Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

HCR: A symbolic victory for conservatives and private industry, and a substantve one for liberals?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
pscot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-11-09 11:28 AM
Original message
HCR: A symbolic victory for conservatives and private industry, and a substantve one for liberals?
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-12-09/a-jaw-dropping-political-deal/2/

The Senate Democrats’ health-care deal is remarkable in many respects. President Obama praised them on Wednesday for producing "a creative new framework" to provide coverage to uninsured Americans without relying on a government insurance option. And well he should. Its creativity is the most impressive thing about it. Somehow the 10 Democrats, evenly divided between pro-and anti-public option going in—came out without a public option but still managed to make people who insisted on the need for one happy. (If Paul Krugman is happy, I’m happy.) It’s not exactly clear how it came about. Either liberals were so beaten down by how badly things have been going for them since Obama’s inauguration or because the public option was merely shorthand for covering as many people with affordable insurance as the system would permit. In any case, the conservatives and insurance companies got to declare “victory” and the liberals got what they wanted anyway. A symbolic victory for conservatives and private industry and a substantive one for liberals? When was the last time anything like that happened?
-----
What’s important about it is less the details than the fact that it is happening at all. The Democrats did something about a really big problem facing the country. Most people, including probably most Democrats, figured that had become impossible. And they had good reason. Leave aside that the only word upon which that Republicans can agree these days is “no.” (more)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Davis_X_Machina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-11-09 11:30 AM
Response to Original message
1. No! No! Wrong! Sellout! Bad bill! Must primary all its supporters!
Thought getting that in early might shorten the thread.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wryter2000 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-11-09 11:38 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. Something that has gone almost totally unnoticed
With the disclaimer that we don't actually know all the details yet:

The bill will require the private insurance companies in the exchange to spend 90% of their income on actual health care. Not just on costs, which would include executive salaries and TV commercials, but on payments to doctors and hospitals. That pretty much eliminates any type of gouging and profit motive.

It's terrible that everyone won't be able to get into Medicare, but I hope this spurs the age to go lower and lower. As a very practical matter, this compromise could help many more people that what we still have left of the public option would.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lapfog_1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-11-09 12:00 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. YES, that provision (depends on enforcement loopholes, of course)
is one that doesn't get discussed here much.

And the other thing is... what will happen here when Dennis Kucinich votes for this when it reaches the House. Howard Dean seems to like it a lot.

I'm guessing that "public option" became a keyword touchstone rather than simply a means to an end. And most people forgot what the end really means (more people covered, lower premiums, no pre-existing conditions, no lifetime caps).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wryter2000 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-11-09 02:46 PM
Response to Reply #5
10. Anthony Weiner is quite enthusiastic about it
More than I am, to tell you the truth. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Old Codger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-11-09 12:05 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. OK
Sounds good, but 90% of what? Is there an actual limit in there on what they can charge???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wryter2000 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-11-09 02:49 PM
Response to Reply #6
11. I don't know that there's a limit to what they can charge
But it seems pointless to charge more than you can keep.

Honestly, I can't imagine any of the blood suckers signing up to provide service unless they create a non-profit arm of their companies.

I'm not sure how this will all play out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Winterblues Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-11-09 11:40 AM
Response to Original message
3. It hasn't hit Obama's desk yet....
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pscot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-11-09 11:51 AM
Response to Original message
4. This seems like something that can be improved on
over time. But only if congressional Democrats remain in power.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vincardog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-11-09 12:18 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. But only if PROGRESSIVE congressional Democrats get in power.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pscot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-11-09 12:27 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. We're never going to have a Congress
consisting entirely of progressives. Most pols are run of the mill time servers and self dealers. Over time, a progressive minority can steer the process, and prevent the wort conservative excesses, but only if the Democrats are in control. Nothing but evil comes from Republicon ascendance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vincardog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-11-09 12:46 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. Electing FAUX democrats that serve the CONservative agenda does us no good
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 19th 2024, 07:07 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC