A Few Thoughts on healthcare

[iandhr]

I know what I am about to say might get me tarred and feathered but try to keep it civil. Whether or not we get a public option the healthcare bill the bill could still be meaning full and we should not immediately call for the bill to be struck down.

These are some random healthcare thoughts that have been in my head for the past few days.

Just to be clear I am in favor of a public option and I am a PROUD LIBERAL

On the public option debate Conservatives are opposed it because they are afraid that it will WORK. A government program working better then a private company would we a shock to there system they would not be able to handle it.

Liberals won't support a bill with out it because we are afraid (even though no one will admit it) that the bill could work with out it.

On the final bill. There can still be meaningful change with out the public option. If you were told in 2000 that a Democratic President and a Democratic Congress can get a bill that banned excluding people because of pre existing conditions and can't cancel coverage if someone gets sick we all would have JUMPED at that idea.

Millions of Americans can't get healthcare because of pre-existing conditions. Getting rid of this practice from insurance companies will be meaningful change for many people. I do not think that in this debate liberals should minimize this kind of change that it will mean for those who have pre existing conditions. My mother had cancer a few years back and lost her job last fall. The insurance runs out this May and my mother might not be able to get heath insurance after May because they might consider it a pre-excising condition.



We should CONSIDER the trigger the Senator Snowe is purposing. CONSIDER it do not immediate condemn it with out hearing the facts.

In all the honors and praise we gave the late Ted Kennedy the reason he was successful was because he was willing to compromise. Compromise has been a tradition in America since the dawn of are nation. Some have been good others not so much.

So all I am saying is lets in the honor of Ted Kennedy COOL OUR JETS and see what a bill without a public option looks like it STILL CAN WORK.

To be a pure liberal who is unwilling to comprise will not get us anywhere.

[elocs]

1. "To be a pure liberal who is unwilling to comprise will not get us anywhere." Good point.

Was Ted Kennedy a true Liberal? Was he willing to compromise to get most of what he wanted or what he could get?

[iandhr]

5. poor choice of words

I ment "pure"

[grantcart]

2. You are 100% wrong about supporting a bill without it because we are afraid it will

work.

The only way that it could work without the Public Option is with massive regulation, that regulating process would be contentious and open to exploitation to massive lobbying interest.

Public Option allows a competitive alternative in the market without the problems stated above.


But, completely for the sake of argument, I will consider a trigger under these conditions:


THE REPUBLICAN SENATE CAUCUS AGREES TO HAVE ATLEAST 20 MEMBERS VOTE FOR THE BILL IF THERE IS A TRIGGER.


What you are not putting into the equation is that the Republicans want a trigger, want to eliminate a public option but want to do it without losing any political coverage. In other words they want to dictate what is in the bill and then use the same bill against every single Democrat running for congress and the Senate.


It doesn't work that way. Negotiating a major concession with a single Republican is simply not going to happen. They probably told Olympia fine we will bring the 'trigger' up with the House if you have 10 Senators on your side.

Grassley said that he would negotiate the bill but even if they adopted everything that he wanted he would not vote for it unless he could get 4 other Republicans to agree with him - and he said that wasn't possible.


This is going to be a Democratic bill.


The Republicans are incapable of negotiating in good faith. That they would let their lunatic wing promote "Death Panels" ( a Republican request) and "pulling the plug on grandmother" showed that the Republicans don't want it to pass and if it passes they want to run against the Democrats with it.

Fine we will pass our bill and run against the Republicans with it.

[verges]

3. I was just getting ready to post something very similar.

What are we really expecting from HCR? Isn't the purpose to get 46 million people covered and to bring costs down? The best way to accomplish this is, of course, single-payer. But let's get real. The political will just ain't there yet. Look at the hard time the PO is having! The storm over single payer would be ten times worse! In the meantime, thousands die every year because of a lack of insurance. This needs to be stopped at ALL COSTS! And that includes, if possible, a system without a PO. I understand that the PO is the second best way to achieve the goals. I'm not thrilled with the idea of handing over billions of dollars from mandates and subsidies to private insurers. But, if the two goals can still be accomplished, perhaps we need to consider that option. Let's not lose sight of the goals! In the meantime, call your congresscritters in both houses and tell them you support the PO.

In a way, it might be better without the PO. It could mean that this issue will need to be revisited sooner rather than later; and then we can get single-payer!

[enlightenment]

4. Not trying to be rude, but you're not thinking this through in a

reality based sort of way.

There is nothing floating around this issue that will meaningfully control cost. It's fine to say that passing laws against denying coverage for pre-existing conditions or canceling coverage when someone gets sick will be 'meaningful change for many people' but those changes won't stop the insurance companies from jacking up rates through the roof to make sure they don't lose a cent of profit. They're already starting to raise their premiums, in anticipation of changes.

It also does nothing to ensure that the coverage OFFERED will be anything worth having. What good does it do an individual making $25,000 a year to pay $300 a month (lowball) for coverage that carries incredibly high deductibles and page after page of exclusions and restrictions? If you have to pay $1500 or $2000 in deductibles before your insurance even kicks in, you are underinsured - and that's a bigger problem now than the millions of uninsured.

I don't know what bill is going to come out of Congress, but I have a sinking feeling it's not going to change much of anything in the long-run - except for ONE very important thing.

It will serve as a banner for politicians to wave around for the next couple of elections as "reform" and it will derail any meaningful change for a very long time.