Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Remember the public option debate?

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 » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 11:09 PM
Original message
Remember the public option debate?
Some people spent a lot of time pronouncing it dead, insisting that it had no chance. It survived.

The media is going to do this with Obama's announcement, focus on the troop deployment (the negative) instead of the exit strategy.

There are a lot of details that need to be filled in when it comes to Obama's Afghan plan, but emphasizing and pressing for withdrawal should be the focus.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
saracat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 11:11 PM
Response to Original message
1. Yeah, just ignore the parts of it that don't look good, like causualties and "collateral damage".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 11:14 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. Of course you miss the point.
Have you thought about the possibilty that there may be a rationale for the deployment related to a more rapid withdrawal?

The deployment as a negative is because the media will spin it as an escalation of the war. There is a plan to exit, but you obviously want to ignore that.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saracat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 11:27 PM
Response to Reply #4
13. But I don't. You are the one that wants to suppress the fact it is a troop surge
and want to emphasize "withdrawal". No matter what time line may be given the "withdrawal is a speculation but the surge is a reality.We will realize withdrawal when it is done but the troops will be commissioned immediately. You just want to "accentuate the positive", but for those who will die, there is NO positive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mojambo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 11:13 PM
Response to Original message
2. It survived, but it got a hell of a makeover.
And not for the better.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 11:15 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. Right, with the help
of everyone who gave up on it early?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mojambo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 11:19 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. The Administration seemed more interested in talking with the health insurance lobby.
Or maybe my invite to the bargaining table got lost in the mail. Anything's possible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 11:22 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. Nonsense.
This is reform:

SUMMARY OF MANAGER’S AMENDMENT

Building on the legislation House Democrats introduced last week, the manager’s amendment provides for several changes to the bill, including the following:

  • Establishes a process for the review and public disclosure of health insurance premium increases and justifications for those increases by the Secretary of Health and Human Services and states beginning in 2010. Permits the Commissioner of the Health Insurance Exchange, beginning in 2013, to take into consideration excessive and unjustified premium increases in making decisions regarding which insurance companies will be permitted into the exchange and how quickly to open the exchange to employers for the purchase of insurance for their employees. Provides a total of $1 billion in funding for states for this process over the period 2010 to 2014.

  • Repeals the McCarran-Ferguson Act insurance antitrust exemption with respect to health insurance and medical malpractice insurance.

  • Authorizes the Federal Trade Commission to investigate insurance companies that are registered as not-for-profit companies.

  • Directs the HHS Secretary to work with states that have alternative programs to state high risk pools as a part of the new National High Risk Pool program for people who can’t get health insurance in today’s marketplace.

  • Amends the National High-Risk Pool to make those early retirees whose premium increases are excessive eligible for the new program.

  • Prohibits undocumented individuals from accessing financial assistance from the national high risk pool program with requirements for verification of citizenship or lawful presence.

  • Requires that the Medicare fraud and abuse phone number be printed prominently on beneficiaries’ Explanation of Benefits forms.

  • Imposes a 90-day waiting period for new durable medical equipment suppliers to be paid if the HHS Secretary believes there is a risk for fraud.

  • Establishes a new public health program on mental health and substance abuse screening, intervention, referral, and recovery services.

  • Provides for the development of quality indicators for Alzheimer’s care.

  • Provides for diabetes screening collaboration and outreach through the Department of Health and Human Services in collaboration with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

  • Codifies the Office of Minority Health within the Office of the HHS Secretary and establishes satellite minority health offices in various HHS agencies.

  • Clarifies that states may reimburse nursing homes for costs incurred in conducting background checks on potential employees.

  • Provides a special rule for the expansion of certain physician-owned hospitals that consistently treat the highest percentage of Medicaid patients in their communities.

  • Changes the effective date for a payment change for skilled nursing facilities from January 1, 2010 to April 1, 2010.

  • Imposes performance assessment and accountability measures on the Health Choices Administration, including requirements for improving customer service and streamlining redundant rules, regulations, and procedures.

  • Permits a qualified health benefits plan to provide coverage through a qualified direct primary care medical home plan.

  • Repeals the worldwide interest allocation rules.

  • Closes down the loophole that allows unprocessed fuels (like black liquor) to claim the $1.01 producers credit.

  • Makes clarifications to the interstate insurance compacts that require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to develop model guidelines for compacting states, ensures that the interstate insurance compacts do not override state laws governing rate review and fraud, and makes clear that the compacting states determine which of the compacting state’s laws serve as primary for the insurance company.

  • Delays implementation of the provision that would eliminate the ability of employers to deduct Federal subsidies with respect to prescription drug benefits provided to retirees by two years.

  • Clarifies that the business/consumer purchasing collaborative provided for in the early access health grants is a non-profit business collaborative.

  • Requires HHS Secretary to conduct a study to determine the existence of duplicative HHS programs and establishes a process for the elimination of any such program.


Text of amendments: PDF


More facts here and here.

Any automatic enrollment program shall include adequate notice and the opportunity for an employee to opt out of any coverage the individual or employee were automatically enrolled in. Nothing in this section shall be construed to supersede any State law which establishes, implements, or continues in effect any standard or requirement relating to employers in connection with payroll except to the extent that such standard or requirement prevents an employer from instituting the automatic enrollment program under this section.’’.

<...>

‘‘(2) if the employer plan’s share of the total allowed costs of benefits provided under the plan is less than 60 percent of such costs, that the employee may be eligible for a premium tax credit under section 36B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and a cost sharing reduction under section 1402 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act if the employee purchases a qualified health plan through the Exchange; and

‘‘(3) if the employee purchases a qualified health plan through the Exchange, the employee will lose the employer contribution (if any) to any health benefits plan offered by the employer and that all or a portion of such contribution may be excludable from income for Federal income tax purposes.

PDF


There is also the Wyden Amendment here.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oregone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 11:22 PM
Response to Reply #5
11. Id think those who practiced constant capitulation with low standards are a bit more responsible
To each their own, but as I remember it, some Democratic leaders and followers refused to draw any lines in the sand beyond its existence. What would you expect would happen?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oregone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 11:14 PM
Response to Original message
3. "Some people spent a lot of time pronouncing it dead, insisting that it had no chance."
And some also tried to emphasize its composition, not symbolic existence, was a far more important topic to focus upon. In fact, its existence being a litmus test of successful reform seemed to allow people to ignore all other facets of the health reform.

"focus on the troop deployment (the negative) instead of the exit strategy"

The deployment is tangible and observable. It will begin immediately. There is no guarantee of an exit at this time, and it may only exist as a method to pacify one group of people who are not happy with the other decision. In other words, until it happens, it is really difficult to have any faith in it. "The conditions on the ground" are open to changing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 11:16 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. Revisionist.
Most people who were pronouncing a public option dead, were not advocating a more robust public option, not until the debate was in the 11th hour. Too friggin late.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oregone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 11:21 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. Regardless of your perception...
Right now people are dealing with an immediate tangible. Some Americans will be deploying, and saying good bye to their families. Some will never get to say hello and come back. That is the reasonable focus.

No one knows WTF will happen in 3 years, including Obama. Pakistan could be in a full on civil war at that time.

You are stretching things VERY far to criticize whoever. There is nothing irrational about focusing on a real escalation than a potential withdrawl in the future that may never happen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ipaint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 11:26 PM
Response to Reply #6
12. Pure bullshit.
Many folks were on here from the beginning of the debate advocating for a strong public option. You led the smear campaign against pnhp.org as a result of their article "Bait and switch: How the “public option” was sold"

http://pnhp.org/blog/2009/07/20/bait-and-switch-how-the-%E2%80%9Cpublic-option%E2%80%9D-was-sold/

It's turned out exactly like so many predicted and we don't even have the final bill yet. That will be even worse.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 11:29 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. Bullshit? You should know
It's a fact: many of the critics were more interested in pushing single payer and mischaracterizing a public option before it was finalized.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oregone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 11:37 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. "many of the critics were more interested in pushing single payer "
No shit. What real liberal wouldn't be interested in advocating a more sound and efficient reform?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 11:40 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. Right,
it's really liberal to spend months trashing a plan and then cry that it should have been stronger.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oregone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 11:46 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. Dizzy yet?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 11:50 PM
Response to Reply #17
19. Stop projecting. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oregone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 11:51 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. Oh burn! What a sizzler! Get Nick Cannon on the phone...we got a live one here!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 11:52 PM
Response to Reply #20
21. What is with your infatuation with this "Nick Cannon" person? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oregone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 11:57 PM
Response to Reply #21
23. Id ask the same of you.
But, uh, just dont worry about it. Go dig up another sizzler. You are on fire. Where is a drumroll when you need it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 11:59 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. You make no sense.
Typical of failed sarcasm.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clio the Leo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 11:21 PM
Response to Original message
9. As always, well said. NT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AllentownJake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 11:47 PM
Response to Original message
18. I missed that signing ceremony Pro
Can you link the picture thread for me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 11:52 PM
Response to Reply #18
22. Do a search. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
patrice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-02-09 12:17 AM
Response to Original message
25. Aren't the InsCos, who pitch the deal that the employers can't arrord, in the Exchange too?
I just do not see how that's going to result in cheaper insurance.
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 26th 2024, 10:40 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency 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