
After fruitlessly seeking a bipartisan compromise on health care reform for months, the White House seems to have finally realized that Republicans have no interest in compromising and that progressives are fed up with making nice. Now, the administration is preparing to go it alone, even if that means passing reform on a straight party-line vote.
White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, and even President Obama himself have all suggested that they don't think the GOP is serious about reaching a bipartisan health care reform compromise--and with key Republicans suggesting that they'll vote against a bill that doesn't also have the support of a majority of their own party, it's only one logical step to the conclusion that the administration has accepted that health care reform will be the latest initiative to move forward along party lines.
Over the weekend an anonymous source told Bloomberg that the White House is "devising a strategy to pass a measure by relying only on the Democratic majority in each house of Congress."
And former Senate Majority Leader (and Obama confidant) Tom Daschle says Obama's giving up on the GOP. "He's waited and waited," Daschle said after a meeting with the President on Friday. "He has indicated, much to the chagrin of people in his party, that virtually everything's on the table. And he's gotten almost nothing in return for it."
Meanwhile, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) also says Democrats are ready to move forward on their own.
The rumblings are unmistakable. What remains to be seen is how the GOP responds to the threat and, if they don't respond to Obama's liking, whether the Democrats will carry out the threat.
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
August 24, 2009 10:10 AM
Yes, he's ready. Yes, he's been ready for a while now. Yes, they're going to do it unless some sudden, unprecedented surge of concern for the public good overtakes enough Republicans to make a "bipartisan" bill possible.
They've spent the last three weeks laying the groundwork for this. They've been working to build a case for our braindead MSM that there is literally no concession they could make, possibly even including scrapping the entire plan in favor of a massive income tax cuts for the top 1%, that would get Republican votes and that the reason is that the Republicans think that legislative failure is their ticket back into control of Congress in 2010.
Those of us who are inclined to give the administration the benefit of the doubt saw this clearly. Those of us who are not so-inclined pissed and moaned and snarled, sneered about "three dimensional chess" to anyone who pointed out there was a plan, and generally made it harder for them to what had to be done to try to build the kind of media narrative its going to take to get this done.
And the hell of it is that when it happens, the no-benefit of the doubt pissers and moaners will take credit for "forcing" him to do it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fnord12
August 24, 2009 10:36 AM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
I think you're wrong that people who complained made it harder for the Administration to do this. Having an outcry from people that were unsatisfied with the progress on health care is making it easier for the Administration to build the case that they now need to go-it-alone. If there was no reaction to the lack of progress and the (as you suspect) feinted negotiations, there would be no reason that the Administration would have for not continuing to wait.
You may very well be right that this was all part of the Administration's plan. They would be surprisingly slow if this wasn't the case. But i still think it's necessary for us to play our part and not get complacently confident in the Administration. If you're right, I still think the Administration actually expects us to react the way you say we shouldn't. It's part of their plan.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
August 24, 2009 11:11 AM in reply to fnord12
I disagree. The story will now be "Obama abandoning bipartisanship due to pressure from far left" as opposed to "Obama end outreach to dismissive Republicans."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Barry Champlain
August 24, 2009 12:07 PM in reply to Stroszek
The silver lining to the obtuse MSM's spinning it, yet again, in the worst way possible, is that for the first time... it's not going to matter.
Just read an article by Kurtz, in which the premise was that when the MSM finally gets off its ass and starts reporting folks like Palin as misinforming the public (still can't use the "L" word, however), it isn't having any effect. Kurtz' Moral: the MSM has lost its ability to sway public reaction, when even printing the truth and exposing the lies (something they should have done, eons ago, as part of their damn job!) has no effect on the Idiocracy. Well, he didn't put it that way, but that's what he's saying...
So naturally, the corollary to that is that when they again print the half-empty glass, it will mean nothing again. The Idiocracy will still think Obama's a Kenyan Muslim with Death Panels and no birth certificate, health care reform will have been rammed-through in the end, and the Republicans' worst nightmare will come true: no one will ever elect a Republican government again, in our lifetime. The Krystol/FDR Syndrome.
What's so ironic is that had they not been such dogmatists, and held such an impenetrable line, health care overhaul might not have been perceived as a strictly "Democratic" issue. By stonewalling all action on it for decades, and following the playbook of the Newts and the Krystols, they ensured that such reform would necessarily always be perceived as a "Republican defeat". Because, as Krystol said, if the people get something they LIKE from the Dems, no one would ever vote R again.
Therefore, "winning" on the issue meant they could never lose, or it would become a self-fulfilling prophecy. An insight into the mindset of the R's, right there: they could never lose.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
August 24, 2009 11:38 AM in reply to fnord12
Yes, I realize it is an article of faith among Democrats that vociferous, outraged criticism of the actions of their own party's leaders are always useful, always helpful, always an unmixed good. I've always found that to be a remarkably convenient ideology. I've also noted that incorrigable backseat drivers invariably, and unapologetically, insist that they're actually enhancing safety because "two sets of eyes are better than one."
It's politically helpful for it to be clear that our party's leaders can only go so far without losing us, but I can't help but note that, with the notable exception of Israel, we appear to be alone among all the mainstream liberal parties of the other western democracies in the belief that self-discipline has no political utility or enefit whatsoever.
I also can't help but note that the Israeli Labor Party has about as crappy a record as U.S. Democrats do when it comes to having big policy initiatives collapse into yet another bout of vicious intramural acrimony. In both cases, you see this pattern where you have people who are so convinced that they know best that they're utterly unwilling to give leadership any benefit of the doubt which, in turn, devolves into the elevation of details to matters of high principle which eventually hardens into outright nihilism.
Granted, in Israel, that seems to be a problem common to Labor, Likud and, now, Kadima alike. Here, it's just us Democrats.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kenga
August 24, 2009 12:20 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
Off-topic, but on-topic:
On Saturday afternoon a back-seat driver kept a friend of mine from killing or maiming two pedestrians who were using a crosswalk and obeying the pedestrian walk signal. Not a joke or an exaggeration.
Sometimes it's not the extra pair of eyes, but the extra brain, that makes the difference.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Karl the Marxist
August 24, 2009 1:52 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
Well, they can plausibly make the "see, we are not just catering to the left, they are pissed at us too" argument.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Elizabeth2
August 24, 2009 11:09 AM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
If I may, co-sign (to Former NC Steve's comment, that is).
Most people aren't paying too much attention during these summer months. When the 'work year' starts up and they look around to see what's been going on, what will they see/hear about? Months of fringers (and some not so fringe) screaming nonsense, and the left getting fed up with Obama for trying so VERY hard to be bi-partisan. (I do agree that the left's anguish is in the long run helpful)
Conclusion to be reached by any fair-minded person: 1) there was no credible alternative (or even critique) offered by the opposition *and* 2) Obama tried every way possible to involve the GOP. In addition, he gave those screaming for "more time," some extra time, during which they did nothing. Soooooo .... if he has to get a little pushy and partisan now .. so be it.
Someone (forget who) said that in politics there are two kinds of results: "immediate" and "ultimate." One thing we do know about Obama is that he plays for the long-term, not the momentary.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
August 24, 2009 11:14 AM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
You are exactly right, NC.
If the admin hadn't planned on this from the start, they wouldn't have pushed for the health care instruction for reconciliation back in April. A look at their actions over the full timeline makes it abundantly clear how they approached this. It's not 11-dimensional chess, it's a political strategy that looks ahead more than a week... a concept utterly alien to much of the netroots.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
August 24, 2009 11:38 AM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
I think the left plays an important role in pulling the discussion out of the jaws of the media-industry-GOP vortex.
But criticism can be of two kinds:
1) Policy based, constructive, and most of all, persuasive in the public discussion, ie. advocates and liberals out theer e on TV pushing their case, pushing for more robust HCR, etc..
2) Sniping, cyncial, separatism, infighting, conspiracy theories ....
While some lefty bloggers succumb to gratuitously destructive impulses, many do not. We shouldn't lump the two together.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
August 24, 2009 12:27 PM in reply to AnswerFrog
You know who does criticism on this topic right, IMO? Howard Dean. He's been pitch perfect. No matter what's going on, he stays on message. When people try to get him to join in the cries of "Sellout! Treason! Betrayal!"
He says "No, I don't believe that. I'm confident we're going to pass a bill and that the bill will have a public option in it. A bill without a public option makes no sense because it's the only thing that can hold down the cost." He gets the message out, makes it clear where the line is without feeding into the MSM's beloved "oh, those silly, squabbling, backbiting Democrats" narrative.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Goshen
August 24, 2009 12:24 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
Amen. Amen. Amen.
As posted elsewhere:
I think continued appearances by the old befuddled bulls and various winger wankers has one possible benefit.
It is slowly (I hope) making credible the impression in the minds of moderates and independents that the Republican party leadership is almost totally bereft of any significant ideas, and do not really represent the majority interests of the citizens on major issues like health care, or even defense and foreign policy. More than that, or perhaps because of that, the GOP leadership, such as it is, is focusing solely on petty, partisan political tactics.
It's really, really hard to take these characters seriously any longer. It's like watching Michigan play football the last couple of years. Just pathetic (and I say that as a Penn State fan!)
In the end, I believe a majority of the country will reject this leadership, their arguments, and the foaming fanatics that they permit to be seen as the defining mentality of the so-called conservative movement these days.
My favorite theory this week is that we're watching the death-throes of the GOP, out of which a new conservative party will be born -- Whig-->Republican anyone?-- but it's not clear yet if that'll happen.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Buckeye Terrorist Fist Jab Nation
August 24, 2009 3:29 PM in reply to Goshen
Yeah but, I've enjoyed watching Michigan football the past few years...;-)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Goshen
August 24, 2009 5:45 PM in reply to Buckeye Terrorist Fist Jab Nation
When I said "pathetic", of course, I really meant "hysterically funny".
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Satorist
August 24, 2009 1:22 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
I agree it's a clever strategy, but the intent is to shed the "Public Option".
Would NC Steve, Elizabeth, Stroszec, et al please explain why, if a simple majority strategy was always the cunning Master Plan, it was necessary to cut a still-secret deal with PhARMA that significantly constrains cost-savings? Or how this strategy is clever for achieving what is, after all, a timid compromise but unworkable to achieve a single-payer plan? Or why Gov. Dean has been shut out of the process? In what way is this strategy dissimilar to that employed for enactment of the Stimulus bill--which low-balled the president's request, tolerated the inclusion ineffectual spending and, for the sake of 3 R votes, accepted crippling cuts that are now ruining state economies and prolonging the recession?
More curiously, why not simply let the Senate pass a bill without a public option and insist on its inclusion during the House/Senate conference, since any conference will have a Democratic majority and conference reports cannot be filibustered? After all, it doesn't matter what either chamber initially passes, it's what both chambers jointly agree to that becomes law. Why is it suddenly essential both the House and Senate pass draft bills that contain a public option that Reconciliation procedures are invoked to ensure an outcome that the conference will achieve anyway?
The rules providing for using Reconciliation require splitting the bill into individual parts, each one of which must reduce costs. That requirement will likely kill expansion of Medicaid eligibility for people earning below 150 percent of the federal poverty level and subsidizing the buy-in to a public option would exponentially increase costs of the plan far beyond estimated savings. Goodbye, public option. Meanwhile, Obama is on record as saying the public option is desirable but not essential.
I expect the "The Perfect Isn't The Enemy Of The Good" speech in 5, 4, 3...
Some politicians deserve our support but none of them ever deserve our trust.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lestatdelc
August 24, 2009 2:02 PM in reply to Satorist
Giving big phrama a placebo while the bill is going through the sausage factory means they are not dropping billions on wall-to-wall Harry & Lousie redux ads that would totally torpedo any shot at reform.
Would you want industry backed commercials and ads in every media outlet, running once or twice every commercial break, non-stop for months on end attacking a not yet existent plan?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Buckeye Terrorist Fist Jab Nation
August 24, 2009 3:40 PM in reply to Lestatdelc
Nailed it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Satorist
August 25, 2009 12:00 AM in reply to Lestatdelc
First, we know only the vaguest outlines of the deal with PhARMA because the administration won't reveal the details (want to guess why?) but it's hardly a "placebo" a gullible PhARMA stupidly accepted when negotiated drug pricing is prohibited (Ds have demanded negotiated pricing since the time of inception) and an exemption from ANY further income reduction is guaranteed. In return, PhARMA commits to a ten-year (two and one half presidential terms) reduction in prices of $80 billion. Even Speaker Pelosi said the White House was rolled and twice that amount should have been extracted.
Secondly, Harry & Loise opposition advertising would have been far less effective this time if the administration had relentlessly and accurately framed the debate by making PhARMA and insurers the culprits they are. It isn't "just" that Ds control every elective branch of government and didn't during the last healthcare debate, they do so at a time when there is palpable seething public rage at seemingly endless corporate banditry.
A party that can't successfully capitalize on those circumstances simply doesn't want to; and that is the larger point I was making. I used the secret deal with PhARMA as simply one example of a pattern of exhibited behavior that strongly suggests this president and congress wants a bill more than it wants reform--even if it's a drug and insurance company windfall. Big Health is entitled to expect the same deal Wall Street got.
In any event, the survival probabilities of a public option diminish rather than increase under Reconciliation procedures. I believe that is the intended consequence. Others can draw their own conclusions why this tactic is being chosen rather than simply letting the matter be resolved in conference with the House. But don't be surprised when it becomes procedurally "impossible" to retain the public option in the bill. It was never possible.
Two trillion dollars per year, every year, is at stake--four times what we spend on defense. An entire political system can be bought from the petty cash fund of that much wealth. In fact, it has.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Captain Dan
August 24, 2009 10:28 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
Should the next to last sentence in the next to last paragraph read 'harder for them to DO what had to be done'?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
atticus1104
August 24, 2009 10:13 AM
It's about time!!!
If this video doesn't get people to see the true agenda of Fox News, I don't know if anything will. Neil Cavuto basically says Obama's moral obligation should be protecting America's wealth, not the health of all Americans.
These people are unbelievable.
http://progressnotcongress.org/?p=2640
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Moloko+
August 24, 2009 10:51 AM in reply to atticus1104
Sure enough. All those guys in green uniforms running up Omaha beach on D-Day were there not for America - but for Wealthy Americans.
Next time they need everyone to suit-up for an Oil War - tell them to get the roster of the College Republicans and stick them on the front line.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Goshen
August 24, 2009 12:33 PM in reply to atticus1104
Same song, different century.
"Malefactors of great wealth", Teddy Roosevelt:
"Too much cannot be said against the men of wealth who sacrifice everything to getting wealth. There is not in the world a more ignoble character than the mere money-getting American, insensible to every duty, regardless of every principle, bent only on amassing a fortune, and putting his fortune only to the basest uses —whether these uses be to speculate in stocks and wreck railroads himself, or to allow his son to lead a life of foolish and expensive idleness and gross debauchery, or to purchase some scoundrel of high social position, foreign or native, for his daughter. Such a man is only the more dangerous if he occasionally does some deed like founding a college or endowing a church, which makes those good people who are also foolish forget his real iniquity. These men are equally careless of the working men, whom they oppress, and of the State, whose existence they imperil. There are not very many of them, but there is a very great number of men who approach more or less closely to the type, and, just in so far as they do so approach, they are curses to the country. (Forum, February 1895.) Mem. Ed. XV, 10; Nat. Ed. XIII, 9."
From when the GOP, and its leaders, had a soul....
http://www.theodoreroosevelt.org/TR%20Web%20Book/TR_CD_to_HTML364.html
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
shooter242
August 24, 2009 10:13 AM
Oh sure, trying to railroad something through the backdoor is going to make people feel better about government duplicity. I think not.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
August 24, 2009 10:20 AM in reply to shooter242
You mean actually enacting what you were elected to do? It's called straight shooting.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
August 24, 2009 10:26 AM in reply to shooter242
Kinda like those massive tax cuts Bush pushed through with 51 votes? The American people were so untrusting of the process that they refused to take tax cuts.
When half the people can't name the vice president, we're really supposed to believe that they know (or care) about something as arcane as budget reconciliation and how many votes a particular piece of legislation gets?
You tards need better talking points.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
traitorjoe
August 24, 2009 10:37 AM in reply to shooter242
You mean like skirting around the FISA laws? Or inserting John Bolton into a recess appointment? Or water-boarding?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Acewrap
August 24, 2009 10:41 AM in reply to traitorjoe
...or the Bush tax cuts?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
agio
August 24, 2009 10:47 AM in reply to shooter242
Well, that's one part of your post that's hard to argue with.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Overreach THIS!
August 24, 2009 10:59 AM in reply to shooter242
Well you just *watch*, Shooter! :)))))))))))))))))))
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rich in NJ
August 24, 2009 10:13 AM
More importantly, any plan that would receive significant GOP votes would be a bad bill. Cost control needs to be a central component of any effective health care reform bill, which is why a robust public option is so critical.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
August 24, 2009 10:30 AM in reply to Rich in NJ
That's the bigger issue. It's not politics, it's the fact that if we don't reign in costs, we will run out of money.
The Blue Dogs and GOP and other assorted jackasses like playing politics with this issue, but America will be bankrupt in a matter of years if we don't control costs.
The public option, health it, and medical efficacy boards seem like good steps in that direction.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Vertigo
August 24, 2009 10:14 AM
These guys seem to be slow learners. It was obvious weeks, if not months, ago that the GOP had no intention of supporting any kind of health-care reform, and indeed hoped to destroy Obama's presidency by defeating it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
August 24, 2009 10:22 AM in reply to Vertigo
Yes, that's right. The administration had no clue about this and believed that Republicans would vote for healthcare reform in overwhelming numbers!
That must explain why Obama insisted on having $650B put into the budge for healthcare and preserving the reconciliation option six months ago.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Vertigo
August 24, 2009 11:12 AM in reply to FreeRider
You think they've handled this well? You think Rahm is on your side and in favor of a public option? I sure don't.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
August 24, 2009 12:30 PM in reply to Vertigo
1. I think they've handled it better than you're giving them credit for. They clearly planned for this contingency by having that money put into the budget and reserving reconciliation as an option.
2. I think Rahm was instrumental in making sure we had reconciliation as a back up. I think Rahm will take a bullet for the president. I think that as long as Obama wants a public option, Rahm will do everything he can to make it happen--regardless of how he feels personally.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tpmgary
August 24, 2009 10:15 AM
Brian, as you say, these are rumblings. So how can you write a news headline that says "White House to GOP: Were going to do reform with or without you".
Something's not right about journalism if journalists take a leap when the subjects of a story haven't.
This is only my opinion, I could be wrong. Just seems off.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lalo35adm
August 24, 2009 10:15 AM
OK, so now that he's "given up" on GOP to provide him a cover, I guess we're back to where we started: liberals versus the Blue Dogs.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
August 24, 2009 10:34 AM in reply to Lalo35adm
And GOP vs. the facts, commonsense, economics, etc.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Moloko+
August 24, 2009 10:59 AM in reply to AnswerFrog
The Torturing Republicans care about health care?
The only "operation" they care about is Operation Iraqi Liberation.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
traitorjoe
August 24, 2009 10:27 AM
Let the smackdown commence! And when premiums go down, will Republicans take credit like McCain did for the GI Bill after he voted against it?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Chris
August 24, 2009 10:29 AM
How can you possibly negotiate with people who say you are going to kill their grandma? Slapping nut sacks across your face is not an opposition plan.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
traitorjoe
August 24, 2009 10:31 AM
Chris, copyright your talking point and mail it to all the Dems!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hsr0601
August 24, 2009 10:36 AM
Theme : The public health is a fundamental human right.
1. When the public health is also one of commodity like a house, we come to a tragic and unthinkable conclusion : As to for-profit business, the more ill patients get, the more profits they make.
Under the most wasteful structure on the planet like no coordinated preventive care program waiting until people get ill, a pay for each and every service reimbursement and frequent readmissions, no e-medical record and deaths, crushing litigations and the more profits via the unnecessary procedures, and the most inefficient paper billing systems imaginable, overpriced pharmaceuticals, bloated insurance companies, medial fraud, exorbitant costs by the tragic ER visits etc, it might be no wonder with the expansive, systematic reform in the pipeline, just one attitude of patient-oriented value in 10 regions has attained 16% of savings in Medicare while their quality scores are well above average.
Aside from the already allocated $583 billion and the savings of this reform package, 16% of $923.5bn (the combined Medicare and Medicaid cost per year, as of July) is around $147.76bn per year and 1.4776trillion over the next decade, and this patient-oriented value alone could be enough to meet the goal.
Please be 'sure' to visit http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/13/opinion/13gawande.html?hp for credible evidences !
Today, another innovative, fundamental change in payment system, or patient's outcome based payment reform that is able to turn the profit-oriented malpractices and volume into the patient-oriented value and quality is waiting for a final decision.
2. The savings via removing wastes turn into limit to medical access, rationing, tax raise, and deficit etc via the irresponsible lies.
Unlike high fuel price and mortgage rate in recent years as the roots of great recession and bankruptcy of middle class, the severity in the high cost of health premiums has come to light lately. Similarly, in an attempt to hide these painful corruptions & wastes, the greed allies struggle to turn the savings via removing these wastes into limit to medical access, rationing, tax raise, and deficit etc.
In contrast, not to mention a wide range of consumer protection, this promising reform takes initiatives in more primary care docs and improved long-term care. Unnecessarily, hope should not be replaced with fear, just like people don't have to fear quitting drug.
3. Under the free market theory and the premise that the public health is also one of commodity like a house, if the demand decreases on a large scale, accordingly the price tends to reflect it, as in the case of house price, and it never happens for the price to spiral up. One step forward, in case the price is spiraling up, to be sure, the remaining clients should withdraw the contract or choose the other options. Sadly, no way-out other than the prohibitive ER is allowed in America. Therefore, the victims today and tomorrow deserve long overdue protection from non-profit Government.
4. When some part of our body is ailing seriously, we are going to lose competitiveness, equally, when some part of a nation is ailing servery, it is going to loose competitiveness, too.
5. Unlike the original financial concern over recovery from Catrina catastrophe, the recovery work is going smooth with no big problem, to my knowledge. The last thing to want would be for this health Catrina to be left untreated. And there is enough room for savings from the unsustainable wastes.
6. Equation (By decade) & the flower of this reform !
$1.042trillion (cost of reform) + $245bn (cost to reflect annual pay raise of docs) = $1.287bn (actual cost of reform).
$583bn (the revenue package) + $80bn (so-called doughnut hole) + $155bn (savings from hospitals) + $167bn (ending the unnecessary subsidies for insurers) + 129bn(mandate-related fine) + $277bn (ending medical fraud, a minimum of 3% , the combined Medicare and Medicaid cost of $923.5bn per year, as of July,) = $1.391trillion + the reduced cost of ER visits (Medicare covers some 40% of the total) + the tax code on the wealthiest more reduced than originally proposed = why not ? (except for a magic pill, an outcome-based payment reform & IT effects and so forth).
Additionally, the last thing to expect, no e-medial record(under a fee for each and every service payment, hospitals are resistant to introduce IT system) , is happening now in the sector requiring the best accuracy in terms of dealing with human lives, which leads to a shocking portion of risk-carrying duplicate tests, fatal errors and deaths, as a consequence, these cause a vicious circle, about $100bn worth of litigations and even more profits via unnecessary procedures for hospitals .
Clearly, the American style innovation, outcome-based payment reform, could speed up the adoption of IT system, under this package, docs' pay is dependant upon patient's outcome, no intervention, wastes, frequent readmissions, low-quality are allowed later on.
It is firmly believed with the preventive care program in operation, this innovation could make a big difference just like GM has surprised the world with the adoption of EV-conversion technology from pioneers and outpaced the excellent hybrid cars (the release of BYD's earlier appearance in America and the ambitious plan of Germany for 1million of EVs by 2020 etc might support it).
7. Over the duration of time-consuming discussion surrounding this common sense, a fundamental human right, and slow down to shout and disrupt, and lie irresponsibly, America has been loosing market share in a futuristic sustainable energy arena. But just like if a country attempts to steal cash from wall street, America can't wait and see, so the opposite is the same. Taking the invaluable lives and gigantic war spending into account, it can be cited as one more extended reckless disaster, regardless of the result, as this great recession says.
Please note that time does not fix the endless greed, energy depletion, only science and innovation can meet the challenge.
Thank You !
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
KQuark
August 24, 2009 6:45 PM in reply to hsr0601
Bravo great post.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tom65
August 24, 2009 10:38 AM
It all hinges on Harry Reid, which doesn't make me feel hopeful.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ricky
August 24, 2009 10:40 AM
"What remains to be seen is how the GOP responds to the threat and, if they don't respond to Obama's liking, whether the Democrats will carry out the threat."
If you think the first part "remains to be seen" you are deaf and blind.
As for the second part, "Democrats will" should be changed to "Congressional Democrats can."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mans_best_friend
August 24, 2009 10:41 AM
In reality, the problem has never been the Republicans - there are enough Democratic votes to pass this. The problem has always been the Blue Dogs. These guys need to get on board. If they want to posture for the folks back home, fine, but they need to be made to understand that when it comes down to pressing the button, they had better remember which side they're on. If they think voting with the Republicans is going to help them get re-elected next time around, they're sorely mistaken.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AdAbsurdum
August 24, 2009 10:56 AM in reply to mans_best_friend
They Bluedogs can no longer get cover from the non-existent cloak of bipartisanship when they attempt to water down the legislation.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lalo35adm
August 24, 2009 11:04 AM in reply to AdAbsurdum
They can however get cover from the fact that those who push for the public option are increasingly seen as the extreme wing of the Dem party, doubling-down over ideology.
All the talk about the nuclear option after townhalls, GOP and Blue Dog opposition, Obama's slide in polls, public resistance to this particular version of the reform - it only amplifies this further.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Goshen
August 24, 2009 2:40 PM in reply to Lalo35adm
Yah, that's it. You nailed it again, Lalo. Good one!!!
Muahahahahahahaha. !
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fkaZk0sm0
August 24, 2009 4:20 PM in reply to Lalo35adm
you are delusional.
yes, the extremists in the republican party who in their hearts of hearts would love nothing more than to dismantle programs like social security and medicare have been working overtime to paint the compromise that is the public option as some sort of extremist socialist (nazi, even) complete takeover of health care. scaring people with lies and over-the-top rhetoric. and yes, these extremists in the republican party (though to be fair, many of them aren't actually extremists, they're just craven partisan opportunists) have managed to ever so slightly whittle away a bit of the broad public support that exists for a public option.
so, sure, huff enough of the fox news fumes and maybe a bit of diminsihed support for the public option can become this great hallucinatory turning of the tide where the reasonable among us who are willing to forego single payer for the compromise of a public option are now seen as the extremists. but the majority of americans who don't take their cues from the likes of limbaugh still know that the extremists are the ones ranting about death panels, drawing hitler mustaches on obama, and carrying AR-15s to town hall meetings about health care.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Moloko+
August 24, 2009 11:10 AM in reply to mans_best_friend
Exactly. A perfect example is Joe Lieberman. He sold his soul to get the McCain VP spot. It was my biggest fear that it would be offered to him. Bush so ruined the country - It was their only hope. But in the end - the Insane Evangelicals were more important than winning. So they opted for applying all the evil they mustered against Clinton applied to the country's first black President. Why not? The southern strategy has been so successful before.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Steaming Pile
August 24, 2009 10:43 AM
Who else has a U2 earworm right now?
We'll do refooorm...with or withooout you.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
thomas1
August 24, 2009 11:15 AM in reply to Steaming Pile
damn you Steaming Pile! I had Professor Longhair doing 'Red Beans' in my head from my commute - now it's U2
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
zjemi
August 24, 2009 10:48 AM
I keep reading that if Obama doesn't pass a bipartisan health care bill, the public won't like it. Where did this come from? Who remembers how many Republicans voted for Social Security? For Medicare? For anything that works?
We really don't care who votes for it, we just want to get it done. We will only complain that it doesn't go far enough.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
agio
August 24, 2009 11:02 AM in reply to zjemi
Yep, it's utter nonsense.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
August 24, 2009 11:39 AM in reply to agio
GOP wishful thinking
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Frex
August 24, 2009 10:50 AM
I'm going to hold my breath to those stubborn Repug's compromise. Really this time.
Tired of the talk Barry, time to produce.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
PorkBelly
August 24, 2009 11:08 AM
Need to get a bill out of conference with a public option.
After that, I don't think that Conrad, Nelson, et al will have the stones to filibuster it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Moloko+
August 24, 2009 11:15 AM in reply to PorkBelly
You mean the "teabags" to filibuster it. Those Republicans are SO clever.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ru4862
August 24, 2009 11:10 AM
The White House has spent the last two weeks saying the same thing. We need less talk and more action
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Will work for shoes
August 24, 2009 11:23 AM in reply to ru4862
Congress isn't in session; little hard to act without the rest of the team. September is shaping up to be a bumpy ride.
I'd like to see pro-reform groups use all those delicious soundbites to smack the Republicans upside the head.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Moloko+
August 24, 2009 11:18 AM
I'm not so sure. Waiting untill they broke out the Nazi signs and the AR-15's was probably a good idea, Now they look like wack-jobs.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
LarsThorwald
August 24, 2009 11:34 AM
The GOP is entirely risible now. They have without question the most irresponsible core voter base and ride-along politicians since the Whigs in the late 1850s. It's astonishing.
I remember having a conversation with my grandmother about the McCarthy era when I was in college. I was writing a paper on the entire Red Scare period, and on McCarthy particularly. I asked her how so many people could follow along with one guy so foolishly and how they could just go insane like that.
Sghe told me that's where people's heads were at the time. They were scared and fed lies and just went along.
I distinctly remember saying that such a thing could never happen again, and she laughed out loud at me.
Point to you, grandma, wherever you are.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
714Day
August 24, 2009 11:35 AM
Daschle ought to pipe down and sit in the corner as he doesn't much care about PO and he's a darling of the insurance lobbies. Why this guy is touting possible policy, I don't know.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kmac
August 24, 2009 11:48 AM
I know I have replied through numerous blogs that I felt Obama had done all he could to keep his promise of a transparent and bi-partisan administration .... the Repubs have rejected all attempts to co-operate in anyway and has blatantly demonstrated the pride of being the Party of No ... I totally agree the only alternative is to pass Health Reform without them. I back you 100 percent Mr. President!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Skybolt
August 24, 2009 11:57 AM
You Obama nuthuggers are so predictable. Obama's plan was to waste four months dicking around with the Republicans and the Blue Dogs, to delay passage of a bill, and to wait until the popularity of health care reform and Obama himself had been badly damaged by unanswered wingnut attacks before deciding to force through some half-assed legislation? Like hell it was.
This is playing out according to what will likely be the pattern for the next three years. Obama supports or proposes an approach that won't solve the problem at hand. The Republicans say it's Communism, they Blue Dogs say it's too much too soon, and the liberals let the media report unchallenged lies. Then Obama figures out what we knew five years ago, which is that the GOP is controlled by morons and sadists. He throws his support behind some inadequate, underfunded or insulting legislation, and guys like former-NC-Steve fall in love all over again.
Obama did not even try to get a bill that would actually fix health care in this country. He started out failing, he spent the summer failing, and now you praise him because the Earth didn't explode and there was no zombie attack. I think that eight years of the Unelected Idiot has distorted your sense of presidential competence and obligation.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
August 24, 2009 1:30 PM in reply to Skybolt
As usual, 100% bitching, no alternative solutions.
The American left, folks.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
August 24, 2009 1:32 PM in reply to Stroszek
And no, "TWIST DER' ARMZZZ!!!" isn't a solution.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
August 24, 2009 3:25 PM in reply to Skybolt
We're predictable? Somebody's irony detector is on the fritz.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Buckeye Terrorist Fist Jab Nation
August 24, 2009 3:36 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
Word.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lyleleander
August 24, 2009 12:10 PM
"What remains to be seen is how the GOP responds to the threat and, if they don't respond to Obama's liking, whether the Democrats will carry out the threat."
Is that a joke? Of course we know what the response will be.
'WHAAAAA!!! Obama doesn't want to work with us!! He doesn't want to listen to us and come to a bipartisan compromise! We tried all this time to bend over backwards for him, with every intention of coming up with real reform, and he never reciprocated!!! It's NOT FAIR!!!!'
And bonus points if you can guess whether or not the MSM will take this BS seriously.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Fred Moolten
August 24, 2009 12:12 PM
This post appears to be based on a false premise - that the main reason the Administration has been reluctant to use the reconciliation process to pass reform legislation by majority vote is the fear of appearing too partisan. That may be a small part of the thinking, but the more important reason is that reconciliation is judged by experts in Senate procedures to be unworkable as a means of including major reform components in the legislation. Not being a Senate expert myself, I can only cite their conclusions that provisions that are not strictly budget-related (particularly those not destined to reduce the deficit or ensure budget neutrality) will be struck down by the Senate parliatmentarian. The result would be a very incomplete bill that leaves major components still susceptible to filibuster.
In that sense, the prospect of using reconciliation seems to be both a form of political maneuvering and a desperation measure to be employed if no even minimally acceptable alternative materializes.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
PorkBelly
August 24, 2009 1:26 PM in reply to Fred Moolten
I don't think this is the major problem with reconciliation. If Reid and 50 other Senators wanted to, they could appoint a go-along parliamentarian which would solve the above problem.
My primary concern is that, I believe, anything passed under reconciliation has to be renewed in 5 years or some other limited timeframe.
I can't see the Democrats having this strong of a legislative majority for too long, so that part worries me.
It would really suck if a public option was brought in under reconciliation and is voted out 5 years later when it hasn't had time to be properly implemented.
The Democratic leadership should get a bill out of conference with a public option and then basically dare Conrad, Nelson, etc to filibuster it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
August 24, 2009 1:40 PM in reply to PorkBelly
The key is that, once people are already on the public option, it joins the ranks of political third rails. Unless Republicans get 65 seats, no one is going to be voting to strip citizens of their health insurance.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
PorkBelly
August 24, 2009 1:56 PM in reply to Stroszek
I agree in principle but I don't know if 5 years is enough time to get the plan implemented.
The stuff in the House bill doesn't even go into effect until 2013. I'm not sure if the timeframe is sufficient for people to experience the benefits.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
agio
August 24, 2009 2:27 PM in reply to PorkBelly
The sunset provision is ten years, not five.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
PorkBelly
August 24, 2009 3:26 PM in reply to agio
Definitely better than 5 but I still stand by my original assessment.
"The Democratic leadership should get a bill out of conference with a public option and then basically dare Conrad, Nelson, etc to filibuster it."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
KQuark
August 24, 2009 6:48 PM in reply to Fred Moolten
That's BS Republicans and Dems have used budget reconciliation to pass major policies.
http://planetpov.com/2009/08/23/budget-reconciliation-if-it-was-good-enough-for-contract-with-america-it-is-good-enough-for-universal-healthcare-reform/
“Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1980
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981
Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1982
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1983
Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993
Balanced Budget Act of 1995 (vetoed)
Personal Responsibility and Budget Reconciliation Act of 1996
Balanced Budget Act of 1997
Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997
Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act of 1999 (vetoed)
Marriage Tax Relief Act of 2000 (vetoed)
Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001
Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003
The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005
Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005″
Furthermore Republicans passed a great deal of policy through budget reconciliation.
“Whether reducing or increasing deficits, many of the reconciliation bills made major changes in policy. Health insurance portability (COBRA), nursing home standards, expanded Medicaid eligibility, increases in the earned income tax credit, welfare reform, the state Children’s Health Insurance Program, major tax cuts and student aid reform were all enacted under reconciliation procedures. Health reform 2009 style would be the most ambitious use of reconciliation but it fits a pattern used over three decades by both parties to avoid the strictures of Senate filibusters.”
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Ripper McCord
August 24, 2009 12:17 PM
I can agree with parts of many comments on this thread. The president's approach to health care has been a mixed bag. He's taken heavy political damage in a quest for bipartisanship, but he's finally read the handwriting on the wall.
I doubt he's been playing Spock's 3-D chess all along, but whatever strategy he's followed has had the benefit of demonstrating conclusively that the GOP is fixed solely on denying him any victories. It's clear they intend to play hard for 2010 by highlighting the danger of 60+ cohesive "Socialist" votes. It's a refrain they've been singing since Obama's first month in office.
That said, it's a perilous tactical move to push this through on reconciliation. And in the end, it plays into the GOP stategy.
obstructionists
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
August 24, 2009 5:45 PM in reply to Ripper McCord
See, this is the part where the strawmen get constructed and batted by the Obamalover-haters. I, for one, have never said he's been playing "3D Chess all along." All I've said is that they've been working a strategy for the last three weeks, not all along, just the last three stinkin' weeks, directed to generating the media narrative necessary to push it through reconciliation.
And that's what gets to me. I simply say they're pretty clearly working an orchestrated media strategy that's going to play out over the next several days and people conflate that with me saying he's as farsighted as Jesus and Prometheus all rolled into one.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
EastWest
August 24, 2009 12:30 PM
"The rumblings are unmistakable. What remains to be seen is how the GOP responds to the threat and, if they don't respond to Obama's liking, whether the Democrats will carry out the threat."
Yeah, right. Expecting Democrats to carry out the threat is like expecting Democrats to grow a loaded scrotum. Ain't gonna happen.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JadeZ
August 24, 2009 1:56 PM
Everyone needs to remember that Obama risks nothing by doing this.
The republicans were never were going to vote to reform health care under ANY conditions because they are all about harming the democrats.
So, while all this time ha been wasted by the white house to finally realize this and allow all the lies and nut cases to damage them, its a welcome sign to the rest of us who would have supported this approach from day one.
The people who most oppose helping their fellow human beings are the ones that didnt vote for Obama anyways and wont be voting democratic in the near future.
SOoner this is done and everyone realizes the good o it, sooner will the democrats recover in the polls too.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lestatdelc
August 24, 2009 2:01 PM
Giving big phrama a placebo while the bill is going through the sausage factory means they are not dropping billions on wall-to-wall Harry & Lousie redux ads that would totally torpedo any shot at reform.
Would you want industry backed commercials and ads in every media outlet, running once or twice every commercial break, non-stop for months on end attacking a not yet existent plan?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lestatdelc
August 24, 2009 2:03 PM in reply to Lestatdelc
Crap. That was supposed to be in reply to Satorist up-thread. Mea culpa.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Winski
August 24, 2009 2:36 PM
ABOUT TIME !!
If the republicans don't want to play, they had their chance..Now get the hell out of the way. You're done.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ObamAmerican48
August 24, 2009 3:49 PM
The Nazi death panel bullshit...did anyone really ever think the rethuglicans would work with the Democrats? The rethuglicans are using those kinds of talking points to discourage support. That's insanity. Surely the dems are smart enough to not take that shit to heart. Right?!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chigger
August 24, 2009 10:48 PM
Several points on keeping the ball in your own court:
A) Obama should have been the driver, not the passenger;
B) The administration should have engaged in some staging for those against reform in Congress. "Health care reform" was too broad, and the agenda was all screwed up AND TOO UNORGANIZED AND TOO COMPLICATED. First priority, in Congress, should have been some discussion on some new limits for health insurance companies. You know, like whether insurance companies should be allowed to divide up groups by age, pre-existing conditions, etc. , whether huge insurance companies should be able to hold small hospitals hostage by forcing them to accept lower fees.
C) While the discussion of limits on the insurance companies was going on, the administration should have set the stage to the public by discussing as often as possible that we're paying for much of it anyway, no matter whether it's through employees who accept lower wages in exchange for employer-paid health care, or through hospitals which have to charge higher rates to those who buy their own insurance or have insurance through smaller companies, in order cover those who have no insurance coverage or to cover the extra cost lost to the huge insurance companies which got a break in fees. In other words, it doesn't really matter whether you call it taxes or benefits or whatever--the point should have been made that we're still paying for much of it, one way or another. For the rest of those who can't get care or treatment, it's positively immoral that they can't get what they need, so get some victims in front of the cameras. WE ALREADY HAVE DEATH PANELS --THEY'RE CALLED IINSURANCE COMPANIES.
D) While the Repugs were stewing about proposed limits on insurance companies, and when it becomes clear that the Repugs wanted to have their cake and eat it, too, by getting their own proposals into the plan without voting for it in the end, their proposals should have been removed and a finished Dem product that included a public option plan should have been finished BY THE RECESS and ready to present to the public by public option proponents so that they had something concrete to take home to talk about.
E) But above all, KEEP IT SIMPLE, and save the Medicaid reform for later.
I can't believe that this has been handled so poorly.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?