Health care next steps: Fast track, slow track, no track?
There are endless analyses of yesterday’s health summit, all of which probably add as much to the debate as the meeting itself. To wit: No one is changing his or her mind because of the talk-fest.
(One common reaction — see an example here from Slate, not exactly a hub for right-wingism — that I do find interesting is the idea that Obama and the GOP delegation both came out looking better than the congressional Democrats. That strikes me as either an acknowledgment that Republicans exceeded expectations, or that Democrats may have passed a bill a long time ago if they had better leaders in Congress; feel free to discuss below.)
If minds weren’t changed, though, I have come across one particularly interesting suggestion for a next step forward. Here’s Arnold Kling of George Mason University’s Mercatus Center, writing at National Review Online:
I thought that President Obama did well to convey a willingness to negotiate. If I were the Republicans, I would move off the “scrap the bill” talking point and instead go with something like this:
We have some areas where we agree, some areas where we might negotiate, and some areas where we can never agree. That suggests a three-track approach.
1. Fast track. For issues such as ending waste, fraud, and abuse in Medicare, we should aim to pass a bill within 30 days that contains all the ideas on which we agree.
2. Negotiation track. These would be issues where compromise is possible. For insurance competition, the president expressed concern that allowing interstate sales of insurance could cause a “race to the bottom.” That may be a legitimate concern, but it is hypothetical. Instead of preemptively regulating the insurance industry, why not try the Republican approach and see what happens? Meanwhile, create a competitive-practices board for the insurance industry that would monitor the industry and issue public reports on abusive practices. Congress could later vote to convert this board into a permanent regulatory board if public pressure demands it.
I would put the Medicare-cost commission on the negotiation track. But I have long been more willing than most Republicans to endorse doing cost-benefit research on medical procedures.
In principle, the issue of expanding insurance coverage can be put on the negotiation track. But if I were a Republican legislator, I would take a hard line against funding expanded coverage with budget gimmicks, enforced cross-subsidies, or Medicare cuts (again, not that I am against Medicare cuts, but they need to be applied to improving the financial health of Medicare). I would take a relatively softer line against funding more coverage with taxes in an above-board way.
3. Gridlock track. Issues like public funding of abortion or malpractice reform probably go here. Agreement and compromise are not likely.
For all I know, Kling has been calling for such an approach for some time now. But it strikes me as an idea that has found its moment. It’s exactly what I have meant in calling for starting over.
What would you put on the “fast track” versus the “negotiation track”? (And please don’t suggest “tort reform” or the “public option” for the fast track — knowing full well that those polarizing ideas are exactly what we’re trying to distill from the more commonly accepted ideas.)
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
91 comments Add your comment
StJ
February 26th, 2010
10:37 am
Well, this won’t happen because it makes too much sense. It appears that the Democrats are going use the ‘nuclear option’ to pass it.
But yes, in a perfect world, getting rid of the waste should be a no-brainer.
Jefferson
February 26th, 2010
10:41 am
So having the majority is nuclear ?
misplaced
February 26th, 2010
10:45 am
It’s called “Reconciliation” not the ‘nuclear option’ and was used by the Repukes during the Bush years. Now they call it ‘Chicago Style Politics’ because someone else gets to use it.
LA
February 26th, 2010
10:49 am
“It’s called “Reconciliation” not the ‘nuclear option’ and was used by the Repukes during the Bush years. Now they call it ‘Chicago Style Politics’ because someone else gets to use it.”
Do you always get your misinformation from Keith Olbermann?
Horrible Horrace
February 26th, 2010
10:50 am
Put the entire OboboCare on the SideTrack.
misplaced
February 26th, 2010
10:51 am
No LA I do you get all your info from Rush and FAUX news? What I stated was a fact look it up.
CJ
February 26th, 2010
11:01 am
South Dakota, Delaware, and the credit card industry have demonstrated exactly what will happen if insurers are simply allowed to sell insurance across state lines without federal standards. One or two states would see this as an opportunity to create jobs in their state, and so reduce insurance regulations significantly to attract health insurers. Of course, the insurers will locate in those one or two states in order to sell us policies with fine print that allows them to deny even more claims.
Research shows that 45,000 Americans die every year because of lack of health insurance (that’s more than 9/11 level casualties every month).
Researc also shows that 62 percent of bankruptcies are caused by medical expenses and 78 percent of these bankruptcy filings are by people who had medical insurance when they first got sick. So, even if we’re currently covered (and like our insurance), the limits of coverage are terribly inadequate in the event of a major accident or illness-and that’s assuming the insurance company doesn’t arbitrarily deny coverage for what ails us.
The GOP controlled the White House and Congress for years, and did nothing. Now, when both the House and Senate have passed a bill for the first time in history, and all we need is a conference bill to pass, the GOP wants to “start with a clean sheet of paper.” The evidence clearly shows that Republicans don’t want health care reform at all (so-called “tort reform” in which they take away the rights of legitimate malpractice victims is not health care reform).
We need to eliminate the insurance company practice of denying coverage to those with pre-existing conditions today; we need to eliminate the insurance company practice of rescission today; we need to eliminate caps on coverage today; and we need to find a way to keep insurers from gouging us. Of course, neither of these things can be accomplished without mandates–something that Republicans were for until Obama signed on.
In short, my answer to Kyle’s question is fast track.
Churchill's MOM
February 26th, 2010
11:12 am
This makes far too much sense for the “Leaders” of the RINO party to follow after all neither sides cares about the taxpayer.
RJ
February 26th, 2010
11:13 am
Kyle, I’m wondering if you think the Republicans wanting to start over is because they actually think the bill is bad, or because it would delay passage until after the midterm elections when they believe they can regain a bunch of seats.
If I was the Republicans in Congress, I’d stop trying to deal with any Democrat in Congress and do all my negotiating with Obama. Obama seems to understand that a President’s effectiveness is directly tied to their willingness to work with the other party. The Dems in Congress don’t. I’m not saying it would work, but it’s certainly a better chance.
No More Progressives!
February 26th, 2010
11:27 am
The economy is in the doldrums, real unemployment is about 18%, the Fed is printing money as fast as the press will go, and Iran is getting ready to detonate a test warhead.
Others, far smarter than I, tell me their take on health care overhaul may not pass the Constitutional smell test.
This patient is in bad shape; severe head trauma, bleeding and airway restiction. And we’re worried about the manicure…………………….
And our ships Captain has never even rowed a rowboat.
Horrible Horrace
February 26th, 2010
11:32 am
“Others, far smarter than I, tell me their take on health care overhaul may not pass the Constitutional smell test.”
Yup…let the lawsuits begin to fly!!!
YEA BABY!
No More Progressives!
February 26th, 2010
11:49 am
Horrible Horrace
February 26th, 2010
11:32 am
Yup…let the lawsuits begin to fly!!!
YEA BABY!
Yeah……….that’ll really help a lot, won’t it?
retired early
February 26th, 2010
11:50 am
CJ
The GOP do not care if 45,000 die annually or that 62% of BR are due to medical expenses. As long as they have their insurance. The fact that they claim the moral high ground is a joke.
Jim Donohue
February 26th, 2010
11:53 am
I am a democrat, but I too was surprised how bad the democratic leaders appeared, particularly Reid and Pelosi. Reid seemed really mean and inarticulate. Is there a senility issue here? Pelosi just seemed completely dishonest – all of her comments were ‘political spin’ over substance.
Gramps
February 26th, 2010
11:59 am
Hey, Jim Donohue – Welcome to the Republican party. That is what we have thought for a long time.
John D. Froelich
February 26th, 2010
12:08 pm
Whatever4 is rammed thru can be repealed if tht is what the voters set upin Nov.
LA
February 26th, 2010
12:30 pm
“I do you get all your info from Rush and FAUX news? What I stated was a fact look it up.’
1: Grammar fail.
2: I get my information from a lot of different sources.
3: You made the claim. Back it up.
Bottom line: Why does Rachel Madcow dress like a teenage boy?
LA
February 26th, 2010
12:31 pm
“Reid seemed really mean and inarticulate. Is there a senility issue here? Pelosi just seemed completely dishonest – all of her comments were ‘political spin’ over substance.”
SEEMED????????? Both of those people are some of the DUMBEST people on the planet.
LA
February 26th, 2010
12:32 pm
“What I stated was a fact look it up.”
You made the claim. Back up your claim.
LA
February 26th, 2010
12:33 pm
PMSNBC is saying that yesterdays waste of taxpayer money was a tie between the GOP and the democrat party.
Whenever liberals say that a debate etc. was/is a tie, it means that the GOP beat their a$$.
LA
February 26th, 2010
12:35 pm
“I’m wondering if you think the Republicans wanting to start over is because they actually think the bill is bad, or because it would delay passage until after the midterm elections when they believe they can regain a bunch of seats.”
Quick answer: the bill is horrible, not bad, and they also know that the American people do NOT want a public option nor do they want the government to run the health care system.
kayaker 71
February 26th, 2010
12:45 pm
Articulate, honest negotiations? Getting to the bottom of the health care dilemma? Give and take idea sharing? What a joke!! The crowning comment that displayed the greatest attempt at responsible dialogue?…… “The election is over”. Look inward, Bozo. The campaign is over and the American people are expecting someone to step forward and start to govern. Bozo, you have been on the campaign trail since Jan 20, 2009. We keep waiting for you to get your chin out of the air, assume some humility and answer to the electorate. But, no, your “vision of America” will either survive or you will go down in flames in 2012, all the time maintaining that you know better what is best for America than the electorate. Man, do you have a lot to learn.
Jim
February 26th, 2010
12:48 pm
retired early
“The GOP do not care if 45,000 die annually or that 62% of BR are due to medical expenses. As long as they have their insurance. The fact that they claim the moral high ground is a joke.”
This is the kind of remark being made by both sides of the table that help nothing and no one. Nobody wants to see people die and to say they do is ridiculous as stated by [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRdLpem-AAs] Reagan[/url]
It is clear that our healthcare system has issues and it is also clear those issues need re-vamping. I would hope that this is obvious to anyone who breathes. Because this is obvious, then there should be some things we can at least talk about, hence the “Negotiation Track”. I think this is a great place to begin AFTER going over those things which both sides are in agreement with, even if those points are few. Under this point of negotiation the implementation on bringing down the cost and providing coverage for those in dire need could be negotiable. This is what could potentially make or break the bank.
Those things which are obviously agendas for either party should simply be removed and dealt with elsewhere. One could say that sort of logic could be used on the whole bill but that is not my point. Adding programs in fine print is simply shady. Make this thing as simple, clear, and concise as we can so that we can move on, please!
misplaced
February 26th, 2010
12:59 pm
OK LA
MCCAIN: “I fully recognize that Republicans have in the past engaged in using reconciliation to further the party’s agenda. I wish it had not been done then, and I hope it will not be done now that the groundwork has been laid. ”
The repukes have used it many times, more so then the dems. That LA is a fact…
hank
February 26th, 2010
1:00 pm
LA’s off his meds, he’s become unhinged….
feeling cheated
February 26th, 2010
1:03 pm
I don’t think LA comments nearly enough times, and it’s just not fair. Is Kyle deleting some of LA’s much anticipated comments out of sheer unadulterated jealousy and spite?
Please give more of yourself, LA, you’re the only reason anyone reads the ajc online. We get plenty of the other guys that nobody wants to read. We need more you.
LA! LA! You go! You go! You rock! You rock! La! LA!
Hooray 4 LA!!!!
Horrible Horrace
February 26th, 2010
1:05 pm
“Yeah……….that’ll really help a lot, won’t it?”
Almost anything to defeat this ill-conceived notion that HCare is a RIGHT is ok by me. Hopefully, the State Attorneys will muddy up the waters, toss a monkey wrench in the machinery…anything to draw this out and defeat it.
Jess
February 26th, 2010
1:12 pm
retired early,
45,000 deaths annually claim was rebuked the first week the Florida dem congressman made. Even the two who did the study he cites admit their work was not meant to and cannot predict deaths for lack of insurance. This is why you never hear politicians use the number. If there was a shred of evidence, the dems would be all over it.
No More Progressives!
February 26th, 2010
1:22 pm
Horrible Horrace
February 26th, 2010
1:05 pm
“Yeah……….that’ll really help a lot, won’t it?”
Almost anything to defeat this ill-conceived notion that HCare is a RIGHT is ok by me. Hopefully, the State Attorneys will muddy up the waters, toss a monkey wrench in the machinery…anything to draw this out and defeat it.
In that case, I’m 100% behind you. I just misread your first post.
Hillbilly Deluxe
February 26th, 2010
1:29 pm
ending waste, fraud, and abuse in Medicare
I’m just an old country boy but couldn’t that be taken care of without passing a new law? I’d think fraud and abuse would already be illegal, and waste is a management problem.
CJ
February 26th, 2010
1:35 pm
Jess’ approach to political debate is similar to that quote from that Lewis Carroll poem. “I have said it thrice: What I tell you three times is true.”
I’m sorry, but saying it doesn’t make it true. I linked above to the Harvard website where the research was conducted by several researchers. Here’s a quote from one of those researches (see link in my previous post).
“The Institute of Medicine, using older studies, estimated that one American dies every 30 minutes from lack of health insurance,” remarked David Himmelstein, study co-author, associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, and a primary care physician at Cambridge Health Alliance. “Even this grim figure is an underestimate — now one dies every 12 minutes.”
Andy
February 26th, 2010
1:57 pm
Rising health care costs are the issue. We need to find as many low cost solutions as possible that measurably reduce costs significantly; i.e. find solutions with an extremely high cost benefit ratio.
For example, establishing check lists to reduce medical errors, making nutrient rich food less expensive and nutrient poor food expensive, moving away from a diet of fast food, excessive sugar and pizza, giving people time in their lives to get the correct amount of exercise and sleep, changing out commuting patterns so that we live near where we work, eliminating 60-70 hr work weeks, etc. These solutions require very little government funding but have enormous paybacks.
We also could start sending low income people to community health centers instead of the emergency room for routine care. And encourage doctors to practice there in return for reducing their student loans.
We could make sure that minor illnesses don’t become major ones by treating them while they are still small.
LA
February 26th, 2010
2:03 pm
“The repukes have used it many times, more so then the dems. That LA is a fact…”
????? Ok, Olberma’am. Did the GOP ever pass something that the majority of Americans hate?
“LA’s off his meds, he’s become unhinged…”
How so?
“Please give more of yourself, LA, you’re the only reason anyone reads the ajc online. We get plenty of the other guys that nobody wants to read. We need more you.”
Awe, poor whittle wib.
sam
February 26th, 2010
2:09 pm
I don’t think Republicans are interested in any kind of health insurance reform at all…they just want to stall and delay. The Democrats need to wake up and just pass the health care bill with or without Republican support even if the have to use reconcilliation or the “nuclear option”. All this talk by the right that the American people don’t want this bill is bull, Obama won the election fair and square and one of the most important items of his platform was health care reform. Some Democrats need to just quit being scraty cats and lead who cares if they step on a few special interest toes.
No More Progressives!
February 26th, 2010
2:12 pm
Dr. Charles Krauthammer, a man I respect, gives his take on yesterday’s “summit.”
http://www.breitbart.tv/krauthammer-obama-has-given-up-the-aura-of-the-presidency/
Enough said.
No More Progressives!
February 26th, 2010
2:15 pm
“Some Democrats need to just quit being scraty cats………..”
Scraty cats?????
“All this talk by the right that the American people don’t want this bill is bull……..”
Really? Do you live in a cave somewhere? Read any polls lately, or just the ones you agree with?
LibraryJim
February 26th, 2010
2:16 pm
Talk times:
Obama 119 minutes
21 Democrats 114 minutes
17 Republicans 110 minutes (allotted time)
——————-
total Democratic Party talking tally: 233 minutes,
Yep, they really wanted to hear what the Republicans had to say. :roll eyes:
Obama:”You’re right, there was an imbalance on the opening statements because – I’m the president. I didn’t count my time in terms of dividing it evenly.”
Linda
February 26th, 2010
2:28 pm
This is what should be put on the “fast track.”
* Issue a moratorium on paper in both the legislature & at the Federal Reserve, except for sticky notes, in an effort to finally “save the planet,” the dollar & all printing equipment.
* Conduct a mandatory one-day refresher course on the US Constitution & Bill of Rights for Congress & the White House, including all czars, conducted by the Supreme Court.
* Conduct a combination math/tax seminar for the same, conducted by the CBO.
* Require that all members of Congress & the president attend at least 2 or 3 televised Town Hall meetings in their respective districts & states (the president attending in DC) on the Ides of March or on the occasion of the next full moon, whichever comes first, with attendees chosen by lottery, not political affiliation.
* Require all the DC bunch assist in making signs for the Tea Parties in their areas, as a community service project.
* Turn all the government thermostats down to 55 degrees until summer at which time, turn them up to 90.
* Move the Nov. elections up to July 4, Independence Day, & the change-over to July 5.
sam
February 26th, 2010
2:29 pm
exacly, Mr. or Mrs. no more progressives, I just read the poll numbers I agree with because it’s all about how you ask the questions anyway…good leaders don’t govern by poll numbers they do what is right for the country.
RH
February 26th, 2010
2:48 pm
sam – get out of the house and go talk with THE PEOPLE – you’ll be in for a rude awakening. Many that voted for Obama are against this CURRENT version of heathcare “reform”.
RH
February 26th, 2010
2:52 pm
“Democrats need to wake up and just pass the health care bill with or without Republican support”
Hello sam, YOU need to wake up! Haven’t you heard, there are actually DEMOCRATS don’t want Obamacare! You REALLY need to get out of the house and engage in intelligent converstions!
JF McNamara
February 26th, 2010
2:56 pm
I say do reconciliation and pass it. Let Obama bet his Presidency on it. If we need to go back to our current system, we can.
Intown
February 26th, 2010
3:09 pm
If I were to believe Jon Stewart, I would think that these guys at the summit actually discovered some common ground — jerks like Eric Kantor notwithstanding, and that the sensationalist media just cannot put their cynicism and ratings aside for one moment to cover the real story (a substantive debate) rather than spinning this into a political horse race story. But, I know better. The Republicans will continue to hold out until the polls show that the American people want progress on health care legislation more than they want to take their anger out on on the straw bogeyman and elect whoever is not an incumbent.
confused
February 26th, 2010
3:10 pm
sam
February 26th, 2010
2:29 pm
exacly, Mr. or Mrs. no more progressives, I just read the poll numbers I agree with because it’s all about how you ask the questions anyway…good leaders don’t govern by poll numbers they do what is right for the country.
uhhhh, i thought they were elected to represent the people who voted them in, not pass legislation against the will of their constituents??? that’s how our republic works…….they are there to represent the will of the people, not party politics,and the people DON’T want it!!!!! so yes, i think they should be looking at polls………….
RH
February 26th, 2010
3:18 pm
sam says – “good leaders don’t govern by poll numbers they do what is right for the country.”
So sam, are you actually admitting in this statement that your version of “polls” doesn’t exist? Please sam, help me to understand your way of thinking.
Steve
February 26th, 2010
3:18 pm
Linda@2:28 – I would suggest adding that ALL non-military federal government employees (Congress especially) must use the same healthcare plan and retirement plan (e.g. Social Security) as the rest of Americans.
Williebkind
February 26th, 2010
3:25 pm
Hey forget healthcare reform! If you can not pay for medical doctors then go online.
Just in: Senate votes down the unemployment benefits extension. Republican Senator Jim Bunning, Kentucky blocked the extension saying that the $10 billion bill would add to the budget deficit.
I love that man!
RH
February 26th, 2010
3:36 pm
sam! Come back! I believe you! Those poll numbers came from people exiting the bus on election day, you know the ones that you picked up for the bus ride to the voting booth!
Intown
February 26th, 2010
3:37 pm
Blocking unemployement benefits because it adds to the budget deficit … nice. I hope he enjoys the constituent calls on that one!
Just heard that Dems will try to push through the Senate healthcare bill via reconciliation. Guess they finally grew a pair. Why they allowed this debate to go on for nearly a year is beyond me.
RH
February 26th, 2010
3:40 pm
“Obama won the election fair and square” – sammy
Linda
February 26th, 2010
3:41 pm
CJ@11:01, Both of the sources you quoted have been debunked. You claim that 45,000 Americans die each yr. as a result of having no health insurance. The National Health & Nutrition Examination Survey you reference was conducted between 1986 & 1994 with only 9000 participants. The two doctors who used the data & crunched the numbers are Drs. David Himmelstein & Steffie Woodhandler. Both are avowed govt.-run health care activists.
The second source you used to allude that most bankruptcies are health care related is–viola–also from a study from Himmelstein & Woodhandler.
Is a new mommie who sues her OBGYN for stretch marks a legitimate victim?
Linda
February 26th, 2010
4:10 pm
The most independent, accurate & reliable poll is Rasmussen. It’s not a biased media poll & it doesn’t sell its polls. It has consistently been right-on in elections.
The latest statistics regarding the health care bills(s) are that 41% favor & 56% disfavor. 70% of the political class favor it. 57% of the mainstream voters strongly oppose it. 63% of all voters prefer several small bills. 61% want to scrap it & start all over. Only 35% want reform passed before the mid-term elections.
Reconciliation has never been used in the history of our country to pass a bill that effects 1/6 of our economy, that would transfer that much control of our lives (& our very lives) from the private sector into the hands of the fed. govt., that is passed by only a 51% majority that is favored by only 41% of Americans. Isn’t this tyranny?
BPJ
February 26th, 2010
4:25 pm
There’s a problem with two Republican positions, which seem to be at cross-purposes. First is the proposal, noted above, to allow insurance sales “across state lines”. Of course, you can buy insurance from insurance companies headquartered in other states now; they just have to comply with the insurance regulations in your state. The GOP proposal is to allow sales in a state REGARDLESS of whether they comply with that state’s regulations. When Republican Senator Lamar Alexander was interviewed on the radio about the question of “a race to the bottom”, he admitted that some degree of federal regulations would be required to prevent abuses.
On the other hand, a key Republican talking point was that they didn’t want insurance regulated by Washington; it was better, they said repeatedly, to have such regulation done as it is now, by the state insurance commissioners.
Hence the problem: you can argue that insurers should be regulated by the states in which they sell policies, or you can argue that insurers should be allowed to sell policies to people regardless of whether those policies comply with state regulations (and allow for some federal regulation, to establish a “floor”). I don’t think you can argue for both.
Of course, if one has spent the past year alternately quoting speeches by Ronald Reagan from 1965 denouncing Medicare as a socialist plot, and in the next breath attacking Democrats for trying to bring Medicare costs under control, consistency is a habit long abandoned.
Someone please tell LA that the “public option” was dropped from the health care bill months ago – which is why Joe Lieberman and Evan Bayh voted for it.
CJ
February 26th, 2010
4:28 pm
“Both of the sources you quoted have been debunked. You claim that 45,000 Americans die each yr. as a result of having no health insurance…Both are avowed govt.-run health care activists.”
Contrary to Linda’s reasoning, it doesn’t follow that data and/or researchers have been “debunked” or are “avowed” anything simply because one don’t like the results.
And the reason that we might find the overlapping Harvard researchers on more than one Harvard study having to do with health care issues is that…wait for it…they are Harvard researchers who specialize in studying health care issues. Viola.
Also, if Linda wants to debate the results of such studies with those researchers, then she should first learn that all research having to do with large populations necessarily are conducted with samples that are very small relative to the populations being studied. Here’s a book, that Linda might like to explore before embarrassing herself further.
CJ
February 26th, 2010
4:30 pm
correction: s/b “…simply because one doesn’t like the results.” Sorry about the typo.
BPJ
February 26th, 2010
4:33 pm
Actually, the health care bill has already passed the Senate, with 60 votes. It only needs a majority of the House to become law.
What would be passed in the Senate “by reconciliation” would be a few amendments, such as stripping out the “Nebraska exemption” and a few other budget matters.
The polls on opposition to the bill usually don’t break down the opposition, but when they do, about 10% of the country (in other words, 20% of the opposition) is opposed because it doesn’t go far enough in their opinion. In other words, that’s liberals who are sore because there’s no public option, no single payer, etc.
However those liberals may grouse about the bill now, once it has passed they will not want to see Republicans repeal it.
Michael H. Smith
February 26th, 2010
4:40 pm
Reconciliation, what a hoot. Kyle, do you happen to remember what the Democrats had to say about the Republicans when they were going to use “Reconciliation” back in ‘05? It’s all on tape, public record no less: Obama, Reid, Biden and the Dems will be doing exactly a 180 on the issue of using Reconciliation if the Dems chose to use Reconciliation. Politics at its’ worst.
Negotiation track? Not sure about this “race to the bottom” business but that could be resolved easily enough by making the terms and conditions apply to the best state health insurance policy case not the worst policy case. If the co-opts or these exchanges were more in line with my previous expressed ideas not many insurance companies would dare play games. They simply could not afford to and expect to remain in the healthcare insurance business. Neither would big Pharma which got a big pass on the drug re-importation that was defeated. By the way, if drug safety is the real worry as so often purported, according to CNN 40% of the drugs prescribed in this country are imported from China already. Feel better now?
Smiles For Miles
RH
February 26th, 2010
4:42 pm
CJ Bravo on the copy & paste technique. Since your posts are approximately 3 hours apart, you might want to spend some practicing your new found skill.
Jefferson
February 26th, 2010
4:48 pm
Movin’ on…
RH
February 26th, 2010
5:08 pm
CJ says: “Research shows that 45,000 Americans die every year because of lack of health insurance (that’s more than 9/11 level casualties every month).” AND “Researc also shows that 62 percent of bankruptcies are caused by medical expenses and 78 percent of these bankruptcy filings are by people who had medical insurance when they first got sick.”
CJ, does any of that research delve into the real reasons why these people were so “unfortunate”?
Maybe they prefered to spend their money on a BMW lease rather than “pricey” health insurance. That person may have wrecked their beemer and died in an auto accident.
Or perhaps they wanted the American dream, got an interest only loan on a home rather than “too expensive” health insurance. Living the high life they ate out constantly and became obese. Their health declined, they lost their job and walked away from it all and filed bankrupcty.
Again, what are the actual real-life stories behind the statistics? The imagination runs wild with all sorts of interesting tales, doesn’t it CJ?
No More Progressives!
February 26th, 2010
5:11 pm
RH
February 26th, 2010
3:18 pm
sam says – “good leaders don’t govern by poll numbers they do what is right for the country.”
This is spot on. We’re not talking about Patton heading towards Bastogne here, we’re talking about the genuine need to reform a huge portion of the economy, for reasons that are highly suspect. The left has wanted this since FDR, yet we still manage without any Federal micromanagement of our individual insurance policies. How on earth do we mere serfs manage?
If Obozo wanted to do “the right thing” for the country 1) abolish the IRS, 2) privatize Social Security and 3) start respecting the 10th amendment, to start.
Linda
February 26th, 2010
5:16 pm
CJ, One point of he Dem strategy for passing health care was, “To win, we must not just generate understanding, but emotion–fear, revulsion, anger disgust.” This was written by Robert Creamer in his book “Listen to Your Mother, Stand Up Straight! Progressives Can Win” probably while he was in federal prison or on bail for the 16 felonies he was indicted for & his guilty plea for bank fraud for writing checks with insufficient funds while leader of an ACORN group, Citizens Action/Illinois. His book reviews included one from David Axelrod, who stated that it “provides a blueprint for future progressive victories” & from Rep. Lloyd Doggett who also referred to it as a blueprint.
The prison plan outlined precisely what the Dems/Progressives had to do to pass health care, including convincing people that it was a right, that there was a crisis, to reduce the credibility of the health industry, to “forge relationships” with such groups as AARP (took govt. funds) & AMA, etc., to organize field programs (ACORN, HCAN, etc.) & to mobilize labor unions.
Creamer said on 8/11/08, “If Barack Obama is elected president, then we have the opportunity to fundamentally transform American politics and the economy–progressives do–for the first time in really in my lifetime…”
Coincidentally, Creamer is married to Dem Congresswoman Jan Kowskison whose town hall meeting on health care was packed with union members, pre-arranged & instructed when & how to disrupt her constituents, all caught on video.
Also, coincidentally, the night of the first State Dinner in honor of the prime minister of India, the gorgeous blond & her husband who supposedly crashed the party was merely a diversion to take attention from the fact that this convicted felon & his wife were invited guests.
You may verify, read, watch & listen at:
http://biggovernment.com/jpollak/2009/12/07/was-democrats-health-care-strategy-written-in-federal-prison/
A MUST READ FOR EVERY AMERICAN!!!!!!!!!!!!
No More Progressives!
February 26th, 2010
5:17 pm
CJ says: “Research shows that 45,000 Americans die every year because of lack of health insurance.”
That’s about the number of fatalities in automobile accidents each year. You can’t insure against this.
Lies, damn lies & statistics. Mark Twain.
Linda
February 26th, 2010
5:19 pm
I misspelled her name. It’s Schakowsky.
Michael H. Smith
February 26th, 2010
5:22 pm
A socialist is a socialist, hang the label progressive on it all day long and it will remain socialist. Like putting lipstick on a pig, it remains a pig.
Kyle Wingfield
February 26th, 2010
5:25 pm
Just one question about that Harvard study for you, CJ: How many of the people who were uninsured when they were first interviewed (between 1988 and 1994) later obtained insurance? How long did they remain uninsured? (I guess that’s two questions…)
Linda
February 26th, 2010
5:28 pm
CJ, I don’t have a reference for this, but I’m pretty sure that more than 45,000 Americans die every year THAT HAVE HEALTH CARE INSURANCE, even with Cadillac plans, even doctors & their families, even in the best hospitals. Everyone dies whether they have health insurance or not!
Lifestyle kills more Americans than lack of insurance.
Michael H. Smith
February 26th, 2010
5:34 pm
The term “uninsured” needs a great deal of clarification, Kyle. Under-insured perhaps but “uninsured” is a misnomer. I think you are smart enough to know that as a fact and as matter of law.
Allen
February 26th, 2010
5:35 pm
The Slate article’s central thesis is that the GOP “won” (whatever that means) because they “seemed reasonable.” That doesn’t seem like a standard for victory I’d want to boast about.
But I do applaud Kyle for touching on issues of public policy – the contrast with a politics-obsessed media is palpable.
Linda
February 26th, 2010
5:35 pm
The website I quoted above is to the health care debate as the leaked emails were to the global warming debate. Please read it as well as the other similar articles on big government.com.
Michael H. Smith
February 26th, 2010
5:37 pm
Lifestyle kills more Americans than lack of insurance
Was that the Mormon Tabernacle Choir singing Hallelujah in the background?
Allen
February 26th, 2010
5:38 pm
Kyle, the researchers in the Harvard study above controlled for past periods of uninsurance, if you want to wade into the methodological details.
Linda
February 26th, 2010
5:47 pm
The UK is having their first Tea Party. Does that not prove that the Tea Parties are not racist?
LA
February 26th, 2010
6:11 pm
“Does that not prove that the Tea Parties are not racist?”
According to all white liberals, white people are evil and racist.
Kyle Wingfield
February 26th, 2010
6:27 pm
Thanks, Allen, but I asked that question because the study’s authors acknowledge that the lack of insurance represented only one point in time — whereas the people surveyed had 6-12 years afterward to die, possibly after they had obtained insurance. The study’s authors describe this as a “limitation.” I’d say it’s much worse than that.
Anyone interested in reading more about this, check out this Atlantic article (it doesn’t mention this Harvard study, but it does talk about some of the same problems with these kinds of studies): http://tr.im/PXlg
don't speak for me
February 26th, 2010
6:38 pm
1) I do not like the senate bill. The house bill is better, but not great.
2) I am a democrat
3) I am unemployed and uninsured
4) I was insured for over 40 years and paid over $500,000 into the system with my premium payments.
5) I (and my family) were denied coverage because of a condition that occurred (for me) while under care BUT when I became unemployed, which changed my status to the same provider (Kaiser) and made my condition “preexisting”.
So why can every other major country have a health care system that provides universal coverage but we cannot? It does not bankrupt them? I would still have to pay, just not to a for profit 3rd party insurance provider, who will not insure.
Why, when I paid as much for insurance that would have bought me a $5 million dollar whole life plan (that would have given me the money I need to pay for anything I needed on a service for pay basis) am I left holding the bag with no insurance when I need it most?
Why is there such fear of terms like “Socialism”? We have many Socialist programs in our country that provide for harmony and security. Police, Fire, Government, Schools, Public Health, Water, Judicial, etc. Why are we afraid of Health Care? It seems to match the type that are publicly funded. Why do you care where you write your heath coverage check too? Be it a government agency or an insurer?
Free markets do not always insure success. We have seen that in spades in the past few years. Would universal health care remove health care alternatives, such as private hospitals or procedural choice? It does not have to. We have the power to draft the system we want.
Again, it appears that it is fear that is paralyzing forward movement. Rhetorical fear that drives the arguments that prevent us from acting. I am afraid that it will take a crisis, bigger than the one we currently face, to allow us to make a change. Myself, already in that crisis, understands now what is needed. I pay my taxes, I paid my premiums, I paid my dues, I am close to bankruptcy and as it gets closer my options are more limited. When I need help most, I have less support. It is not my choice to be unemployed. It is not my choice to not have the resources to provide for my family.
Soon to be homeless. Soon to be a burden on the rest of society. I am an American and I do not like others stating that I, like many others, reject the “Socialist” plan. I reject the “Insurance” option. I tried it and it failed me and my family on all levels.
CJ
February 26th, 2010
6:41 pm
Great post by Linda at 5:28, where she states how she honestly feels. “Everyone dies” pretty much sums it up. The accuracy of the statistics debated earlier are actually irrelevant to her position.
Kyle, for the record, beyond the kind of fundamental knowledge acquired in undergraduate school, I’m not much of an academic. So, as in the recent discussion on climate change, I try to rely on research conducted by academics who are experts in the subject of discussion–”liberal elitists” as they are called by some because, I suspect, the results of such research either don’t support their predetermined conclusions and/or undermine their arguments. I guess what I’m trying to say is that I don’t know the answers to your questions. If there’s something in the research that you find suspect then I would be curious to take a look at it.
That said, I suspect that you’re on the same page as Linda. Whether 45,000 die every year as a direct or indirect result of not having health coverage is actually irrelevant to you since “everybody dies.” Or do you prefer the slightly less callous “it’s probably their own fault” approach that RH takes at 5:08? Either way, whether such deaths occur every 30 seconds or every 30 minutes really doesn’t matter. Since these statistics might persuade voters that expanding access to health care is both important and urgent, then such statistics and the researchers who developed them must be undermined.
Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems to me that rather than debating the accuracy of these statistics, we should really be debating whether we should maintain a health care system in which our fellow citizens, or their children, suffer or die as a result of lack of coverage (or go into bankruptcy). Linda and RH say to let them die. I say no. What say you?
LA
February 26th, 2010
6:47 pm
Did Saddam Hussein model himself on Darth Vader?
Was Darth Vader Saddam Hussein’s ultimate hero?
The answer may be lurking in the Tate Modern in London. Chicago-based artist Michael Rakowitz’s exhibition The worst condition is to pass under a sword which is not one’s own explores the surprising parallels between Saddam’s regime and western science fiction through a series of hand-drawn cartoons and sculptural installations.
http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/culturelab/2010/02/did-saddam-model-himself-on-darth-vader.php?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news
RH
February 26th, 2010
6:54 pm
“Soon to be homeless. Soon to be a burden on the rest of society. I am an American and I do not like others stating that I, like many others, reject the “Socialist” plan. I reject the “Insurance” option. I tried it and it failed me and my family on all levels.”
Did you major in Drama?
don't speak for me
February 26th, 2010
6:56 pm
Why yes, I did major in Drama. Good catch!
RH
February 26th, 2010
7:03 pm
“Why yes, I did major in Drama. Good catch!”
Liberal arts degrees will get you no where in life. There’s where your problems all started!
Linda
February 26th, 2010
8:00 pm
Don’t@6:38, The reason unemployment is so high & employers aren’t hiring is due to a multitude of problems. Small businesses can’t get credit because banks are instead lending to the fed. govt. Rather than making risky business loans & less risky real estate loans, banks are buying almost risk-free T-bills. The more the fed. govt. spends & borrows, the higher unemployment will be. Stimulating the economy is causing the economy to retract. Also, it’s impossible for employers to calculate the cost of an employee with the uncertainty of the aspects of the health care bill & cap & trade bill which Obama said would cause energy costs to skyrocket. If I wanted to cause unemployment to escalate, I would do exactly what the current DC bunch has done. If I was applying for a job in the private sector, I would NEVER admit to an interviewer that I was a Dem/liberal/progressive & supported an agenda that is totally anti-business.
We’re not a socialist country & don’t desire to be one. All our socialists programs are broke & we need no more. The US is almost bankrupt. Our insurance companies (health, hazard, auto, life, etc.) are private. Health insurers make a mere 3% profit, whereas the fed. govt. wastes 53% of its income & will be MORE expensive. It’s inefficient, ineffective & wrought with fraud & excesses.
Free markets don’t insure success but do insure freedom if allowed to work without too much govt. intrusion. Freedom is more coveted than success.
May God bless you.
Kyle Wingfield
February 26th, 2010
8:04 pm
CJ, I asked the questions because I already knew the answers from reading the report. See my comment above to Allen.
The point is that not only columnists and politically inclined readers reach “predetermined conclusions,” as you put it. There have been other surveys to suggest a relationship between a lack of insurance and a greater likelihood of *untimely* death (since, as you note, everyone dies from something). None of them, to my knowledge, have dared to suggest that the number is as large as 45,000 in a year.
If you’re interested in this topic, read the Atlantic article that I linked to in my comment to Allen. (In it, you’ll notice a statistic that 80,000 people die a year from infections they got in hospitals; I don’t think any of us would present that stat as proof that it’s worse to be treated in hospitals than to be uninsured. One point I’d like to make here is that we all know that health-care reform is needed without overdramatized statistics.)
Linda
February 26th, 2010
8:33 pm
CJ, Using biased, unsubstantiated, left-wing references from self-proclaimed health care activists, calling those who disagree with you names & accusing opponents of positions they do not hold is not helping your case or your cause.
The strategy of the liberal agenda is to create a crisis, an urgency, victims & bad guys, whether it’s an economic stimulus or jobs bill, the cap & trade bill or the health care bill. The victims range from humans to polar bears. The bad guys are the evil bankers, the rich, oil companies & health companies. It’s only the progressives that can save the day.
If Americans don’t go along, it’s because they’re misinformed, didn’t hear enough speeches, watch the wrong news channel or are just plain stupid. Let me disagree. Americans have awakened & have spoken, marched, emailed, called & voted. They’re smarter than you think.
Thank you for helping my case & my cause.
May God bless you.
Yancey
February 26th, 2010
9:14 pm
Weren’t they calling it insurance reform for awhile? Insurance reform I’m for. Reforming the entire health care system, I’m not. If it ain’t broke don’t fix it. And I sure as hell don’t want the government insuring my health.
CJ
February 26th, 2010
11:34 pm
I apologize for the late reply. I’ve been out.
Thanks for the Atlantic link Kyle, but McCardle’s March 2010 article was written as though the Harvard study didn’t exist. Given the focus of her essay, this was a very strange omission since this study has only been out for a few months and was widely reported in the media and prominently referenced in the House health care debates.
For me, the article further confirms that getting sucked into a debate regarding the accuracy of these statistics is futile. The evidence suggests that whether the number is 20,000 deaths per year (assuming the numbers in the Harvard study are overstated) or 100,000 deaths per year, your position would be unchanged. Irregardless of the actual numbers, increasing access to those without coverage and increasing security to those with coverage aren’t urgent, important, or even necessary from your perspective. The known consequences of bankruptcies, suffering, and deaths are not your concern.
Thanks again for engaging me.
Allen
February 27th, 2010
5:50 am
Kyle, thanks. I apologize for my careless remark. I don’t know about the study in question, but my errant reference was to (what may be) a more recent Harvard paper (that is paywalled).
Challenging assumptions is good, but I am underwhelmed by the Atlantic piece. From the author: “I have not asserted that insuring the uninsured wouldn’t save anyone’s lives. [break] What I said is, the studies so far done often cannot exclude the possibility that there is no effect.”
If you found McCardle persuasive, please consider reading an interesting rebuttal: http://bit.ly/9mXeyX
The best available evidence suggests that thousands of people die annually for lack of health insurance. This should be neither overdramatized nor underemphasized in the course of this debate.
No More Progressives!
February 27th, 2010
9:53 am
Michael H. Smith
February 26th, 2010
5:34 pm
The term “uninsured” needs a great deal of clarification, Kyle. Under-insured perhaps but “uninsured” is a misnomer. I think you are smart enough to know that as a fact and as matter of law.
It depends on what the definition of “is” is.
No More Progressives!
February 27th, 2010
7:08 pm
don’t speak for me
February 26th, 2010
6:38 pm
“So why can every other major country have a health care system that provides universal coverage but we cannot? It does not bankrupt them?”
This brings up an intersting point. Some point to Sweden as the most effective health care delivery system. I do know that 91% of Swedes work, and pay about 50% in income taxes to support their quasi-socialistic state.
Contrast that to the USA, where the entitlement class parasitically drains the system year in & out, without contributing a dime.
BlackVoter
February 28th, 2010
9:10 am
I think it is time to call a spade a spade. In the event you reference polls, tell the readers about your samples. I want to know about the size. I want to know about the people polled. I can go on and on. It is obvious that the majority of Americans want healthcare reform. You can’t call me a liberal b/c I am an INDEPENDENT. Also, I understand the process of public policies. I do agree with the author that we need to categorize the many areas of Healthcare reform. I don’t agree with delaying anything for any party. I see the many prejudices of America rearing its head. What ever happen to a healthy debate? I have read many personal attacks b/c people disagree.
No More Progressives!
March 1st, 2010
9:52 am
BlackVoter
February 28th, 2010
9:10 am
“I think it is time to call a spade a spade. In the event you reference polls, tell the readers about your samples. I want to know about the size. I want to know about the people polled. I can go on and on. It is obvious that the majority of Americans want healthcare reform.”
Do you live in a cave, too? No the people DON’T want the intrusion of Federally mandated health care reform. That’s been made patently clear.
“I see the many prejudices of America rearing its head.”
Really? Name two or three.