Health Care’s Heart Failure
As Congress stumbles toward a final deal, the process is a reminder of the disheartening political climate in which we live today.
No one will really be happy with the final result. How could they be? In a world where human considerations are swamped by partisan posturing, the bottom line, if anyone can figure out what it is, will not be how much better or worse it makes our society but who wins and who loses. At heart, it will be a collection of poor compromises.
Here, for example, is Harry Reid, the worst Senate Majority Leader in memory, after reading the opinion polls, trying to hold on to his sliding-away seat with a last-minute conversion to a half-baked semblance of the public option to erase his months of indifference until now.
On the left, whatever remains of the public option will not satisfy those who, with good reason, resent the grip that insurance companies have on their health and well-being, yet Paul Krugman manages to be relatively exuberant:
“(I)f the Massachusetts experience is any guide, health care reform will have broad public support once it’s in place and the scare stories are proved false…
7 Responses to “Health Care’s Heart Failure”
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Hans Spee, TMV. TMV said: Health Care’s Heart Failure: As Congress stumbles toward a final deal, the process is a reminder of the dishearten… http://bit.ly/2xWziS [...]
As long as there is a public option that doesn't involve enriching private health insurance companies, I'll be happy.
I certainly agree with Robert Stein's assessment of Harry Reid. A less effective Senate Majority leader would be hard to find. As for the public option, even IF it is passed, the result will be significantly watered down. This from Nate Silver at 538:
“In addition, the public option that Reid hopes the Senate will vote upon is compromised in three distinct ways from the original vision of it. Firstly, states will have the right to “opt out” of it (not that big a deal, IMO). Secondly, it will be limited to negotiating its rates in the market, rather than charging Medicare rates (a very big deal). Thirdly, it will be open only to the relatively small handful of people who are eligible for the health insurance exchanges, rather than the whole country (ditto). The consensus — and I agree with this — is that Reid's version is still in its essence a “public option”, but it's not the robust public option that progressives envisioned. For better or for worse, it really is a compromise, and a substantial compromise.”
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/10/on-being…
Maybe the days of strong leadership are long gone. Maybe it's all about bowing to to powerful interests afterall… with all the dog and pony show distractions of course. Wish I felt more optimistic about this. Ah well, maybe it will be the beginning of something more… maybe.
Any healthcare bill out of this Congress will benefit corporate/union interests and benefit individuals little. Since it is unconstitutional in the first place, I don't like it no matter what it says.
If we judge things on constitutionality little legislation since 1864 is worth the paper it is written on.
I doubt it was the intent of the founding fathers to have corporate interests running the country either. So much for the sanctity of the USC.
” the disheartening political climate in which we live today”
The loonier lib Dems are the lunatics running the Washington asylum — overreaching to the point of fraction and failure with their health care takeover effort, which they created for and by themselves.
No, government is not your parent, and is not failing to nurture you enough. [sniffle]