everyone. There's no insurance involved, though private insurance might pay for your expenses at a govt. facility.

The problem with the current line of thinking (the bill in congress) is that it's about insurance. Insurance isn't health care, clinics and hospitals is health care. By far, most people pay $300 or $500 per month and receive less than $500 per year in actual services. The $500/year is how to save money.

You subsidize the poor and the expensive services by charging $50 for a clinic visit that has a cost of $30, and pooling the extra $20 to pay for the heart surgeries and indigents.

It's extremely important, in my view, that there still be a private sector industry. If you want to buy blue cross, it is your right. If the govt. (and they will) decides you're 85 years old and not deserving of a heart transplant, you should be able to mortgage your house and get one on your own.

And then there's the constitutional issue. We all have a right to life, liberty, and property that the govt. cannot take without due process. A decision that you're 85, etc., violates your right to life and there's no due process (jury of your peers) involved. So the private sector option has to be there.

Make sense?

 

[Eastoff]

Then you have to mandate purchasing insurance. That may be fine with you, but to me it isn't ok for the government to tell me I am required to purchase a product.

So you must be PISSED about everyone around you having to buy auto insurance in case they hit your car, huh?

Drug development costs a lot of money. Where do you think 95% of new medical products are introduced?

The same place our music and soda is test marketed?

Then you should be glad if these bills get killed.

perhaps...

So you are upset that the current bills will get killed, even though only 1 of 3 things you wanted were addressed?

there are more than 3 things I like about the bill, but I'm too lazy to think that hard. (yes that is my weakness and a negative trait)

 

[Eastoff]

Do you want to start appropriating how much of the public resources I get to use based on how much in taxes I pay? I would gladly make that trade. I don't think you would.

I MAKE SO MUCH MONEY OMG!! HAHAHA!

 

[blazerboy30]

So you must be PISSED about everyone around you having to buy auto insurance in case they hit your car, huh?

Again...

You didn't honestly try to bring up the "health insurance mandate is similar to auto insurance mandate", did you?

I thought we were past that beyond idiotic comparison.

 

[Eastoff]

I have heard Mitch McConnell, senate minority leader, say many many times that these sorts of modifications are what republicans favor.

I would hold them to their word.

Joe Lieberman said he would support a medicare age lower to 55 in his state paper. then when it was an option he said he wouldn't vote for it. funny how that works huh?

 

[blazerboy30]

I MAKE SO MUCH MONEY OMG!! HAHAHA!

Anybody paying more than the average amount total tax burden can make that claim. So, assuming a relatively normal distribution, about half the people in the country can make that claim. I don't think that is bragging.

 

[Eastoff]

Again...

because people risking your life because they are too lazy to spend that extra money on a vaccine is nothing like people being too lazy to spend that extra money on fixing your car?

 

[Eastoff]

Anybody paying more than the average amount total tax burden can make that claim. So, assuming a relatively normal distribution, about half the people in the country can make that claim. I don't think that is bragging.

"I make more money than half the population" that isn't bragging?

 

[blazerboy30]

"I make more money than half the population" that isn't bragging?

No. It means I might make slightly above average.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

The problem Obama is facing is there is no answer to the health care problem that a majority of voters will favor.

The baby boom generation is hitting their golden years and many have lost a significant portion of their retirement or did not save properly. The reality of older people not being able to afford medical care and prescription medication is here and will get worse each year for the next ten years. This is a serious problem with no easy answer and no answer taht will make a majority happy.


Have fun with that Obama . . . I feel for him.