White House: Our Health Care Fixes Can Pass Without GOP Support

In his opening bid, Obama is saying to the other side of the table that they can not prevent HCR from passing. They can work with the Democrats and get something out of it, or they can obstruct and get nothing.

It makes sense for him to propose something fairly centrist. It adds legitimacy to to the claims of bipartisanship if (or when) the Republicans reject the entire thing out of hand. Then they say, see we tried. There's no working with these people, and then go on to pass whatever their hearts desire or whatever their 51 vote reconciliation can get though.

"Change you can believe in, kiddies."

Rhetoric to shoot yourself in the foot by children.

"God what a worthless shill."

God what a worthless crank.

Here's a little reality for you folks; you take this on move on or you help elect the far right and destroy any chance at straightening out anything ever. Ripping down the only leader you got only helps the Glenn Becks of the world.

Don't like those choices? Tough shit, time to grow up. In case you haven't noticed sanity is at a massive communications disadvantage in this country right now. Once upon a time we had a news media that dedicated itself to accuracy and responsibility as well as making money. Now we have a news media that's half obsessed with selling dramatic "narratives" that are as inaccurate as your typical Hollywood movie "based on real events" while the other half is outright FOX like propaganda. The details of what will work right and what won't don't break through the noise generated by the right wing media complex. Blame who you want the reform you want will never happen until you figure out how to break that noise barrier. Until then all this nastiness is akin to voting Nader in Florida circa 2k. You can feel pure while accomplishing nothing but loss and they get to win and feel pure as they do things like institute torture.

Nice.

Well of course he concedes in advance to the Republicans! He does so because it is a strategy that has worked so well in advancing progressive causes in the past don't ya know?

We have the most naive and strategically tone deaf President: ever!

Here we have the most openly hostile and defiant opposition party in Congress in memory, that has set a record for voting no on everything Obama proposes even if they agree with it and the dumbass is still trying to find common ground with these sociopaths! He hasnt' to be the most naive and just plain stupid world leader since Neville Chambelain!

and thus the 'acts as if he's paid by the whitehouse' spokesperson speaks.

God what a worthless shill.

As much as I sympathize with the House Progressive Caucus, they leave me shaking my head. You would think they'd recognize that the Senate bill, as inadequate as it is, represents the foundation upon which they can eventually get everything they want. The most effective bargaining chip the Democrats have is the fact that they have a bill that has already passed the Senate, yet they undermine it by throwing tantrums like a bunch of three year olds. Rahm Emanuel is right about them, his questionable choice of words notwithstanding.

If the Republicans thought for a second that there was greater than a snowball's chance in Hell the House would pass the Senate bill, if for no better reason than to move the yard markers down the field, and send it to the President's desk for signature, they would be a lot more inclined to negotiate on the details. But thanks to the Progressives, who apparently think Bill Frist still runs the Senate, no such threat exists.

That's bus league stuff - hardly worthy of a political party caucus that holds a 60-40 (more or less) majority in both houses in Congress, a majority built on the possibly naive assumption that the Democrats might actually get something accomplished with all those extra seats.

Exactly. The usual suspects., Bitching and fucking complaining because he was supposedly absent and now he's standing up and it's no fucking good. I am so disgusted with the whiners.

There was a story on NPR this weekend about the winter meeting of the National Governor's Association. They interviewed a few governors, and of course every one of them was asked about health care.

They seemed to think that HIR and HCR was the responsibility of the states - that they were 'concerned' about the 'overreach' of the federal government. At first I saw their point.

Then I realized they've had plenty of time to address the issue of the uninsured and spiraling health care costs, and the vast majority of states have done jack shit. Hell, right now they can't even afford to - they're cutting funding for what few state-level health care programs have been put in place.

The need for access to quality health care is a universal concern. I disagree that it's a 'local' phenomenon and that the 'needs of West Virginia are different from those of California' in this area. Sick people need to see a doctor. It doesn't (and shouldn't) matter where you live.

If nothing else it comes down to competition. If Arkansas offers better corporate and property tax rates than Missouri because they don't provide health care, businesses may choose Arkansas for new facilities. What happens in Missouri? Politicians get antsy and gut expensive programs (like health care) so they can be more attractive to businesses and compete.

We need a level playing field for something as important and expensive as health care. Otherwise the states will eventually land on the lowest common denominator, which is lax regulation and no provision of health care to those who need it most - kinda like what we have right now.

Fair enough. I don't agree that the government can't run its own programs, but that's not the point. The central idea here isn't whether or not the federal government should run health care, but whether it is either fiscally or morally sound to have a profit driven system that encourages healthy people to avoid it and leaves 10's of millions with only the emergency room for care. The economics speak to the sustainability (or lack thereof) of the current system. The progressive position is that the moral case is no less compelling. In my opinion, it is impossible to enjoy 'life' and 'liberty' or to 'pursue happiness' if one lacks for health. Hence, health care is a civil right every bit as valid as the right of trial by jury and the right to non-discrimination on the basis of race or religion.

Within that context, I'm fine with what you propose. I would be just as happy to see a national laboratory of state plans with universal coverage that include public only, public-private, and private only systems. The only requirement would then be that the role of the federal government is to set the minimum standards for these plans and provide the subsidies necessary to make it possible for them to succeed.

If you and I can agree on that, then we have the seeds of bipartisanship. Sadly though, even if WE agreed, there's not any chance at all of the national GOP going along, because they are making too much political progress by preventing anything from happening.

Read the article.

Mandated insurance (with no cost controls)

Just today, Obama proposed a new binding regulatory body that could stop rate increases. That's a cost control, and potentially a rather draconian one.

The mandate has been further watered down. It's so low that it's probably smarter for a lot of healthy people to pay the fine and wait til they are sick to sign up.

"pre-existing conditions (but it will cost you 3X as much)"

Insurers will not be allowed to charge even one penny extra for pre-existing conditions. They can charge 3X as much for people who are 55 or older, as opposed to the status quo where they charge 10-15X as mcuh.

"Hoppycali - don't mean to be rude but you don't have a effing clue....Take a fucking stand! If you have any self respect you know we all deserve better. Don't accept the fucking crumbs!"

So, why were you rude if you didn't mean to be? The "public option" is nothing more than the red cape a bull fighter uses. A government run health insurance program, that covers a very small percentage of the population, will do nothing to reduce health care costs. Those costs themselves need to be reduced, and that is the real goal to help our children. It is also the goal that directly attacks the income source of many thousands of people who work in that industry, so it will be a long hard slog to reach. Right now we are distracted by the red cape.