KRUGMAN: The insurance industry, of course, loves the Baucus plan. Need we say more?

[kpete]

Baucus and the Threshold
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: September 17, 2009

................

The insurance industry, of course, loves the Baucus plan. Need we say more?

So this plan has to change. What matters now is the direction in which it changes.

It would be disastrous if health care goes the way of the economic stimulus plan, earlier this year. As you may recall, that plan — which was clearly too weak even as originally proposed — was made even weaker to win the support of three Republican senators. If the same thing happens to health reform, progressives should and will walk away.

But maybe things will go the other way, and Mr. Baucus (and the White House) will, for once, actually listen to progressive concerns, making the bill stronger.

Even if the Baucus plan gets better, rather than worse, what emerges won’t be legislation reformers can love. Will it nonetheless be legislation that passes the threshold of acceptability, legislation they can vote for? We’ll see.

more:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/18/opinion/18krugman.html?_r=2&hp

[Kalyke]

1. The problem is that "they" haven't listened to progressives regarding

policy for years.

They only listen to us when they're campaigning.

[el_bryanto]

2. And even then, they are happy pissing on progressives if it will help them pick up moderates

They figure, somewhat correctly, that we don't really have any where else to go. We can take a half a loaf or less from them or we can take nothing from the Republicans.

Bryant

[Lydia Leftcoast]

7. But moderates don't seem to like this plan either

Read the online comments to the Krugman article. Almost universally negative from all sides, the left because it doesn't cover everyone or place any significant restrictions on the insurance companies, and the right because it's expensive.

[Captain Hilts]

4. Progressives had to sit at the children's table at the negotiations. nt

[Captain Hilts]

3. The value of Ins. Cos. stocks went UP the day after the President's speech. nt

[regnaD kciN]

5. The problem, Paul? Try looking in a mirror...

From the start, you were one of the biggest backers of Hillary Clinton's "No Insurance Company Left Behind" proposal from last year's campaign (which forms much of the basis of the Baucus scheme) and, as early as last December, was hailing Baucus for his "breakthrough" realization that an individual mandate was necessary. Well, we're going to get one now. So, why aren't you happy?

:spank:

[lumberjack_jeff]

6. You're entitled to your own opinion. You are not entitled to your own facts.

Hillary was for the public option.

[joeybee12]

9. Amen...Hilary's plan during the campaign was much more progressive and

thought-out...Obama came to the party late, and apparently he decided not to stay.

[PHIMG]

11. How so?

The only bit of difference between her plan and Obamas was that she had the PRIVATE MANDATE (i'd like to call it the FOR-PROFIT MANDATE) for EVERYONE while Obama had it only for children.

The only person in 2008 with a decent healthcare plan was Kucinich and the Green candidate.

Democratic party is sold out the the insurance company.

If there is no public option then we'll know it was all a bait and switch.

You wanted a public insurance option, you got a mandate that you have to buy for-profit insurance.

If this happens the Democratic party will lose the activist base for another cycle.

[Romulox]

10. Is Paul retracting his statement that a "Swiss style" (no public option) plan would be fine?

Paul will seemingly say whatever it takes to get the President's attention. :shrug:

[PHIMG]

12. Swiss Insurers are NOT FOR PROFIT. n/t

[Overseas]

8. K&R hoping Democrats combat the Right's professional bullying

by saying "Enough is enough! Medicare for all who want it will be our public option."

I hope there is something we are not seeing. With massive evidence of GOP intransigence, I keep hoping to see growing evidence of Democratic courage to resist. That can be done in a calm manner like Rep. Anthony Weiner's approach-- "we have a public health insurance system right now that is working, and it is called Medicare."

I am continuing to write my congressional reps in favor of a strong public option like expanding Medicare to all who want it. My naive wish is that the Democrats would respond to the shameless professional bullying with a bold act like that-- giving us a strong public option open to all.

In spite of Democrats' foolish decision to take Single Payer, the strongest option, off the table before debates had even begun, right wing donors and corporations went ahead and retained right wing PR firms that have stirred up dangerous, broadly anti-government, anti-Obama sentiments in order to protect their private profits. In these times of economic upheaval and suffering for millions, the right and corporations that fund them proceeded to gin up really destructive emotions in vulnerable populations to keep things as close to the cruel status quo as possible.

I had hoped exposing that would give Democrats the courage to say-- "Enough is Enough! We can't reward the professional bullying by excluding an effective public option open to all who choose it or the Right will use the same tactics on the next initiative for change our country desperately needs. They've already begun to stir up 'Energy Citizens' against carbon cap & trade legislation. Let's send them a strong message that professional bullying won't work."

[TxRider]

13. I could be ok with this plan if...

If government stepped in and regulated the insurance companies heavily, very heavily, like Germany does with their providers in their health care system.

After all, if we mandate every every American has to pay them for health care, we then have the right to regulate them to any level we want to.

If done right you could evolve this approach into converting the insurance companies into public health care system through increasing regulation of every aspect of the insurance companies.