« Why Medvedev Can Meet Ahmadinejad – But Obama Cannot: Novosti of Russia
Iran Regime Says, ‘Double Plus Good’ on President Obama: Kayhan, Islamic Republic of Iran »
If You Ask for Half a Loaf, You Will Get a Quarter of a Loaf
Or less. True compromise — meaningful compromise — only happens when each side’s starting point is a whole loaf. If your starting position is half a loaf, you will end up with even less — and that’s not compromise. It’s agreeing to surrender before you even begin.
Apparently, Montana Democratic Sen. Max Baucus is starting to realizing that — too late, unfortunately:
He conceded that it was a mistake to rule out a fully government-run health system, or a “single-payer plan,” not because he supports it but because doing so alienated a large, vocal constituency and left Mr. Obama’s proposal of a public health plan to compete with private insurers as the most liberal position.
Exactly. And that’s why “compromise” is now defined as not having a public health plan at all:
On MSNBC this morning, Norah O’Donnell asked Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, “what needs to be in” a health care reform bill “for it to be bipartisan.” After saying it needs to be paid for, Grassley declared, “We need to make sure that there’s no public option.” When O’Donnell double-checked that Grassley was saying that a public option was a dealbreaker for Republicans, he replied, “Absolutely.”
That is why the accusation made by some conservatives that liberals who support a public health care option are “purists” who “refuse to compromise” is such an outrageous distortion of the truth. By leaving single-payer out of the discussion entirely (in Congress, not among Americans in general), Republicans can now declare the public health care option idea to be the “purist” or “extreme” position, when it’s actually already the compromised position. And it’s very much downhill from there.
And yes, that makes me very, very angry.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
58 Responses to “If You Ask for Half a Loaf, You Will Get a Quarter of a Loaf”
No one from the health care industry has said anything to make me 'fear' the government morphing their 'option' into a 'mandatory'. The government has done that for them, all by itself. I do not trust Congress on this issue. Period.
And I still say the private insurance has a stronger incentive to reduce costs, because of the profit motive, than government bureaucracies.
We just fundamentally see the world differently on this.
well, that's the first time that's ever happened.
Only the greatest comment in the history of the Moderate Voice!
Jason–
I don't hate you.
But you ban people over there, and once, one of them was me.
And of course, there's plenty of real discussion here. There always has been.
“Their concern is not cost, it's profit. That difference means that increasing costs make for ever larger contracts and ever larger profits. If your margin is only 3%, wouldn't you want 3% of a hundred million over 3% of 75 million? Their profits grow due to the upward climb. Now that I find scary.”
profit = income – cost. So if cost goes up, how exactly does profit go up with it? We're talking about insurance here. If insurance has to pay more, profits go down. They can try to recoup that loss by increasing premiums, but they can only do that to a point. So it seems to me there is already a pretty good incentive to limit costs. That's not to say we don't need changes to make controlling costs easier, and there certainly are aspects of the system were the incentives are skewed. But I think the above statement is a gross simplification.
To address the original post, if Obama and the left had started with single payer, there would have been a backlash and the debate would have died like it did with Clinton. Obama is a pragmatist. By proposing something more moderate, he was able to get some of those on the other side on board right away (I'm not talking about politicians, I'm talking about the industry). That will likely by the key to success. So Obama compromised a little to start, and that triggered the industry to recognize it needed to compromise. So neither side is starting with the “whole” loaf here. As someone else said, the “whole load” on the right is not the current system, as the government is clearly very much involved in health care as it is.
If anyone cares, here's my plan:
1) Get rid of employer-based health plans
2) Regulate private insurers such that they cannot deny coverage, but they can adjust rates according to formulas they must publish (auto insurance companies must do this), and those formulas must be based on lifestyle choices that affect health, not on current health status. For example, a smoker with lung cancer pays the same as a smoker without lung cancer, because the premium isn't based on the disease but the behavior.
3) Subsidize health coverage on a sliding scale for the poor, and pay for it by taxing insurance companies basd on the number of high-income person they insure. Yes, this is re-distribution of income. Yes, I'm a conservative, but I believe that the free market has flaws, especially with regards to healthcare and education.
4) Mandate insurance coverage. A civilized nation can't turn away people who need care, so the only alternative is to require at least a very basic level of insurance for all.
GS –
Only the greatest comment in the history of the Moderate Voice!
Thanks for the love! Right back at you, big guy.
Your welcome George. Jason and I go back so far that I know him by his maiden name.
I'd have more to say on the topic except we (Mr. “Avark” [sic] and I) came to a PRIVATE agreement that we would not intrude on each others 'personal space' (internetually speaking) and that is why I have limited myself to a single comments here on his “opinions” at TMV.
His latest personal ad hominem attacks on Kathy both here at TMV and on his censorial site (blanket amnesty… right!) and his smart assed remarks about me and my position may very well nullify our offline agreement.
Come on if you want Jason but you ought to think twice before you open it up again… I kept my OneNote copies of our last go round.
Note to TMV editors: I have waited until this thread was off the front page before responding to Jason Stecks attack on my comment about him… If you take away his power to censor he has nothing and that's why I'm saddened that TMV has given him the ability to “moderate” (read censor) comments here… AGAIN. Isn't it time to allow a coward and fool to be called a “coward and a fool” without having to fear that your comment will be '(Edited by a moderator)'?
SteveK — Knock it off. Your threatening comments cross the line. Continue on this path and you will be banned from further comments on this site.