- ‹ previous
- 136 of 2794
- next ›
High Noon
Now that it looks like Congress is only inches away from producing a surprisingly decent healthcare bill, Paul Krugman lays down the law:
Everyone in the political class — by which I mean politicians, people in the news media, and so on, basically whoever is in a position to influence the final stage of this legislative marathon — now has to make a choice. The seemingly
impossible dream of fundamental health reform is just a few steps away from becoming reality, and each player has to decide whether he or she is going to help it across the finish line or stand in its way.
....For conservatives, of course, it’s an easy decision: They don’t want Americans to have universal coverage, and they don’t want President Obama to succeed.
....Should progressives get behind this plan? Yes. And they probably will.
The people who really have to make up their minds, then, are those in between, the self-proclaimed centrists....I’d just urge them to take a good hard look in the mirror. If they really want to align themselves with the hard-line conservatives, if they just want to kill health reform, so be it. But they shouldn’t hide behind claims that they really, truly would support health care reform if only it were better designed.
For this is the moment of truth. The political environment is as favorable for reform as it’s likely to get. The legislation on the table isn’t perfect, but it’s as good as anyone could reasonably have expected. History is about to be made — and everyone has to decide which side they’re on.
I don't know if "self-proclaimed centrists" listen to Krugman, but he's right. The modest public option that's survived the sausage factory so far just isn't a big enough deal to sink the entire bill over. At least, it's not if you really want healthcare reform in the first place. It's time for everyone to figure out if they do.
The House bill ..
will still do a lot of damage if it is passed as is ... don't believe me? ... just ask Jane Hamsher
"the self-proclaimed
"the self-proclaimed centrists"
If they can just shut up and stop insisting that so much less would be good enough, we might actually pass this thing.
centrists
I don't think this has much to do with ideology. I think it has to do with ignorance and incompetence. There seems to be an assumption that people elected to the US Senate are up to the tasks put before them. This assumption is not warranted in my view. I seriously doubt that the centrists opposing the public option even understand what it is or how it would work.
centrists
Seems to me to be some sort of attention-seeking personality disorder.
"will still do a lot of
"will still do a lot of damage if it is passed as is ... don't believe me? ... just ask Jane Hamsher"
The bill is supposed to cause damage. It is supposed to suck. Ask Krugman: he's admitted that the first step towards single payer is passing a health care reform bill that will not work. This will ease the way for a true single payer bill.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wy5-OzyfyvA&feature=player_embedded
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9803E4D6113FF93AA35751C0A...
I watched the youtube clip
I watched the youtube clip and read the NY Times article you linked to, MacGruber, and did not see where Krugman "admitted that the first step towards single payer is passing a health care reform bill that will not work. This will ease the way for a true single payer bill."
On the contrary, he quotes approvingly this excerpt from a John Edwards press release about a health plan with a public option: ''Over time,'' the press release says, ''the system may evolve toward a single-payer approach if individuals and businesses prefer the public plan.''
Krugman calls this "a smart, serious proposal." So he seems to be saying precisely the opposite of what you claimed: It is the success, not the failure, of a public option plan that might lead to a single-payer system.
links
Like JS, I read/listened through your two links, and fail to see how Krugman says that the plans won't work. Describing plans as potential paths to single payer is not saying that they are bad. It is simply saying that if one believes that single payer would be good, that single payer is possibly easier to achieve politically if there is a public option (necessarily grafted to other insurance reforms). A public option could easily evolve to some system other than single payer, with functionally similar ability to provide health care to all Americans. Or it could continue, working well, with continuous tweaks to improve undesirable or dysfunctional minor aspects. Or heck, Republicans could be voted back into control of the senate and white house, and then replace it all with a Republican plan.
The Economist
If you want to see a good example of muddled centrist thinking, read the leader in The Economist that comes out against the public option. A very weak piece of work that makes no sense. Apparently the very modest public option that is being proposed could cause the entire insurance industry to collapse.
Washington tosses out
Washington tosses out lightly doublespeak terms like "reform." A 2000 page bill is probably too complex for us to understand the ramifications, and of course a trillion here, a trillion there, soon we're talking about real money. I have little doubt that when we see the results we'll see a real outcry for reforming the reform.
Basically just another example of a debt ridden nation juggling poverty around--adding more debt and inflation and moving money from old people and the the middle class to rich doctors and hospitals and illegal aliens plus the bureaucracy penalty.
Go away, James Robertson,
Go away, James Robertson, you're contributing nothing to the conversation.
2000 pages for a federal law is nothing. Laws are complex because public policy is complex.
Actually I thought Anonymous
Actually I thought Anonymous above made a very good point. Perhaps you should ask yourself why you think someone with a divergent opinion to your own shouldn't be allowed to express it. And how do you know the guy's name if he posted anonymously?
Public Option
"could cause the entire insurance industry to collapse."
I'm afraid not, at least if what I read on TPM last night is true, that the public plan premium would be higher than private plans in the exchange. So much for competition provided by the public plan. Today Politico quotes from the CBO
report on the House bill:
"Roughly one-fifth of the people purchasing coverage through the exchanges would enroll in the public plan, meaning that total enrollment in that plan would be about 6 million.
That estimate of enrollment reflects CBO’s assessment that a public plan paying negotiated rates would attract a broad network of providers but would typically have premiums that are somewhat higher than the average premiums for the private plans in the exchanges. The rates the public plan pays to providers would, on average, probably be comparable to the rates paid by private insurers participating in the exchanges. The public plan would have lower administrative costs than those private plans but would probably engage in less management of utilization by its enrollees and attract a less healthy pool of enrollees. (The effects of that “adverse selection” on the public plan’s premiums would be only partially offset by the “risk adjustment” procedures that would apply to all plans operating in the exchanges.)"
Am I the only one to be surprised (and disappointed) by this??? No competition to the insurance industry at all. Therefore no lowering of healthcare costs. At least those who can't afford insurance will get it by subsidy. And that's the most important thing. But it looks like the idea of the public option providing competition to insurance companies has fallen by the wayside. Not so surprising really. My cynicism returns to full strength.
Just to be clear, I was
Just to be clear, I was mocking The Economist for suggesting that a modest public option would endanger the whole private health insurance industry. I certainly don't agree with that (although I personally don't care if private health insurers wither away).
The Economist
g. powell, I understood your comment and I know where you stand on this issue. I once had a liberal friend recommend The Economist to me but after taking a look I was mystified by the endorsement. Perhaps it's good for reporting on economics?
There was some trashing of
There was some trashing of the Economist here a couple days ago, and I joined in. But I do read it because:
1. good international coverage. Good economic coverage.
2. Clear editorial stance. They're biased toward liberal (in the classic sense) economics and admit it. So at least you know how they slant things even if you disagree.
3. I like the photo captions.
Krugman
There's left, right and center and then... there's Joe Lieberman. I think he's motivated by revenge. Obama deprived him of being the Secretary of State from Likud when Obama was uppity enough to knock off McCain. Payback time.
Krugman
Krugman gives himself away when he says "and everyone has to decide which side they’re on". He's just as much "us against them" as the opposition is. The Republicans want to stop the bill because they want to defeat Obama. The Democrats want to pass the bill to show that they can beat the Republicans. Neither side particularly cares whether it is a good bill. Allow me to be unimpressed with both sides - and the bill itself.