More Evidence of GOP-Style “Bipartisanship”

They are 100% right. A supermajority is needed to be truly bipartisan, furthermore thats what the American people want overwhelmingly.
Also Republicans are trusted more on Healthcare now
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/...
<snip>
For the first time in over two years of polling, voters trust Republicans slightly more than Democrats on the handling of the issue of health care. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that voters favor the GOP on the issue 44% to 41%.

Additionally:
54% Say Passing No Healthcare Reform Better Than Passing Congressional Plan
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/...

One more:
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1357
<snip>
Independents oppose 63 - 33 percent passing a bill with only Democratic votes.

Obviously the people do not want democrats to go it alone, well except for the democrats themselves.

Obviously, you have great health insurance, Leonidas. That's what's obvious.

And by the way: There IS no congressional plan.

Oh one more thing, it should probably require State ratification as well as a supermajority as there is nothing in the US Constitution granting the government the right to provide healthcare for the nation. a supermajority and State ratification would be needed for a Constitutional Ammendment.

I will say that the same rule applies to many items passed by the GOP when in power and the Democrats when in power and during times of shared power. Its really scary how government has intervened in so many aspects of US society without Constitutional authorization to do so.

"Obviously, you have great health insurance, Leonidas. That's what's obvious."
I love how you come to this conclusion with no factual basis.

It would be like me inferring that you couldn't afford insurance. Which BTW I do not.

You think only fatcats can have a certain point of view, I guess you like stereotyping. I call on you to retract your baseless statement. FYI I flagged your comment as inappropriate.

It isn't going to be bipartisan, so who cares?

And why are these two Senators major players? Two Senators from the extremely out of favor Rep party...from two states with a population of 3.

If its not bipartisan it wont likely pass. The democrats need political cover. If they get the guts to go it alone they will still likely need to go nuclear, not enough bluedogs will budge after hearing from their districts. Going nuclear will cost the democrats the whitehouse, the Senate and maybe the House by 2012. It will also give the GOP every excuse to go nuclear themselves once in power revoking every bit of liberal agenda they can muster decent public support for.

I don't know Leonidas. Reps are still polling terribly and it isn't like they are offering anything for people to be excited about.

Dem numbers are down...but no where close to as bad as Reps. If the Dems pull a solid bill out of this mess, they will be fine.

Leonidas thinks we need a constitutional amendment to pass health care reform?

How about requiring a constitutional amendment to launch a idiotic war of choice against an enemy that not only doesn't threaten us but also never attacked us?

And did he/she also believe a program to provide prescription drugs to medicare recipients should require a constitutional amendment?

I'm guessing no.

Paul Ryan's plan looks pretty exciting to me.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h....

http://www.house.gov/ryan/roadmap/roadmap.htm

Well Katty your comment got unflagged, but I still expect a retraction, an apology would be nice as well.

Leonidas, Ryan's plan (I read the 3-page summary, not the full proposal) has a number of things in it I like. For instance -- the tax reform. Also -- the re-targeting of some portion of SS contributions.

But I can see that Ryan's plan has some things in it that the Democrats will oppose vehemently. They would, in fact, react similarly to how some (most?) of the Republicans have been this summer.

I wonder, though, whether any of it at all would be workable for Democrats. Anybody who associates themselves that way who wants to chime in?

"Leonidas thinks we need a constitutional amendment to pass health care reform?"

Pardon him or her for insisting on 100% fidelity to the Constitution and constitutional federalism, that which has been defied in earnest since the 1930s and with contempt or ignorant bliss since the 1960s.

If we remained truly faithful to the highest law of the land, 2/3 or more of what the feds do would end.

In the meantime, we who are informed and honest (and on the factually and morally correct side of the issue mentioned above) will grit our teeth and bear it when it's attempted, anyway. After all, we have Medicare already established as a precedent for part of the general public. As to the current effort, the latest, greatest, and rickety-est as well as rashest of the Dem efforts to date (which they wish to make a "success" by unethical procedural means, if necessary to bypass the Republicans):

"A supermajority is needed to be truly bipartisan, furthermore thats what the American people want overwhelmingly."

They certainly don't want something largely unknown (especially by the legislators!) stupidly rushed, as the latest in a disturbing pattern of similar misconduct by the Dems who childishly have, indeed, misused the power they currently hold that's so great over their opponents. (The public also is uneasy with the Dems' misbehavior in general, and poor results from its efforts on this or that issue to date.)

I'm not worried about the latest childish whining about this ("super[-]super majority"). It's something that's from impaired reasoning as well as predictably hypocritical (would be _essential_ if the Dems were the feeble to nonexistent opposition).

We have to wait and see how the Senators will act, as well as how Senate legislation (both Dem and GOP, hopefully) will be reconciled with the notorious legislation from the House, run mainly these days by the loony left Dems (who forced on us the kooky climate bill that we the public so largely opposed -- and which involved Obama's exposure as a lib Dem strongly urging this garbage earlier legislation be passed, something he's doing now, too, which is even more disturbing).

here is plkan that gets you ecited?
Provides a refundable tax credit – $2,500 for individuals and $5,000 for families – to
purchase coverage in any State, and keep it with them if they move or change jobs.
% Establishes transparency in health care price and quality data, so this critical information
is readily available before someone needs health services.
% Modernizes Medicaid and strengthens the health care safety net by reforming high-risk
pools, giving States maximum flexibility to tailor Medicaid programs to the specific
needs of their populations. Allows Medicaid recipients to take part in the same variety of
options and high-quality care available to everyone through the tax credit option.


1. I currently pay much more than $5000 for my family, I guess I get to pay for yours throiugh taxes.
2. Taking one of obama's ideas and making your own, gret.
3. High risk pools cost a ton. is this one of the magic solutions or do you expect seniors on fixed incomes to come up with money?


Tax rebates for those who don't make enough money to begin with. Did you read this drivel before you posted or did you just figure no one would look?

Magic is not an economic policy.

Does anyone here believe that your average american knows who Paul Ryan is or that he has a plan? It may be exciting to you, but if a tree falls in the forest....

"If we remained truly faithful to the highest law of the land, 2/3 or more of what the feds do would end."

More likely 9/10ths, at least until they actually passed Constitutional Ammendments to validate their actions, then maybe its could be just 2/3rds. It has always struck me how quickly government officials break their oaths to uphold the Constitution.

" Does anyone here believe that your average american knows who Paul Ryan is or that he has a plan? It may be exciting to you, but if a tree falls in the forest...."

Your average American likely does not know the name of their State Senator. You can only do so much with the material you have to work with. Maybe I'm exaggerating but 38% don't know who Harry Reid is, http://www.tarrance.com/BG-37-questionnaire.pdf , so maybe not.

Okay -- a bit more serious than the Ryan plan (sorry, Leonidas, but it's a bridge or two too far I suspect). CNN's running this right now:

'Romney care' touted as a model for national health care reform

The link is wholly on topic for this post as well (I've been really bad today about that -- sorry!). It includes this:

Still, Romney does warn the president that bipartisanship is the only road to health care reform.

"I think the right process for the president to pursue on a subject that is so emotional, so important to all Americans, is to go through the lengthy process of working on a bipartisan basis," he said. "He promised that."

So -- I don't know how up to speed everybody here is on the MA plan, but it's spelled out in the CNN article. Could y'all live with it?

This coming from a party who was more than happy to install Bush as president with fewer of the popular votes than Gore. And they felt they could push their agenda through even though Americans voted the other way (for Gore and his policies).

In the GOP's mind: if it's a Democratic proposal, virtually everyone needs to agree. If it's a Republican proposal, the minority gets to pass it even if the majority wants something else.

One thing I would like to add, regardless of your political views, I'd like to congratulate all the posters here and all the contributers for actually being aware of the issues of the day. Even if you have the opposite view on every issue as myself I offer that, and I have much more respect for you than for someone who agrees with me 100% but hasn't bothered to study the issues themselves. Being informed is not just a choice, but it is a duty.

More reasons the Dems don't need to worry about a resurging Rep Party...

"Former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge claims in a new book that he was pressured by other members of President George W. Bush's Cabinet to raise the nation's terror alert level just before the 2004 presidential election.

Ridge says he objected to raising the security level despite the urgings of former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and then-Attorney General John Ashcroft, according to a publicity release from Ridge's publisher. He said the episode convinced him to follow through with his plans to leave the administration; he resigned on Nov. 30, 2004."

Sorry, Leonidas, no retraction or apology. You are right about one thing, though. I cannot afford health insurance. I am enrolled in a local hospital's charity care program. In two years I will qualify for Medicare. (I will only be 61 in two years, but I recently was approved for Social Security Disability and that comes with Medicare after two years of being on SSD.)

leo
"Even if you have the opposite view on every issue as myself I offer that, and I have much more respect for you than for someone who agrees with me 100% but hasn't bothered to study the issues themselves. Being informed is not just a choice, but it is a duty."

you got that part exactly right

Paul Ryan's plan looks pretty exciting to me.

Paul Ryan's plan does absolutely nothing about 50 million uninsured Americans. It also would end Medicaid coverage and require Medicaid recipients to purchase their own insurance -- although you have to read the text carefully and critically to see that, because it's couched in orwellian language that makes it sound like cutting millions of low-income Americans off their lifeline to health care is doing them a favor. It would do the same thing with Medicare, although over a period of time.

Paul Ryan would not even dream of accepting such shoddy health care coverage for himself or his family, but it's all right for us peasants.

Polimom

This certainly could serve as one leg of reform.

Of course, cost reduction is the missing other leg.

How do we get this patient walking?

On Romney care a few comments:

First, I have be a tad skeptical on this from the article:
"Seven in 10 people in the state support the program, and no more than one in 10 would repeal it." said Robert Blendon with the Harvard University School of Public Health."

If it was a red or purple state I might take that more seriously but we are talking Massachusetts. I wonder how many in that state would support a Medicare for All solution.

Anyhow getting past that comment and looking at the plan outline, its got a good bit I could easily go along with at first scan if other items were included as well. Of course I'd have to see the details before I signed off on it, but it looks promising.

Minimum benefits, such as preventive care, mental health care and hospitalization
A ban on gender discrimination
Limits on total out-of-pocket costs
A prohibition on pre-existing conditions as a qualifier for health coverage
No medical underwriting, so insurers can't ask an individual about his or her health status in order to determine coverage
Limits on age restrictions, which means what is charged for an older individual cannot be more than double what is charged the youngest.

I'm fine with all those as part of a plan.

" The Massachusetts model, however, does have its problems. Experts say it doesn't control rising health care costs -- something Romney insisted must be tackled on a national level."

This is why this plan alone as is wont hack it, there need to be additions that will help control costs. Now for those one can look to Ryan's plan or others. He are a few I like regarding that, as well as some other areas:

1. Open up purcase of insurance across state lines for competition.

2. Create a federal database easily accessible to anyone with a computer that lists all costs charged by doctors and hospitals up front. No more hidden costs before deciding on where to be treated. If the doctor can put it on your bill at will, then they can enter it into the database so you can see it beforehand, and compare prices before you decide who will treat you. The database should have a good search engine that allows for searches based on location and sucess rates of treatment for major surgeries. Such transparency will foster competition will drive down costs.

3. Take insurance coverage out of the hands of employers and put it into the hands of the individuals. There is no reason that individuals should not be allowed to purchase insurance as cheaply as companies can purchase it for them. (not sure how Romneycare works in this regard) This also takes the handicap of having to provide insurance coverage off of American companies alling them to be more internationally competitive and allows individuals to opt for more coverage tailored to their individual needs.

4. Tort reform. This is a must have to bring down medical malpractice insurance costs, something that is driving up the costs of medical care.

"Paul Ryan would not even dream of accepting such shoddy health care coverage for himself or his family, but it's all right for us peasants"

And how many democrats have lined up to vow to accept a public option for themselves and their families if it were implimented? None that I know of despite that question being asked to many. I guess we are just poor peasants to them too.

P.S. I still think you owe a retraction. But no worries some people just can't own up to their mistakes.

" Paul Ryan's plan does absolutely nothing about 50 million uninsured Americans. It also would end Medicaid coverage and require Medicaid recipients to purchase their own insurance -- although you have to read the text carefully and critically to see that, because it's couched in orwellian language that makes it sound like cutting millions of low-income Americans off their lifeline to health care is doing them a favor. It would do the same thing with Medicare, although over a period of time."

I'm game, care to cite those areas in the legislation in order to discuss them? Maybe your right, maybe not, but I don't feel compelled to take your statements at merely face value without some factual proof to support your rhetoric. Like I said, maybe your right, if so please demonstrate with references to the legislation.

$5000 to purchase health insurance for a family? As another commenter mentioned above, decent coverage for healthy people costs much more than that. If my choice was my state Medicaid program for my family or $5000 in private coverage, there's no question I would choose Medicaid.
I've priced private insurance, considering going into business for myself and was appalled at the cost and poor quality.

Leonidas -- #s 1, 3, and 4 have all been talked about, in one form or another, by various congress critters. I do think they would effect cuts in cost. #2 rests upon the assumption that individuals will take the time to research the cost of a provider's certain procedure against another's. Most likely, people would do what they do now (for the most part) -- form a relationship with a doctor and trust him. (that's not necessarily a bad thing, btw.)

HemmD -- "How do we get this patient walking?" I dunno. My guess is that somebody who is still interested in bipartisanship will have to put it out there and get some support.

Also Katty

You said:

" You are right about one thing, though. I cannot afford health insurance. I am enrolled in a local hospital's charity care program. In two years I will qualify for Medicare. (I will only be 61 in two years, but I recently was approved for Social Security Disability and that comes with Medicare after two years of being on SSD.)"

No I am not right on this because I never made any assertion that you could not. I used that as an example of the type of assertion that would be not only baseless for me to make given what I didn't know about you personally, and also it would have been tacky if not downright rude for me to do so. Did you honestly think I made such an inferrence after I spelled it out that I wasn't very clearly and that I would be so hypocritical as to do to you what I took great offense at you doing to me? Well if you actually did know me you would not have made that mistake. That aside, I am sorry that you have difficulty in affording healthcare, I'm in that boat as well. An apeal to pity will not work on me, despite my own difficulties in this area (which are none of anyones business but my own) I will not be fooled into supporing an inefficient government run system that future generations will be burdened with. You stereotyped me as a well off person who had great coverage just because I did not agree with you. You were wrong, You intruded your comments on personal areas of my life, and although I have sympathy and personal experience related empathy for your personal situation, I do not accept that as a validation for being stereotyped and having my private business brought forth on a public forum. I know your fighting for what you honestly think is "right" but this does not entitle you to make the the inferrence which you made. I'm not going to get into this anymore, the other readers likely aren't interested and I respect their time. I beg their forgiveness for occupying this much of it as is.

Kathy, did I read that right? Those Republican fiends are claiming that bipartisanship now means having the support of two parties? Can nothing be done about their lies?

I am for some of the ideas but if you override state laws for minimum coverage you will have the same situation that we have now with the credit card companies. Its a bad idea and will hurt the country financially, again. Other than that I have no problem with most of the rest if you mix it with Romney Care and you include a strong Public Option. To me Public Option + Free Market reforms is a win and apparently 77% of the public agree at least with the Public Plan part of that but if the Republicans refuse to play ball the Free Market proposals will sail away.

You can blame it on the dems if you wish but the Republicans had a real chance to join in the debate, unlike how they treated the dems, yet they chose to spike the ball and try to run out the clock. To be honest I do not think that, I actually think they like the idea of Public Plans and their jobs enough that they have decided to get out of the way by being publicly obstructionist until it is done, and vocally so. They get re-elected because they proved how hard nosed they can be and a bill that will lower costs will go through or fail totally on the other sides vote.

What they hope no one is noticing is that they refuse to come to the table to give us actual free market reforms. If they cant write and totally dictate what will be in a bill they will throw it back in the dems faces, this is so far how they have acted. They have decided that much like under Clinton they can still control everything but its looking more and more like either they cant or they do not want to in certain circumstances.

The middle ground IS a Public Option with some new regulations and Free Market reforms together but that has been torpedoed because god forbid people get to choose a plan that is not turning a profit for a handful of people(non-profits generally pay their Exec's VERY well which is why they care to run one) or share holders. That is the middle ground between free market cannibal capitalism, as Orwell so lovingly described our system, or single payer. If the insurance, drug or medical industries decide to peal away and move to the GOP though single payer will be exactly what we will get. To be honest I think that is the dems secret nuclear option. What's worse is any initial public outrage will be deadend before election time by lots of people who were on HMO's actually getting to go to the DR but the costs will be masked for years and it will be difficult to argue the public out of it until they see a downside. That is why the GOP historically has feared that and I think that is why they are currently playing an either very dangerous, to themselves mostly but who knows maybe they will try something really stupid in one of the bills that hurts the nation as well like give us all unicorns, or very stupid game right now. It would be really nice if we had two parties to deal with these things as that is generally when this country functions best in my opinion. That way it allows for individual reps to ignore party line votes and speak for their voters without consequence to nationally important legislation.

Polimom

" #2 rests upon the assumption that individuals will take the time to research the cost of a provider's certain procedure against another's."

Whats wrong with having individuals responsible for looking it up themself? You provide the information and easy access and promote the program, but if people still can't bother or don't wish to check for themselves is that government's responsibility? This is no different from parents checking out school districts before moving, or comparing prices at a grocery store. Some things people just have to take responsibility for themselves.

Put a public option in and I wont agree. Its a deal killer for me. If you want the government to pick up your insurace costs, work for the government. I hear the military is recruiting now. Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.

Leonidas, I didn't say anything was wrong with individuals looking it up for themselves. I just don't think they will. And I'm not just being cynical there, either. People have very complex lives. They'll look for the least expensive, best value, and only when faced with a real problem (how come my x-ray cost 5 times what ethel's cost???) will they start the initial process again.

Polimom

"
HemmD -- "How do we get this patient walking?" I dunno. My guess is that somebody who is still interested in bipartisanship will have to put it out there and get some support."

We both have seen that out legislators are more interested in staying in office than solving the problem.

Are you one of those people? (that's the general you)

TMV has had it's share of discussions, but most of the time has been spent bomb-throwing and swatting down the egregious fabrications coming from both sides.

You've seen my rants about this waste of brains. How can a real discussion about the problem take place if it doesn't start here? If not now, when?

The costs of health care are going up every year while the number of people having insurance goes down. I hadn't heard either side dispute that point.

I know, I feel my rant starting to build, and the last thing I want to do is put off people who could contribute.

Polimom,

"People have very complex lives. They'll look for the least expensive, best value, and only when faced with a real problem (how come my x-ray cost 5 times what ethel's cost???) will they start the initial process again"

Freedom is a great thing isn't it =D

Dr J

"Those Republican fiends are claiming that bipartisanship now means having the support of two parties? Can nothing be done about their lies?"

Come on J, eighty votes has nothing to do with bipartisanship. It's more "moving the goal post." Why not complete consensus?

HemmD -- (w/ LOL at the 'general you') -- "TMV has had it's share of discussions, but most of the time has been spent bomb-throwing and swatting down the egregious fabrications coming from both sides"

A lot of the discussions bog down because there's stiff resistance to anything that doesn't include a public option by a fair number of folks on here. Likewise, there are people for whom, like Leonidas, it's a deal-killer.

I've felt all along that there must be another way. Either-or, black-white is rarely the only option. (as my father used to say, "... and then there's the 3rd possibility..." Perhaps Romney care is one of those options.

So. Your question is, "how do we get this patient walking?" My answer was pretty hands off, I agree. Maybe those of us who think there are possibilities there should contact our congress critters tomorrow and bring it up. Or even ask to meet with said congress critter.

Since my particular critter is the notorious "dr no" (Ron Paul), I can't see that my talking to him would do much. Any other suggestions, though?

I'm game, care to cite those areas in the legislation in order to discuss them?

Well, I cannot cite them, because that would require opening a new tab and getting your link to open again, and my computer has made it clear to me that it's incensed at the very idea of doing that, so I will paraphrase from my memory of what I read a few minutes ago.

Ryan's plan is based heavily on the concept of giving people lump sums of money out of which they can purchase health insurance. That is an utterly unworkable idea. For one thing, even if it were a good idea in other ways, $2,500 for individuals and $5,000 for families to purchase health insurance is like me giving you $8.90 and asking you to go to the supermarket and buy a 10-lb leg of lamb. That should be enough, since leg of lamb cost approximately 89 cents a pound when I was in my teens, right?

Ryan uses that same concept to propose that we liberate low-income and destitute Americans from the misery of 100% paid for health care by giving *them* $2,500 for individuals and $5,000 for families to purchase health insurance. They won't be able to do it and they won't have Medicaid anymore to boot! What could be better?

Shall we start with that and see where it gets us?

And by the way, I am absolutely astonished that you favor violating constitutional principles of federalism by barring individual states from imposing their own rules and regulations on the operation of insurance companies inside their states, so that insurance companies may be free to sell policies across state lines. How can someone who thinks health care reform should be treated as a constitutional amendment rather than legislation because the Constitution says nothing about health care advocate violating such a fundamental constitutional principle as states' rights?

Polimom

"Since my particular critter is the notorious "dr no" (Ron Paul), I can't see that my talking to him would do much. Any other suggestions, though?"

As I said earlier, one leg starts with Romney's and the MA Dems by the way.

My question was the other leg. Cost reduction. I named 3 or 4 in another post.

I can draw those up but don't want to clog the thread with self quotes. I believe it's at the bottom of your second attempt to clarify "what I don't understand."

Grassley is right that true bipartisanship would mean more than just Olympia Snowe. That said, is there any real value in having a bipartisan health care bill? I find polling on this completely useless. Of course voters want a bipartisan bill in theory. Independents, who by definition find neither party to their liking, love the idea that a health care bill is not the sole province of one of the two parties they reject. But does that mean the bill would be any good?

The problem here is that the differences are deep and ideological. The Republican Party firmly believes that the problem facing our health care system is too MUCH government interference. That's why Republicans propose solutions that encourage tax rebates, national competition, and tort reform.

Democrats, on the other hand, believe that the private health insurance system is fundamentally flawed; the private sector encourages insurance of the young and healthy and the exclusion of the sick. Thus, Democratic solutions call for more regulation of the private health insurance industry, and the introduction of public insurance plans that may eventually bring the private system to an end.

There is really no compromise between these two positions. They are ideologically incompatible.

Katty,

" Well, I cannot cite them, because that would require opening a new tab and getting your link to open again, and my computer has made it clear to me that it's incensed at the very idea of doing that, so I will paraphrase from my memory of what I read a few minutes ago."

I'll pass an wait for you to to copy and paste using notepad from the actual legislation, if that wont work for you I'm ok waiting for you to copy them and retype. No rush here, just want a reference to the parts of the legislation by number so I know exactly what your referring to. After that you can include your paraphrased interpretation and we can discuss. So take all the time you like.

Hemm, I don't care about 80 votes. The definition of bipartisanship is not a matter of debate, it simply means you need the support of two parties, and the Democrats are struggling with one.

My real point is Kathy is slicing the salami too thin with another repetitive post in which she draws yet-one-more set of horns and tail into some Republican's picture.

The interesting dimension of this one, though, is that it suggests she considers bipartisanship a meaningful goal in itself, and that she views the Republicans as having a lot of power, enough even to redefine the word out from under her.

I used to hang out on a Christian board, trying to answer for myself the question "what are these intelligent,well-meaning people thinking with their wacky beliefs?" I did ultimately come away with some answers, and I'm struggling to answer the same question about progressives. I've had little luck getting them to explain their thinking in a way I can understand, so tidbits like this are interesting.

elrod -- "is there any real value in having a bipartisan health care bill?"

You may be right that the two positions can't find compromise. I'm certainly starting to feel that way. Even so, I still think there's value in making the effort. The Dems forcing their position through, even if it's possible, would set the stage for very serious political instability, I think.

"And by the way, I am absolutely astonished that you favor violating constitutional principles of federalism by barring individual states from imposing their own rules and regulations on the operation of insurance companies inside their states, so that insurance companies may be free to sell policies across state lines. How can someone who thinks health care reform should be treated as a constitutional amendment rather than legislation because the Constitution says nothing about health care advocate violating such a fundamental constitutional principle as states' rights?"

The Commerce clause allows for this. See United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._S...

United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association, 322 U.S. 533 (1944) is a United States
Supreme Court decision that held that the Sherman Act, the federal antitrust statute, applied to insurance. To reach this decision, the Court held that insurance could be regulated by the United States Congress under the Commerce Clause, overturning Paul v. Virginia.

As you can see your argument here is mute.

HemmD -- I'm about done in for now. Maybe I'll try to pull something together and post it tomorrow. However, I can almost guarantee that if the words "public option" aren't in there, it'll come under immediate fire here in the TMV comment threads -- and I'm starting to find the entire debate pretty exhausting.

"There is really no compromise between these two positions. They are ideologically incompatible."

No, they're merely methodologically incompatible. One of the reasons health care is such a contentious issue is that people keep writing each other off as having ideologically opposed goals. That's simply not true, left and right are in violent agreement about goals. If they could calm down enough to notice, the debate about the best means to achieve them would go a lot smoother.

Polimom

I appreciate your response and hope to see your post.

May I humbly suggest that a solution needs to be addressed less in terms of public-private and more along the lines of coverage-cost.

Everybody has their talking points for the buzz words, maybe that's the problem.

People having complex lives is not an excuse not to compare plans (or the costs of procedures) on something as important as their healthcare.

Having said that, the for-profit insurance companies are in business to create a return to their shareholders. They are not in business as a charity merely acting as a conduit of money from the policy holders to the healthcare providers. The insurance companies have a vast bureaucracy in place to ensure that they don't pay a single penny more than necessary for a procedure. I don't understand why more people don't realize that the insurance companies look after themselves and their shareholders before their policyholders.

As far as a national database.... What if there is a discrepancy between a doctor's stated cost for a procedure and what he actually bills? What if there is a difference between what the insurance will cover on the website and what they actually cover (or the cost)? I can bet you that you will be the one to pay. Either through losing the fight with the insurance company (or doctor) because it was an honest mistake on their part or by spending a lot of time fighting with them until they understand their mistake and then correct it (at their own pace). The more money involved, the longer it will take to resolve.

Dr J

Put the thread in context. Grassly et al came out today to say "real bipartisanship" requires 75 to 80 votes in the Senate. Maybe you should define "cynicism" instead.

You know well as anybody the ploy has nothing to do with reform and everything to do with blocking it.

A suggestion for the on-going discussion, if I may (which, by the way, is unfolding quite nicely here). In trying to see the forest for the trees, perhaps overall questions should be answered before details are meshed out. That said, is there agreement on whether or not each and every American citizens should be eligible for some sort of basic health coverage? In addition, what is your idea of basic health coverage, so that the answer can be taken in context?

Hemm, yes, I'm shocked--shocked!--to hear that politicians in the senate are engaging in political maneuvering.

You've surely witnessed enough of these conversations to know how productive they are.

"These Republicans are playing politics!"

"Oh yeah, well Democrats do even worse!"

"Oh no they don't!"

"Oh yes they do!"

And so on. It's pretty thin stuff.

Polimom,

"You may be right that the two positions can't find compromise"

I disagree, the positions can find several areas of compromise, but can the politicians? thats the question. The problem is twofold.

First on the democratic side, the liberals of the party want the whole cake, they feel they won the election and should be able to do what they want. The problem is the American people didn't just vote to approve a democratic agenda, some who voted for democrats really support that very little, what they wanted was the policies of George Bush ended. This is not the same thing as a mandate to the liberal wing of the democratic party to do what they want.

Second on the GOP side. They are emphasizing opposition to Obamacare which is unpiopular. They see the President's approval ratings going down and are taking advantage, and with some justification given the partisan way the stimulas was rushed through with democrats predicting "Armageddon" if nothing was done. However, justified this is, they should still make more time to present a positive note and promote their own plans more, its not like they don't have thought out and detailed items to present. Focusing just on opposition to Obamacare was proably needed initially, but its come to the point now that the public option is a dead horse, for the GOP to bring their ideas forth and encourage debate and compromise. Paul Ryan is already doing this, but John Boener and Mitch McConnel as party leaders in Congress and Micheal Steele need to get on board as well.

Probably no one's plan is perfect for everyone's point of view, but enough items are workable from enough peoples that some reform is possible. This whole pie does not have to be eaten at one sitting. Work on one slice at a time, take a break and let it digest then tackle another.

Dr J is living in a fantasy world where Congressional Republicans want to help create a good health care bill. What Republicans want is to destroy Obama and the Democratic party. That's why they are making sh*t up about "death panels" and the like.

Shard,

" That said, is there agreement on whether or not each and every American citizens should be eligible for some sort of basic health coverage? In addition, what is your idea of basic health coverage, so that the answer can be taken in context?"

I'm ok with basic health coverage (catastrophic events, standard illness and accidents, a yearly physical, full dental, etc. (no stumped toes, cosmetic surgery (except due to accidents/birth defects) drug abuse therapy, injuries incurred while breaking the law, etc.) to any US citizen who is contributing to the society or willing to do so. By contributing I mean paying taxes and I also include anyone who has ever served in the armed forces and been honorably discharged. By willing to contribute, I mean those 18 or older (exemption for students enrolled in colleges until graduation) who if not meeting the contributing criteria will sign up for being willing to work in public service in exchange for coverage. These folk will be evaluated and called on if needed up to a limit and paid minimum wage while called up. If they fail to report without medical reasons if called upon, then they will be dropped.from coverage and have to petition for reinstatement. Most of these folks will likely never be called upon, but they should be willing to contribute to a government that will provide for them when they are currently being a burden. Of course the physically and mentally unable and children under 18 will not be required to make themselves available for service.

The general premise is simply, if your not willing to do what you can to contribute to society, society should have no interest in promoting your well being.

And Chris is living in a fantasy world where I heaped praise on Republican politicians.

Polimom and others,
I really do think the differences are deep and ideological. All the two sides can agree on is that they want Americans to be healthy. Well, great. The different positions reflect fundamentally different ideas about the role of government in the economy. It may be, as a matter of politics, that Republicans can go along with the Democratic vision (or vice versa). But there is little to encourage Republicans to walk across the aisle when Democrats themselves cannot come together. The fact of the matter is: Republicans have never liked Medicare or Medicaid. They've never liked Social Security. And they sure as heck are not going to like another expansion of the Federal government in healthcare. Though I'm a staunch Democrat I don't begrudge the Republicans for taking this position. What concerns me are the conservadems who don't seem to be arguing for any coherent position. If they have a real compromise then fine. But the only one we've seen - co-ops - is neither substantively useful (nobody seems to know how they would work) nor politically helpful (the GOP just sees them as another government health option).

Until the conservadems in the Senate show their cards and tell us if they would support a GOP filibuster of a bill with the public option, this whole debate is meaningless.

Ummm the democratic majority id filibuster proof. Welcome to democratic electorial sucess you got the seats but you lost the blame card.

"I really do think the differences are deep and ideological. All the two sides can agree on is that they want Americans to be healthy. Well, great."

Great indeed, Elrod, or at least a big improvement on what we've got. If more people would acknowledge even that much, the debate would get much easier. Instead, look how much ink is being spilled trying to prove the opposite. Democrats want Death Panels! Republicans want to Screw the Poor to make Themselves Even Richer!

The difference in visions of the role of government isn't about ideology, it's ultimately a disagreement about numbers. Those can actually be resolved, if reasonable people invest the effort to work them through.

Does anyone here have a problem with my statement above:

"If your not willing to do what you can to contribute to society, society should have no interest in promoting your well being."

Just curious to see how folks here stand on this.

"If your not willing to do what you can to contribute to society, society should have no interest in promoting your well being."

Define "contribute".


How would you treat a child of poor parents born with Down Syndrome?

StockBoy

" As far as a national database.... What if there is a discrepancy between a doctor's stated cost for a procedure and what he actually bills? What if there is a difference between what the insurance will cover on the website and what they actually cover (or the cost)?"

They should be held legally responsible to honor what they have entered on the database. It should be clearly written in law in such a way. If they screw up, they screw up. The data entry should perhaps include a double entry just like email confirmation for many things on the internet to help prevent honest mistakes.

Don Q

" Define "contribute".

I did in the previous post where I first said the term. I also defined willing to contribute.

Leonidas, I would agree with this sentiment. I would even go one step further, in stating that I would be willing to pay more taxes if my lifestyle choices required a government-funded health care option to have to pay more for correcting those choices.

Leonidas,

I see, the starship trooper model...

"I really do think the differences are deep and ideological. All the two sides can agree on is that they want Americans to be healthy. Well, great."

I'm not even sure the politicians on both sides agree on that much. At some point don't you have to look at the actions of Republican politicians and see that they are only prolonging pain and suffering for many Americans?

Every day we continue our current broken system, more and more people are denied coverage, or financially destroyed because the insurance companies aren't actually insuring anything. And yes, some people are dying because of it.

"The difference in visions of the role of government isn't about ideology, it's ultimately a disagreement about numbers. Those can actually be resolved, if reasonable people invest the effort to work them through."

This sounds more like a description of the argument between Blue Dog Democrats and the more liberal members of their party.

Republicans, at least when out of power, deem that government has no role in domestic affairs, lower taxes, dismantle the safety net, etc. That's a matter of ideology, even if it's not principled.

"Republicans, at least when out of power, deem that government has no role in domestic affairs, lower taxes, dismantle the safety net, etc. That's a matter of ideology, even if it's not principled."

Then you don't understand what they're actually saying. If you could get to the point where you could summarize their views in a way they would agree with, you might see them differently.

chris, how are the Republicans prolonging anything right now? If the Dems care so much about all those uninsured people and don't want more days to go by without those people getting covered, they could have formulated a plan that was acceptable to most in their own party and passed it, and had it on Obama's desk for signature before the Aug recess began.

CStanley,
By not doing anything since 2000. By pretending there is some kind of compromise they will accept (see Grassley and Enzi's in the original post).

But believe me, if the Democrats don't get anything passed by the end of the year, it will be entirely the Democrats fault.

Dr J,
Republicans are saying that the Democrats are trying to socialize all of health care, that they are going to destroy Medicare, that they are going to set up Death Panels and that they are going to cover illegal immigrants. Republicans, clearly, aren't making an honest argument for compromise.

That doesn't mean there aren't honest conservative and libertarian plans for health reform, but they aren't being pushed by the Republican party in a meaningful way. Which is too bad, because there are good market based plans that we could take ideas from that would make the bill better. But as I've said, good policy is not something the Republican party is concerned about.

But believe me, if the Democrats don't get anything passed by the end of the year, it will be entirely the Democrats fault.

Well, that's a bit more honest. Have you heard the criticism from the left, also, though, that the current House plan wouldn't really start increasing coverage for anyone until 2013? If I understood these critics correctly, the plan is so complex that it will take that long before the public option is really available- and others are saying that this delay might have been by design so that the costs aren't felt until after the next presidential election. I'm just wondering (if these claims are factual), will you also agree that that doesn't speak well of the Democrats having more real concern for the people affected than the GOP does?

The GOP certainly didn't do enough, but it's not true to say they did nothing. HSAs were created and there was a drive to keep expanding on that model and simultaneously making it feasible for the working poor to afford them through tax credits (to the individual and to employers to match funds.) I don't think they went far enough, but considering that the GOP base hasn't had any interest in the issue at all, I think it's commendable that some were trying to start addressing the problem.

CStanley,
It's the lesser of two evils argument I guess. If you're right, Democrats want to increase coverage (but are delaying it for political coverage or lobbying reasons) and the Republicans don't care. That certainly points to "more real concern" even if it's not as much as they should have.