Obama Tells Congress He Likes Four GOP Ideas For Health Care

Yes! The DLC President demands that we protect the health insurance companies.

Great article, what 4 ideas is he referring to?

smart move. if they're really good ideas, take them. there are so few to consider from them that it shouldn't be difficult.

the gop will then oppose them and have absolutely nothing left to bring to the debate.

(not that they much care.)

All of these are small potatoes except HSA. HSA's, on their own, are fine. It's coupling these with high deductible insurance that creates the problem. HSA's obviously have a much higher benefit to high-income people since they get a bigger tax break. Coupling those with high deductible policies has the effect of shifting more of burden onto lower and middle income people, which is the essence of pretty much every Republican proposal ever put forward.

Some very minor concessions. When does the Republican whining begin? 5, 4, 3, 2, ...

These ideas fucking suck, except for increasing Medicare reimbursement rates.

The medical malpractice shit is a confirmed red herring. And setting up Coburn's 007 undercover investigative team to sniff out Medicare abuse is just flashy nonsense.

The Health Savings Accounts are the health care version of privatized social security. They do nothing to control costs, and will likely lead to underutilization of preventive care.

Another disappointing play by Obama.

This is fucking ridiculous.

HSAs shouldn't be backed before the Canopy Financial problem is addressed with new regulation.

President Obama stated in September 2009 in a national television address on healthcare:

One more misunderstanding I want to clear up -- under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions.

The Senate bill provides federal subsidies for health plans that cover abortions, authorizes plans to cover elective abortions, and funds community health care centers without any abortion restrictions in sections 1303, 1334, and 10503.

Obama does not include a Public Option or Drug Reimportation which would save money and reduce the deficit...

Oh well...maybe someday he will do the people's work when it comes to health care.

Now we will get exactly zero GOP votes on this thing... and 30 yrs from now the GOP will say with a straight face that Obama could never have passed HCR without them.

Okay. So if these four ideas are included, which Republicans will vote for the bill?

:crickets:

Maybe we should take up a collection to send Obama and the Democrats to one of those Negotiation 101 courses they used to advertise in in-flight magazines. ("You don't get what you deserve. You get what you negotiate.")

HSAs are an option, one of the choices in the healthcare cafeteria, not a requirement. Basically, this is Obama giving what he has already given to create the apperance of bipartisanship, and that is merely cover for reconciliation.

Any Progressive ideas he'd like to enumerate that he would like to pursue? No? No shit.

Except the blank sheet of paper idea. That's the only thing the GOP wants now. Whatever they can do to run out the clock until they take over the House.

I am going to repeat a refrain here, over and over again. Maybe if I do, you folks will begin to hear. Our health care system is not tweakable nor fixable. We are at 16% of GDP and this is WITHOUT universal coverage, compared to our national peers who range from 8% to 11% while providing universal coverage. My first point is, we are already paying enough! Reread the prior sentence. Dont ya get it, OMG, its so simple...we are already paying enough, waaaayyyy more than enough...so what we have to fix is where the money is going. Good grief.

Second point is...our problem is so complex - think about how complex this issue of cost really is, it is HUGE - and thus so un-tweakable, that the only chance we have to fix this is a National Health Service. England is that national peer who is at 8%...again, compare that to our 16% which is fast going to hit 20%, and then 24%...all the while working equally fast towards breaking the national bank.

Of course, we dont have a snowball's chance of making such a big change happen...UNLESS those who want reform speak with one voice. Hangin'on to the tweakin' doesnt help. You're just bringing more decades of suffering while risking a national financial debacle.

There is an added benefit to a National Health Care Service...perhaps it will bring a change in our culture. We allow ourselves to be driven nuts in this country by people intent on being mega-rich and mega-powerful. Most of us just want a good life, and funny thing about that is we have the technological expertise and natural resources to produce plenty to go around...except, you know, for the hoarding.

Another kinda funny about us is that we spend big dollars to go vacation in Europe to experience a certain less pressured lifestyle, which is provided by them not having to worry about health care, and pensions, and higher education, and child care (depending on which country, of course)...and then we come back here to be driven nuts. What's up with that?

Back to health care...lets keep our eye on the ball. To me the goal is to make health care a non-issue...meaning, wouldn't it be nice to get health care when we need it without having to worry about the cost, kind of like, say, Europe. No amount of tweaking is going to deliver that, is it? And we'll still be stuck at 16% of GDP and climbing towards national bankruptcy.

We are all part of a system we cannot get out of...we cannot separate ourselves and go carve out new territory...someone owns that land, and you're damned lucky they dont own you!!! Since we are all part of the system, the system ought to be configured to take better care of us. If you are born poor in this country, you are an economic slave. Dont give me that crap about the fittest survive. Well-off kids are not always the fittest, except for their education and other advantages they are born into, and they dont have to struggle to build their "strength" and "character".

We need a level playing field for this country to thrive. We need to raise the level of our culture, and we have the ability and the resources to do so...but do we have the will? Rather, it seems we have the will to tell someone...You don't deserve health care...You dont deserve a retirement...Your children don't deserve an education....but I will allow you to wipe my ass.

We are an immature country. Somewhere down the road, we will find ourselves more like Europe, and we will see the dog-eat-dog, survival of the fittest mentality as corrupt and evil as slavery. Lets not wait too long.

I think including the Public Option in the exchanges should be the trade off for including High Deductible plans paired with HSA's in the exchange. Heck, you could even have the public option BE a high deductible plan paired with an HSA.

The problem with these is ensuring money is going into the HSA, I think the plans (especially if administered by the Gov't) should collect deposits made into the HSA and create what would effectively be additional individual accounts managed by Medicare. These funds would continue to stored in these accounts right up through retirement or until spent on qualifying medical expenditures (hopefully with a EBT card specific for this purpose).

For Pete's sake. The administration isn't offering these because they think they'll attract Republican votes. The tactic is political -- show voters that Republican ideas are being incorporated, that Democrats aren't shutting them out, that Republicans won't accept anything other than killing the bill altogether. And this might attract a few stray Blue Dogs to vote for the package by giving them some cover. It's a sound tactic.

Obama offering rethuglicans an opportunity to contribute has actually given rethuglicans a RESPONSIBILITY to contribute. The fact that they come up almost empty will not be lost on all voters. A "seat at the table" is really a spotlit stage for another BIG FAIL.

Maybe someone can tell me what what the main differences are between Obama's plan and Germany's all- payer system, and the liklihood Obama's plan could gradually become Germany's all-payer system (which sounds like a stable, universal model that contains [or helps contain] provider and insurer costs). What would the insurers lose in such a system? Would they fight it?