A Public Plan: Three-Quarters Want To Have That Choice

The issue, of course, is whether the results of having a public plan will be all that popular.
.
And what would be those results?
.
By the way, what is the average profit margin of a big healthcare insurance provider?

This could pose a big problem for the politicians. Who do they listen to, the people who finance their campaigns, or the people who vote for them? Second, they have to reassess how stupid they think the general public is, a public that obviously understands the benefits of single payer, including lower costs. However, I suppose we will continue to hear from the bought and paid for politicians, who will try to explain why single-payer is no good, because it would be too popular.

Here is the TIME snap poll from a few days ago:
http://www.timepolls.com/hppolls/archive/poll_results_387.html
.
63% chose the Federal Government over private industry.
.
I guess, in a topsy-turvy world where rusty the Neo-Nazi gets top billing on the politics page, Kaiser is the prime mover in health care reform, and Baucus calls the shots in timing, you would think that the GOP won the election!
.
Has anyone noticed that they didn’t?
.
At least on these issues, I feel I have a bit more in common with the Iranians supporting Mousavi.
.
WHERE IS MY VOTE?

Derek, perhaps, then President Obama could explain. This is comical:
.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/06/gibbs_cant_name_a_country_wher_1.asp

Who do they listen to, the people who finance their campaigns, or the people who vote for them?
.
The former?

This is a surprise? I will play armchair Luntz and guess which constituencies would think that a public option would be “extremely” or “quite” important:
.
1. People who are presently uninsured (and likely believe a public option would cover them).
.
2. People who want to change jobs but don’t want to lose their health insurance.
.
3. People who have health insurance through their job but are afraid of being laid off.
.
4. People with a pre-existing medical condition that fear their health insurer may try to screw them over.
.
5. People who have insurance they presently can’t afford.
.
I’d guess that adds up to about 76% of the population.
.
What part of the word CRISIS do people not understand? Is it a surprise that, when faced with a CRISIS, the public would consider it to be “extremely” or “quite” important to have OPTIONS?

spob:
.
By the way, what is the average profit margin of a big healthcare insurance provider?
.
I believe I covered that in this post, but here it is again:

CNNMoney.com/FORTUNE 500
.
Top industries: Most profitable
.

Industry Rank: 1
.
Industry: Network and Other Communications Equipment
.
2007 Profits as % of Revenues: 28.8

Industry Rank: 2
.
Industry: Mining, Crude-Oil Production
.
2007 Profits as % of Revenues: 23.8

Industry Rank: 3
.
Industry: Pharmaceuticals
.
2007 Profits as % of Revenues: 15.8

Industry Rank: 4
.
Industry: Medical Products and Equipment
.
2007 Profits as % of Revenues: 15.2

Industry Rank: 5
.
Industry: Oil and Gas Equipment, Services
.
2007 Profits as % of Revenues: 13.7

Industry Rank: 6
.
Industry: Commercial Banks
.
2007 Profits as % of Revenues: 12.6

Industry Rank: 7
.
Industry: Railroads
.
2007 Profits as % of Revenues: 12.4

Industry Rank: 8
.
Industry: Entertainment
.
2007 Profits as % of Revenues: 12.4

Industry Rank: 9
.
Industry: Insurance: Life, Health (stock)
.
2007 Profits as % of Revenues: 10.6

Of all the major industries, Fortune 500 Health insurers were ranked ninth in profitability, with a slightly over 10 percent margin of profit to revenues.
.
The objective facts are that the health insurance industry as it currently exists is comfortably –approaching wildly– profitable, almost on par with pre-crash commercial bank margins.

BTW:
.
Can I be a journalist?

This is comical:
.
Hey, spob,
.
Know what I find “hilarious”? The lady whose coverage was rescinded after she was treated for cancer, so tthey didn’t have to pay for her treatment. That’s a real “knee-slapper”.
.
How about the employees who were given bonuses and congratulated on their ability to save the company money by cancelling these policies? I’m still in stitches over that . . .
.
Or the high comedy of the insurance execs who would not promise to stop cancelling the policies of clients who did not commit fraud, just to save the company money and “up” the bottom line.
.
Just.Freaking.Hilarious.

53 -
.
AYE, an’ Amen t’ tha’ me hearty!
.
YARR!

You know what?
.
I can be a reporter!
.
I posted an error that deserves immediate correction:
.
The previous post is a table of Life/Health insurance as opposed to “managed care health insurance”, which would accurately describe the industry in question.
.
Let me assemble another table (damn you Swampland!!) that actually answers spob’s question, and I’ll post again shortly.

spob, Gibb’s failure to know this subject is really unacceptable. BUt is is good to see that Healthcare CEOs Shoot Themselves in the Foot. Keep those guys out there, and it won’t matter what Gibbs fails to know.
.
sz – yes, you can.

Hey pirate lady. I just got back from vacation in Puerto Rico – and my 20 year old daughter got a pretty much for real tricorner pirate hat. Way cool.

SA –
.
YEA – Ye MUST! Lord be knowin’ thar be few enough “real” journos out thar – KT special aside on this issue – so feel free t’ step into th’ breach!
.
Arrgh!

wvng – DA*N! I were beggin’ an’ pleadin’ fer th’ cap’n t’ get me picture taken in full pirate regalia a’ th’ pirate/bandit museum in Ronda, bu’ ‘e, bein’ a bit put off by th’ amount o’ rioja I were consumin’ a’ dinner, were refusin’ and steerin’ me instead back t’ th’ hotel fer a bit o’ wenchin .
.
I be regrettin’ it (missin’ th’ picture – I be always happy t’ oblige th’ cap’n in th’ wenchin’ department) still!
.
Arrgh!

Spob’s comments are Exhibit A of why the GOP is so out of touch on this issue.
.
Again, we are facing a health care crisis in this country in terms of both costs and coverage. If the GOP chooses to address the crisis like adults and treat the issue with the seriousness that it deserves, then the public may start to take them seriously again.
.
But if the GOP continues to engage in cheap-shot, snarky attacks on reformers’ plans (and that is all this “gotcha” comment about Gibbs is), the American people are going to continue to throw their collective hands up and the GOP will continue down the path of irrelevance.

“Asked whether a health care overhaul should give people a choice of both private insurance and a plan administered by the government, three-quarters rated it quite or extremely important”
.
So what? As KT has explained over and over
.
“and the biggest reason that single payer isn’t being debated is that congressional leaders (even those who support it) don’t think it could pass. again, this is something i have written about before, and i refer you to bernie sanders’ own explanation,”
Karen Tumulty Says:
Thursday, June 18, 2009 at 8:41 am
.
The toughest thing in the Beltway is changing the accepted script.

KT you are absolutely right that the public is supportive of the public option. And while I don’t doubt that pollsters told you they were surprised by the results, I find that surprising, since good polling has been indicating public support for the measure for sometime.
.
Too bad the broader media insists on going off on these predictable tangents. According to them polls showing a 5 point difference in Obama’s approval has gone from being a blip to a dip to plummeting in a matter of 24 hours. However, they are in the business of reporting controversy and from that prospective ginning up concern and anxiety, however unwarranted is increasingly more the purpose than an unintended consequence.
.
But let’s not join these folks going over the edge. Polls have limitations, one of which is that the public can hold an unending number of competing views that make perfectly good sense in a qualitative format, and can be cherry picked to death in a poll.
.
For the record: Voters can be concerned about deficits and still be optimistic about the economic future.
.
Voters can want a public plan on health care and be concerned about government intervention.
.
Voters can be less confident about a policy they have no expertise in and still trust the person handling the policy.
.
Too bad the irresponsible media is more interested in maintaining a platform for the GOP, an integral component for adversarial journalism, than they are in finding out what the public really wants and why.

All it be takin’ be fer one ‘r two hi’-profile TeeVee “reporters” t’ choose th’ alternate scenario an’ run wi’ it long an’ hard – bu’ tha’d be bitin’ th’ hand what feeds ‘em, so I don’t be expectin’ it.
.
YARR!

No one, least of all me, is defending bogus termination of health care insurance coverage. The bottom line is that contracts are meant to be enforced, and there are plenty of doctrines in general contract law (let alone insurance regulatory law) that would preclude these issues.
.
But policies should not be made on anecdotes. Perhaps, just perhaps, the real solution is to focus on people who have “played by the rules” but cannot get health insurance. I also think that we should exclude criminals with serious criminal records from any public plan. Aliens also should be excluded from any public plan.

spob:
.
Here is the real data on health insurance industry average profitability:

CNNMoney.com/FORTUNE 500
.
Top industries: Most profitable

Industry Rank: 22
.
Industry: Aerospace and Defense
.
2007 Profits as % of Revenues: 7.2

Industry Rank: 23
.
Industry: Beverages
.
2007 Profits as % of Revenues: 7.2

Industry Rank: 24
.
Industry: Chemicals
.
2007 Profits as % of Revenues: 7.0

Industry Rank: 25
.
Industry: Internet Services and Retailing
.
2007 Profits as % of Revenues: 7.0

Industry Rank: 26
.
Industry: Food Consumer Products
.
2007 Profits as % of Revenues: 6.5

Industry Rank: 27
.
Industry: Telecommunications
.
2007 Profits as % of Revenues: 6.4

Industry Rank: 28
.
Industry: Health Care: Insurance and Managed Care
.
2007 Profits as % of Revenues: 6.2

Industry Rank: 29
.
Industry: Petroleum Refining
.
2007 Profits as % of Revenues: 6.2

…So “Health Care: Insurance and Managed Care” is actually 28th out of all industries, with a profit margin not on par with 2007/pre-crash commercial banks.
.
The industry’s profitability is in the somewhat lower strata of average margins occupied by paupers such as “Aerospace and Defense”, “Telecommunications” and “Petroleum Refining”.
.
I sincerely apologize for the error; I hope that I got it corrected in timely enough of a manner.
.
Whew! I really am glad that I take the trouble to go over every piece of data I put up here at least twice (before and after posting) to make certain that my facts are straight!

Well sure the rabble want a public option but visionaries like Dole and Doler know better.
.
“Former Senate leaders launched a bipartisan push for healthcare reform, but they took issue with a central feature of the President’s plan, a public, government-run health insurance program.” Bob Dole was shown saying, “If you want to stop this thing dead in its tracks, or dead on arrival, in my view, you put the public plan in it.” ABC noted that even Tom Daschle, “once Obama’s top healthcare adviser, said the public option probably needs to be scrapped.” Daschle: “We’ve come too far and gained too much momentum for our efforts to fail over disagreement on one single issue.”

Thank ye Stuart – TIME ought t’ be payin’ ye!
.
Still mighty profitable!
.
Arrgh!

Wha’ I be wanti’ t’ know be exact how “far” we be comin’, an exactly wha’ th’ “momentum” we gained mi’ be…other than continuin’ t’ placate th’ blasted GNOP an’ the corporate health types.
.

If I had me cannon, I’d broadside th’ lot o’ ‘em!
.
YARR!

sqaure1, I agree the Gibbs thing is a gotcha – but an unacceptable one nonetheless. Every single person in the administration should/must have key facts on healthcare at the tip of their tongues. Really no excuse. They should all be as prepared as Howard dean is in this clip:

yeah square1, on an issue of huge public importance, and one which is being pushed, hard, by the current Administration, the Administration’s inability to get its story straight is an example of the GOP being out of touch.
.
The bottom line, and I don’t think I am remiss in pointing this out, is that government involvement in any economic enterprise is typically wasteful, inefficient and bureaucratic. My question is simple–how, from a practical standpoint, is government going to deal with the health care of millions and millions of people in an efficient manner. Does Medicaid/Medicare work that well? The VA?
Will patient privacy be respected? Will complicated rules about reimbursement be enforced evenly? There are a lot of issues. And I am just askin’.

Senator Sanders ought t’ be postin’ a petition t’ withdraw th’ health coverage we be providin’ th’ Congress until they be comin’ up wi’ th’ solution th’ rest o’ us be wantin’! I be bettin’ ‘e’d be flat overwhelmed wi’ signatures an’ comments fer THAT one!
.
YARR!

Spongy ye slime-covered barnacle – ye be knowin’ ri’ well tha’ a huge reason those programs be havin’ trouble be th’ more’n decade-long effort by th’ GNOP t’ gut ‘em, deny fundin’, an MAKE ‘em inefficient just so’s t’ toss those covered by ‘em t’ th’ private market wolves. Ye think tha’ huge, unfunded, gift t’ th’ pharmaceutical industry drug benefit weren’t aimed a’ sinkin’ th’ ship? Tha’ be a rhetorical question, spongy – ye know it were.
.
Srop spreadin’ yer obfuscation, ye scumbag!
.
YARR!

Tha’ be “STOP”, spongy…ye know tha’!
.
Arrgh!

“My question is simple–how, from a practical standpoint, is government going to deal with the health care of millions and millions of people in an efficient manner.”
.
The more people you distribute the costs of a program over, the cheaper it is for each. Centralization also eliminates waste by reducing duplication. Additional cost savings accrue when the central authority uses such things as bulk purchasing to get a better price on drugs. Single payer is all about efficiency and lowering costs, and is based on standard concepts like amortization.

The disconnect between public opinion and our politicians demonstrates how corrupt our government has become.

is that government involvement in any economic enterprise is typically wasteful, inefficient and bureaucratic
.
That is as succinct an expression of the tenets of the Church of Reaganism as you can find.
.
The fact that it may be false is irrelevant. The fact that the supposed advantages of keeping government away from business disappears when the subject being discussed is a required public service that is inherently unprofitable, that’s when the entire article of faith dissolves into rhetorical dust.
.
There are things that the market can’t do. That’s why they call for government involvment.

It be ri’ comical fer spongy t’ be wonderin’ ’bout our privacy bein’ respected…we don’t HAVE no stinkin’ privacy any more already!

My mother used to tell me to eat my veggies because children were starving in Africa. My usual response was “Name two.” Combine the sophistry of the Weak Standard and the ego-driven “gotcha” tactics of the WH press herd, and you get pure crap.
.
I also wouldn’t put too much stock in figures various industrial sources give to CNN/Fortune. I’m always reminded of Hollywood accounting, under which no movie ever shows a profit.
.
Finally, if you propose excluding anyone from receiving necessary medical care, the excluded individuals should be sent to your front yard to suffer and die. Also.

spob: “The bottom line, and I don’t think I am remiss in pointing this out, is that government involvement in any economic enterprise is typically wasteful, inefficient and bureaucratic.”
.
If it weren’t for the fact that the private sector is more “wasteful, inefficient and bureaucratic” in this instance I might agree. Medicare is doing a notably better job controlling costs and providing care than the private sector. The VA, which is purely socialized medicine, is doing the best of all. Ezra Klein is, of course, ground zero for great info. Here is a post showing what would happen to pour budget deficit is we chose to follow the programs of several different countries, including Canada and Germany, and if we did nothing: Health Care Cost Fallacies

Derek, so why hasn’t this managed to work before? hell, the Soviet Union should have had the most efficient economy in the world by your rationale. And, Derek, size breeds inefficiencies too, see, e.g., Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac. Maybe we can have Franklin Raines run healthcare . . . .
.
Pirate Wench, nice comment, “scumbag”?? Basically, what your comment says is that you are too stupid to engage and thus will retreat into mere name calling. Note I said, mere name calling. I have zero problems with name calling and argument put together, but naked name calling–you just clown yourself.

“Derek, so why hasn’t this managed to work before? ”
.
It has worked before. Canada is one example where there is universal coverage and yet the cost per capita is substantially less than the US, where millions have no coverage. The question you ought to ask is why is the current US system so expensive and inefficient.

The key to the equation is accountability. If government agencies arr held accountable for their actions and expenditures, they can be every bit as efficient as a privately held company. If a corporation is shielded from financial consequence for its failures it can be every bit as slovenly as a backwater government office.
.
The problem isn’t inherent in the Government/Private dichotomy and it can be addressed wherever it appears. You just have to correctly identify the incentives that people are actually operating under.

Ahhh spongy, ye algae-bloated bilge rat, yer breakin me bleedin’ ‘eart .
.
Yer “arguments” be no worth triflin’ wi’, bein’ as they just be bottom-fed piles o’ crap repackaged in a sorry a$$ attempt a’ encouragin’ ‘uman consumption. Most o’ us no be bitin’…
.
YARR!

B’sides – it be a worthy exercise in pirate-vocabulary buildin’ t’ be respondin t’ ye – I be thankin’ ye fer tha’, mate!
.
Arrgh!

Oh, and the Soviet Union failed because they adhered to a rigid ideology in the face of evidence that their core beliefs were unsupported actual performance.
.
spob’s correct in drawing parallels. He just has them exactly backwards.

spob:
.
government involvement in any economic enterprise is typically wasteful, inefficient and bureaucratic
.
This is true.
.
The problem to be solved for non-ideologues is that it’s not simply that government is flawed in this manner, it’s that all gargantuan organizations are similarly flawed.
.
For (an obvious) example, it doesn’t take an economist to note that, for all practical purposes, the US automotive industry has been just as wasteful, inefficient and bureaucratic as any state agency has ever been.
.
Liberals just don’t accept the idea that horrific, Soviet, colossal bureaucracies are the solely the province of the state, spob. Any reality-inhabiting person, i.e. somebody who’s skeptical of the idea that they’re living out events portrayed in “Atlas Shrugged”, is prepared for all institutions to resist the interests of the citizenry at large in favor of their own. At the end of the day, we, the people who live with the consequences of inefficiencies and failures, have as little say in boardrooms and executive offices as we do in agency headquarters.
.
Individuals, entrepreneurs and ad hoc communities must assert and protect themselves from the vast self-interested powers of the state, industry and capital by playing them against each other systemically. In order for a free society to remain free at the level required for optimum individual initiative and creativity to be realized, this opposing-sides in detente arrangement constitutes its own necessary separation of powers.
.
There are a lot of issues. And I am just askin’.
.
Good. We are just asking, too. We aren’t playing follow-the-charismatic-leader either. The more that ordinary people try to get what they want from the outcome of this political process, the better for us.
.
Please do me a favor, and think about what wasteful, inefficient and bureaucratic really means in complete, practical, real-life terms, and then talk about what the bottom line is. Is your premise really the most accurate that it can possibly be? Should it really be the starting point for your thoughts on policy? Does it truly, thoroughly describe reality, spob?

Well, I’d throw a rock or two at spob myself. I usually do, however, I will take a pass in order to throw rocks at the ridiculous charade we are calling the health care reform process!
.
Where is POTUS44′s vaunted boldness…

PD: “spob’s correct in drawing parallels. He just has them exactly backwards.”
.
New game? You must be a repuglican if
.
… you draw parallels that are exactly backwards.
.
Oh, and Pirate Lady – Aaaarrrggghhhhh!

53 – I be just goin’ o’er to whitehouse.gov t’ be askin’ th’ same question, me hearty! I may be makin’ a phone call ‘r two, t’ boot.
.
Arrgh!

Thi sA.L. post is peripherally related to the current conversation: Palin = Fail

pirate wench:
.
Give ‘em a broadside for me! I don’t have one single arfin’ good thing to say about it. Everyone can gab about this rule or that rule or whether governments or business is more wasteful, but the fact remains that most of the planet is on the single payer system.
.
Maybe we can do it better. Maybe we can introduce something that will make it a system that would be the envy of the world, but, it cannot be done while the fox and the FOX is watching the henhouse!
.
YAARRR! Keelhaul the lot o’ them!

Done! I sure be hopin’ everyone else be active outside our wee swampworld t’ get th’ word out and let yer representatives an’ our President know we be serious intendin’ t’ hold their feet t’ th’ fire on this one!
.
Arrgh!

“but the fact remains that most of the planet is on the single payer system.”
.
Unless I’m mistaken there are also differences in single payer systems. In Europe, for example, they have a two tier single payer system, whereas Canada and Cuba do not. In other words, those who don’t want to wait in line have the option of paying more.

Tha’ be true, Derek, a’ least in Italy an’ Greece, whar I be havin’ experience livin’…Germany too, if I be rememberin’ correct. People who be wantin extra care ‘r faster service can be payin’ fer it additional.
.
An’ fr’m th’ number o’ billboards an’ adverts I were seein’, a lot o’ tha’ extra be cosmetic services – those be ri’ pop’lar, an’ lots o’ people be takin’ advantage. They be havin’ th’ funds t’ do so b’cause their actual medical care be adequate covered.
.
Fancy tha’…
.
Arrgh!

As if the health debate is not working in the muckety muck already. our good friend and erstwhile candidate for the post of Health Czar, aided by his former Republican counterpart dumps on a public option. Fellow commenters I give you a former senator from the great state pf Dakota and another from the gs of Kansas: The Tom Daschle and Bob Show.

Th’ previous cosmetic comment be just an observational anecdotal aside…don’t be gettin’ yer panties all in a twist askin’ me t’ document th’ numbers.
.
Arrgh.

Apologies for leave out the Dole in Bob.

It is stunning how stupid some poll question are.
.
(ASK ONLY OF RESPONDENTS WHO SAY THAT THEY ARE HUNGRY AT DINNER TIME IN Q.1b)
.
2. Please tell me which ONE statement you agree with more on the issue of eating candy before dinner:
.
(Some/Other) people say that it will make you happy because the sugar in the candy tastes good.
.
(Some/Other) people say that it will spoil your appetite and you will eat fewer vegetables at dinner.

wvng:

Thanks for the link. I’ve never heard a more concise, more accurate description of Palin’s statements: “She knows the punchline but not the joke.” The result is that she becomes the joke, and I doubt anyone with a brain will be very interested in an old joke by 2012

Thanks, KT. Now if only others in the media will start waking up to what regular Americans already know, that a public option IS A REALISTIC OPTION to dealing with our health care catastrophe. If the media recognizes that, then perhaps the American people will be better informed about all the options available for improvement. As it is now, the media mostly reports the options that certain members of congress (Repubs & BlueDogs) want us to know about.

The toughest thing in the Beltway is changing the accepted script.
.
But, Paul, don’t you know that the accepted script CAN’T be changed? Why, you ask? Because… they said it couldn’t be changed. It just can’t… Because… Also.
.
Isn’t that a good enough answer for you?
.
Arrrgggh!!

Speaking of the Administration not being able to coordinate message, there’s this little gem:
.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/17/AR2009061703491.html
.
I thought genocide was something of a “you know it when you see it”.

Derek:
.
I don’t mind that medical insurance over and above what is offered on public plans is available. I think that as an American, every one of us is entitled to a minimum level of health care in this county.
.
I’m just not afraid to say it. And yes, the total avoidance of the issue of taxation is yet another flaw in the current process.
.
More of the same will not do.
.
Spob & co don’t give a sh!t about Americans except what’s good for them anyway. There is no concept of ‘public service’ in their minds. If we look like the India of Slumdog Millionaire, who gives a fock, and get a life, they say.
.
I’ve said before and I’ll say it again:
.
We have the ‘reconciliation procedure’ already in hand for a 51 vote passage, and it is time to try something different.
.
The GOP? Fock it. Run ‘em the fock over!

spob:
.
Little pointless mishaps will get you nowhere. Who gives a fock?

afguy-ha. Read the “Follow up” for evidence of what you are saying.
.
The original post is about how “the unequivocal result surprised even the pollsters”
.
Now we better walk that back. “A few qualifiers”
.
This will be a long process.

afguy:
.
It’s just like the ironclad law that the government simply cannot be efficient!
.
I have my doubts about anything (excpet maybe physics) where someone implies soemthing is impossible.
.
Besides, all one has to do is look at the rest of the planet and what they are doing…

“Spob & co don’t give a sh!t about Americans except what’s good for them anyway. There is no concept of ‘public service’ in their minds.”
.
Typical liberal BS. Hey, SFB, your side’s “caring” for criminals got us a huge upsurge in crime, with the attendant misery. But, oh, that’s right, you cared. Foreign aid, often given with the best of intentions, entrenches local dictators in power and creates appalling misery. The list goes on and on.
.
And when you say, 53_3, that each American is entitled to some bedrock level of care, what you are really saying is that we ought to extract payment from others to pay for that care. That’s fine. But in a world of scarce resources, there are always trade-offs. And when the government dictates the trade-off, there is a moral component. Should an upper-middle class family whose breadwinners have worked hard and paid a lot of taxes get gold-plated fertility treatment in a single-payer system? It’s easy to say no–that’s their problem–but then how do you answer them saying, “Hey, guys, we’ve paid in a ton, and the single-payer will pay millions to treat some gang-banger who got shot in a gunbattle who needs long-term care–why should I think that system is “fair”?” Or what happens when political pull gets involved? It happens in college admissions, think it won’t in healthcare? And if it does, does the state have a moral right to keep me in single payer when I don’t have the political pull?

Without a public option healthcare reform is just a big joke without the laughs.

One of the reasons I supported Hillary over Barack was because I knew she’d get some kind of universal, affordable courage one way or the other. She failed once, learned her lesson and would MAKE it happen this time.

I understand and respect Obama’s natural tendency to be a moderate, cautious guy but he needs to get in touch with his inner Johnson and start twisting some arms.

If the man would blanket the airwaves with his support of a public option and explain way, I do believe support for that course would be even higher and firmer and that would give him leverage to act more like a Harry Truman or an LBJ.

Atlas Shrugged is such a tragedy, not just for it’s bad economics, but because on individualist issues in The Fountainhead she did so incredibly well. It’s really incomprehensible how
.
A) she failed in her subsequent political commentaries to notice that corporations are collectivist entities and not the same as the individualist businesses in her books
.
B) the people who apologize for corporations and even proclaim their greatness, mirror almost exactly the antagonist business people in Atlas Shrugged, who decide everything by committee, won’t take chances, don’t think for themselves, etc.
.
I just can’t see how Objectivists can end up hating one collective, and supporting the other. Really you just have to decide, does it actually benefit me or not to live in a healthy community, given that most humans are pragmatic social creatures who actively reject both individualist and collectivist values. Of course, then the whole anti-compassion thing breaks down, we hit the inescapable conclusion that reducing suffering in the community makes the community more tolerable to live in, and doesn’t cause people to become more collectivist. People believe what is socially attractive to them, they do not actually vote with their wallets in the pure sort of way that would cause welfare recipients to automatically support collectivism. In fact, states with high welfare rates tend to vote for politicians that would take away their welfare if they could.
.
Which brings me to a couple of Ayn Rand’s points in Philosophy, Who Needs It, which is that you should think for yourself not join any party or belief system because somebody, including her, told you to. And that “Social Darwinists” ideas are too stupid to even warrant refutation.

I’m just not afraid to say it. And yes, the total avoidance of the issue of taxation is yet another flaw in the current process.
.
Couldn’t agree more.
.
Questions that the media doesn’t ask (It’s okay, Baucus took the questions off of the table):
.
1. Is single-payer off the table, in significant part, because it would likely be financed by a progressive income tax rather than a flat fee per taxpayer?
.
2. Why, when considering a “public option” for health care, is the focus on how much it would cost the government without looking at the total expense as a % of GDP? Or whether people would mind paying additional taxes for the service? If I am currently paying $10k/year in premiums and a public option would alleviate me of that expense, I would gladly pay an extra $5k in taxes (and my employer might even give me a raise since they no longer have any expenses associated with adminitrating health insurance).

some gang-banger who got shot in a gunbattle who needs long-term care
.
After providing a fine example of the magical economic thinking wherin ‘the government is bad’ just because of its name, we then proceed on to what I like to refer to as comic book thinking.
.
The world is full of heroes and villians. The villians can be identified by their names. “terrorist, gang-banger, crackhead and socialist” are fine examples. Every debate can than be cast in terms of whether the bag guys get theirs in the end.
.
The fact that the real world doesn’t operate in such a sharply divided manner is irrelevant. Seeing in anything but black and white requires too much effort.

I should note that liberals often do the same thing when they think of corporate executives or lobbyists in equally stark dehumanizing terms.

square1 – I think thar were a qualifier fer th’ question so’s t’ more accurately reflect th’ views o’ those already covered by private insurance, as opposed t’ all those lazy welfare cheats who be wantin’ anythin’ they be gettin fer “free” from th’ government.
.
Th’ last be snark, me hearties, it just be snark. At ease.
.
It be reflectin’ just how satisfied those “already covered” really be – seein’ as 2/3 o’ em would like an option t’ switch – how great a job be th’ market doin, wi’ those numbers, mate?
.
Arrgh!

My point, PD, which you have seemed to miss is that there are trade-offs. In a single-payer system, all of us contribute, and then all of us receive healthcare. Decisions are going to have to be made, and in such instances, people are going to rightly beef about allocation of resources.
.
When the government takes over something, it has an unspoken obligation to be morally pure. Now, of course, government falls down on that obligation alot, but the obligation is still there. A system where big contributors to the pie don’t get things when little contributors to the pie do (when, of course, the little contributors have made choices that hinder their ability to contribute to the pie) is problematic.
.
I’m sure most libs in here would be pretty ok with care rationing to the obese. In other words, some “fault-based” denial of care. Well, what about criminals? When you have a finite pie, those types of decisions will happen. And what do you say to the obese person on some waiting list who says, “Geez, yes I eat too much, but I contribute to society, and some drug-dealer who gets shot running from the cops won’t have to wait.”

Sorry – 3/4. I be sick t’day, me hearties…blame th’ nyquil fer me lack o’ preciseness.
.
Yarr!

No public option = EPIC FAIL by Obama and Democrats.
.
I would rather have no reform than phony reform.
.
One of the reasons I supported Hillary over Barack was because I knew she’d get some kind of universal, affordable courage one way or the other. She failed once, learned her lesson and would MAKE it happen this time.
.
OTOH, I totally disagree with this assessment. I think it is virtually impossible to know what Hillary would have accomplished.
.
Once Hillary and Bill failed in 1993, the issue was dropped for the remainder of his administration.
.
Then, when she became Senator, Hillary made no effort to drive health care reform. Even if nothing could have been passed, she could have driven the debate and moved the Overton window towards progressive policy options. She refused to use an iota of political capital on the issue.
.
It was only when she started to run for President that she re-embraced the issue. And it wasn’t until long after Edwards laid out a proposal that Hillary got remotely specific.
.
Had she been elected, Hillary would have been under even more pressure than Obama to pass “some reform package” and to “avoid her previous mistakes.” IOW, the media and the Blue Dogs would have been demanding that she cede control of the legislation to Baucus & Co.
.
Obama is choosing to let Congress craft this bill. Hillary likely would have been forced to.

[...] Karen Tumulty highlights overwhelming public support for a public option for health care insurance. [...]

spongy, ye great mass o coral worms fer brains –
.
Have ye NOTHIN’ bu’ straw men in yer bag-o-tricks t’day?
,
Ye be ri’ pitiful, me lad!
.
YARR!

square1,
.
“single payer” is off the table because it means taking away people’s choice to keep what they have now, if they really like it. That’s why the Right keeps talking about “Single Payer” and how much it sucks, and (most of) the Left is instead talking about a “Public Option.”
.
The only difference between “Single Payer” and “Public Option” is that one replaces everything else, essentially nationalizing the health insurance industry, and the other one leaves them in place and competes with them.
.
Very few, left or right, want to take away people’s current choices.

spob, I’m totally unmoved by any of your arguments.
.
I could give an f if some of it will come out of your pockets. That is part of your responsibility as a US citizen. I will be happy to pay my share too.
.
Your rants are based on a couple things which have already been proven wildly wrong. One of them is that government cannot be efficient, and the other is that the market cures all.
.
BS to both.

ruby –

3/4 of people appear t’ be ready t’ give their market choice up – what say ye t’ that? How much o’ a choice be it makin’ sense’ t’ keep providin’, when only 1/4 o’ those currently covered be not interested in a public option – by whatever name we be callin’ it?
.
It be more evidence tha’ those makin’ th’ decision be totally disconnected wi’ those affected by tha’ decision. They be arguin’ semantics whilst most just want th’ government t’ provide affordable coverage.
.
Arrgh!

“I’m sure most libs in here would be pretty ok with care rationing to the obese.”
.
spob, I don’t think you even know what a “liberal” is.
.
And no, I’m not going to go for that. When it comes to deciding on whether to withhold health care based on a condition, at that point you get into a Big Brother situation.
.
Is a commercial Big Brother somehow better than a government Big Brother? I think neither!

This will be a long process.
.
Paul,
.
Totally (and sadly) agree. It’s going to be made doubly hard by the supposed “allies” that we elected who are turning out to have “feet of clay” (wonder if their HMO or insurance providers cover that condition) or are renigging on their election promised once they are inside the Beltway.
.
How do we elect “better Democrats” when it’s getting harder to actually identify someone who is BEFORE they take the oath of office?

I be needin’ t’ hit th’ cap’n's cabin fer a bit o’ medicine an’ sleep, me hearties, carry on!

pirate wench,
.
If you look again at the chart and the question, 3/4 support the _choice_ which means specifically “public option,” and is opposed to “Single Payer.”
.
Single payer and public option are simply _not_ two names for the same thing. It would really help if people on the left could understand this well enough to make it through the arguments with more than just, “it sucks really bad already.” Which is a good point, but not the only issue in play. If you think the other issues are just “semantics,” that makes you incapable of a complete dialogue on health care reform. The key word is dialogue. The problem is not that we don’t know what steps to take, the problem is convincing people that the sky will not fall. And “single payer,” ie, taking away their current health insurance, sure looks like the sky falling to a wide swath of the currently healthy and insured.

Actually health care to the obese is already rationed. Remvoving the profit motive that drives current insurers to refuse coverage based on it will result in less rationing not more.

“I could give an f if some of it will come out of your pockets. That is part of your responsibility as a US citizen. I will be happy to pay my share too.”
.
I already pay more than my share. But the point, SFB, is not that more will come out of my pocket, but that the high quality healthcare that I already get will be diminished for the benefit of other people who don’t have such a hot moral claim. Obviously, I am personalizing the issue. But on a macro-level, that will occur. The insured already indirectly subsidize the uninsured, and there are moral issues with that. (Why should my healthcare be more expensive because indigent criminals or drunk drivers hurt people?)

I just can’t see how Objectivists can end up hating one collective, and supporting the other.
.
God, that’s incredibly well put.

Spob: PD has you pegged. Comic-book thinking. I also call it bumper-sticker thinking.

spob, clearly operates under the assumption that poor people are morally flawed. Ironically many people believe that rich people are morally flawed.
Of course there’s no rational basis for either assumption but it does reveal a lot about spob’s character. (or lack thereof)

spob wrote: ‘In a single-payer system, all of us contribute, and then all of us receive healthcare. Decisions are going to have to be made, and in such instances, people are going to rightly beef about allocation of resources.’
.
Yes, decisions are going to be made. As they are with the current system (see When Health Insurance Isn’t Health Insurance). The biggest difference is that in a single-payer system the decisions will be motivated by what is best for the patients, rather than what is best for the corporate bottom line.
.
If the people running a public system don’t run it well, we can vote to replace them. In a private system, usually the only way you can get a change is to change health plans, and the only way for most of us to do that is to change employers.

and there are moral issues with that. (Why should my healthcare be more expensive because indigent criminals or drunk drivers hurt people?)
.
That’s not a moral issue you quote, spob, it’s an economic one (unless you equate more money out of your pocket as a moral item). You start off your posting with the statement that it’s “not that more will come out of my pocket” then proceed to undercut your own argument with what follows.
.
You simply don’t want to take the chance that someone you deem “inferior” to you might benefit from what you pay out.
.
Paying taxes for street repairs on the other side of town must be a real “downer” for you – it’s not like you drive over there anyway.

Spob: Does anyone (besides you) ever suffer from a medical condition that they didn’t bring upon themselves?
.
ruby: As a supporter of single-payer, I agree with starting out with a public option. I believe that, sufficiently unconstrained, such a public option would swiftly out-compete private insurers.
.
But while I agree that moving immediately to single-payer is not practical politically, my point is that there are significant differences between how a “public option” and single-payer would likely be funded. And those differences would likely not disappear even if the “public option” became accepted universally.
.
A “public option” would probably require individuals to pay premiums as if they were purchasing a private plan. But single-payer would likely be funded by a progressive income tax.

afguy: If you think that street repairs bug Spob, imagine his indignation that the taxpayer-funded police (which Spob already pays more than his fair share for) respond to a drunk driving accident! Or when the taxpayer-funded fire department puts out the fire at the house of some yahoo who refused to pay for a chimney cleaner!
.
Bring back the days of the private fire departments. Sure they would start fires to give themselves business and then loot the buildings, but at least you didn’t have to pay for someone else’s mistake.

bobcn1, and that works so well in Canada . . . . and what of all the medical tourism from the UK.
.
afguy, PD etc. please don’t caricaturize my argument. The fact is that there are people less worthy. And not because they are poor etc., but because of specific choices they have made. If there’s a choice between say funding gold-plated fertility treatments and providing gold-plated healthcare for drunk drivers who have wrapped their car around a pole, I’m choosing the former. Sorry. And that’s a moral issue–what someone has a right to demand from the society.
.
I fervently believe in community. I’ve personally stepped in to stop a homeless man from being beaten; I donate to charity (Fisher House). And society has an obligation to help the, for lack of a better word, “deserving poor”. But where the pie is necessarily limited, providing resources to certain people creates problems. Right now, there’s a brouhaha in Oregon over some death row inmate getting a very expensive kidney transplant. That creates moral issues about resource allocation. To say that it does not is just stupid.

You guys are hilarious. Absolutely hilarious. To say that there are no moral issues involved in resource allocation by the government is just laughable. There are.

imagine his indignation that the taxpayer-funded police (which Spob already pays more than his fair share for) respond to a drunk driving accident!
.
square1,
.
This is the part that just drives me crazy. Supposedly, government can’t provide ANYTHING better than the private sector but we are surrounded by govt-provided services that EVERYONE takes for granted.
.
We just went thru an ice storm that trashed roads, power, phones, roofs, etc. Even if we could have paid (with the neighbors) to have our street cleared and lines repaired, it wouldn’t have mattered to our ability to get electricity back. Damage was too widespread. They had to get crews from the deep South to come up and help. This is one example in which the free market diety would have failed miserably. Yet we continue to hear peeps say “government is the problem” and can offer no solutions, the smaller the better.
.
We have McConnell as our Senator here. Yet this state was at the front of the line for “disaster relief” funds from the Federal government.
.
Sometimes the dissonance (and hypocrisy) is just deafening.

good god, afguy, only lunatics believe in privatizing everything . . . .

The fact is that there are people less worthy. And not because they are poor etc., but because of specific choices they have made.If there’s a choice between say funding gold-plated fertility treatments and providing gold-plated healthcare for drunk drivers who have wrapped their car around a pole, I’m choosing the former.
.
Here’s the problem, Spob. You say that people are not unworthy because they are poor, but that is exactly how people are treated under the current system.
.
A senior AIG executive with a gold-plated health insurance policy WILL get awesome medical treatment if he drinks himself into a stupor and then plows into a telephone pole.
.
Meanwhile, an uninsured (or poorly insured) person in their 20s who discovers an unexpected, genetic heart condition that is unrelated to lifestyle choices dies from a lack of proper medical care.
.
THAT is the current system.

That creates moral issues about resource allocation. To say that it does not is just stupid.
.
I never thought of it that way, spob. I guess the insurance providers were making a “moral” decision when they decided to take the cancer victim’s premiums over that period of time, then “allocate” her expected payment to the bonus funds for the CEO and employee who decided to rescind her coverage.
.
I really think you and I are dealing with different definitions of “moral”. I just get the impression you are OK with the reallocation argument as long as you are the one who gets to decide who’s “deserving” and who isn’t. And, if/when the time comes, you aren’t somehow found to be “undeserving” by YOUR insurance provider.

Hospital emergency rooms do not make moral decisions on who should receive care, do they? As I understand, they focus resources on the patient with the most urgent medical need first, then work their way through the other patients.
.
Going down a path of having to decide on a moral level which individuals should receive care and which should not–that way madness lies. Because are we going to do this for every individual American citizen? Under a public option, will my tax dollars go to ensuring health care for someone I find morally odious? Yes. But my tax dollars already do that in all sorts of other areas. What counter-balances that is the fact that I assume there are far more hard-working, decent people in the U.S. than there are morally odious ones, and my tax dollars go to supporting them as well as me.
.
I don’t want my taxes wasted. No one does. But I’m happy to pay taxes for services that improve my community, including services I may never use myself. If my community is strong–if my nation is strong–then that will bump up my quality of life. As Oliver Wendell Holmes put it, “I like to pay taxes. With them I buy civilization.”
.
Think of real estate and houses. If my neighbor’s house is crappy–lawn overgrown with weeds, roof shedding like it’s got dandruff, paint peeling–my property value is affected negatively. If the city of Atlanta’s infrastructure continues to degrade, that’s eventually going to affect my cost of living and my quality of life in the suburban Atlanta area where I live, even though I live outside city limits.
.
Now take this analogy and apply it to health care. How long will my nice, shiny health care plan stay nice and shiny if the system continues on its current path?

good god, afguy, only lunatics believe in privatizing everything . . . .
.
But isn’t that the logical conclusion of a political party that wants to make government small enough to “drown it in a bathtub”? Either privatize the service or do without?
.
You really need to listen to what the GOP is saying over the long-term, spob. Not just current the talking points, but over a long period of time.
.
The term “lunatics” might be a pretty good description.

To say that it does not is just stupid.
.
To focus on it instead of the real moral (or practical) issues is also just stupid.
.
You’re elevating the inevitability of a minority of people systemically getting something they don’t deserve (a statistically insignificant amount of which comes from you) to a rank in consideration that it simply doesn’t deserve.
.
The important moral issues here are the ones involving sick people currently getting f*cked because that’s what the market allows for, not “gold-plated health care for drunk-drivers” or “gold-plated health care for lazy people who don’t work hard enough to support their families” or “gold-plated health care for terrorist-sympathizers” or “gold-plated health care for whoever we don’t like and think should get less than us in a fair world”.
.
You are revealing an ideologically-based obsession with that set of potential moral hazards at the expense of pragmatic focus on real problems

New Study: Bankruptcy Tied To Medical Bills
.
By Sarah Lovenheim
.
Sixty-two percent of all bankruptcies filed in 2007 were linked to medical expenses, according to a nationwide study released today by the American Journal of Medicine. That’s nearly 20 percentage points higher than that pool of respondents reported were connected to medical costs in 2001.
.
Of those who filed for bankruptcy in 2007, nearly 80 percent had health insurance. Respondents who reported having insurance indicated average expenses of just under $18,000. Respondents who filed and lacked insurance had average medical bills of nearly $27,000.

.
I think it would make sense for you to really ask yourself questions like “Why am I so focused on the undeserving?” or “Why is it so important to me that this particular injustice be resolved before any other?“, spob.

I think of a moral decision as one almost religious in nature, one that goes beyond a question of legality to a question of right and wrong. For the fundamentalists, it’s a question of “would you feel comfortable making that argument if called before the Almighty to justify what you have done?” It’s a discussion that has occurred in classes on Sunday and I can tell you it’s a revelation when someone drops their eyes when asked that question about their position on a number of modern issues.
.
I have become convinced that, for many these days, free market capitalism has become a de-facto religion for them. It over-rides the fact that they may be Baptists, Methodists (or many others) on Sunday. The other 6 days of the week, they are capitalists and, when push comes to shove, THAT is the dominant philosophy they have. They will modify their religion so that it fits neatly with their free market beliefs, and suddenly become aware of those who are “morally undeserving” of their help.
.
So, given that, I guess I can see where decisions involving their money become a serious “moral” consideration. For me, it’s economics, and NOT to be confused with my religious beliefs.

“A senior AIG executive with a gold-plated health insurance policy WILL get awesome medical treatment if he drinks himself into a stupor and then plows into a telephone pole.”
.
Which, of course, he paid for. Big difference between that and forcibly extracting money from me or reducing my healthcare to pay for other people’s recklessness or criminality.
.
It never ceases to amaze me–liberals love to extract money from people to fund their science projects. It would be tolerable if it actually worked (see, e.g., War on Poverty), but it’s highly problematic because it does not.
.
And guys, I have stressed on this thread, a deal’s a deal, and the insurance companies need to live up to their obligations.
.
Finally, these aren’t the only issues I am focused on. I don’t think that the government can do this even if it wanted to.

forcibly extracting money to pay for other people’s recklessness
.
So what percantage of medical care goes to the undeserving? And how many undeserving are vectors for diseases that spread to the deserving? The trouble with comic book thinking is that it directly interferes with rational thinking.
A total of 4.4 million Americans lost their jobs since the beginning of 2008. A nationwide survey of families yielded a record of 12.5 million unemployed people, the highest number found since 1940.
Nearly 47 million Americans do not have health insurance, and an estimated 16 million more are considered ‘underinsured’ because they have high out-of-pocket costs relative to their income
.
That’s a whole lot of undeserving crackheads. Do you think maybe your comic-book caricatures might fail to describe reality?

Finally, these aren’t the only issues I am focused on. I don’t think that the government can do this even if it wanted to.
.
More accurately, spob, you wouldn’t want them to try even if you thought they could.

spob wrote: and what of all the medical tourism from the UK?
.
What does the high number of American medical tourists that are forced to go to Mexico, Thailand, and the Philippines every year tell you?

spob: the problem with people who adhere to your philosophical persuasion, is the belief that a human being’s worth is based on what they produce for society. While liberals believe that a human beings worth is based on being human.
.
So tell me how is that the same folks that promote a right to life agenda want to tell liberals that a fetus is a human from conception and therefore have a right to life, are so willing to say that once here you’re only as good as your last contribution?
.
You don’t want health care to go to criminals? So does that mean you believe that anyone ever convicted of a crime is useless, worthless, and undeserving of health care? Should that include Scooter Libby, Oliver North and G Gordon Libby, not to mention all of the people that were wrongly convicted?
.
The problem with making a moral judgement is that too often the people making the judgement lack the prerequisite morals.

The problem with making a moral judgement is that too often the people making the judgement lack the prerequisite morals.
.
Bingo, Dee!! Give the lady her prize!
.
Vaguely remember something about “let him who is without sin…” while growing up. Don’t hear much about that any more.

‘The problem with making a moral judgment is that too often the people making the judgment lack the prerequisite morals.’
.
well put.

Everyone who doesn’t want to hear what some could perceive as 08 primary-style criticism of Obama should stop reading, at least after the quote…
.
I understand and respect Obama’s natural tendency to be a moderate, cautious guy but he needs to get in touch with his inner Johnson and start twisting some arms.

If the man would blanket the airwaves with his support of a public option and explain way, I do believe support for that course would be even higher and firmer and that would give him leverage to act more like a Harry Truman or an LBJ.
.
southernbell49, I agree. Obama built up this tremendous political capital, and he’s been remarkably successful in preserving it. Contrary all the headlines about his rising unpopularity, his approval ratings are great considering the economy and wars. But I don’t know what he’s saving his political capital for. It’s not LGBT rights. It’s not Iraq or Afghanistan. It’s not the economy, with all these bailouts and muted regulation efforts. And it’s not health care.
.
Political capital by itself is meaningless; its value lies in its use.

Everyone who doesn’t want to hear what some could perceive as 08 primary-style criticism of Obama should stop reading, at least after the quote…
.
rose83,
.
Fire away. As far as I am concerned, he deserves it. If he wants to stop being criticized for acting like a typical Washington pol, he can stop acting like one and start actually visibly supporting HC reform.

Dee:
.
While liberals believe that a human beings worth is based on being human.
.
Actually, I don’t know about that.
.
I thought that liberals believe that human worth is based on individual capabilities, talents, values and potentials, as opposed to group identities and traditionally accepted/forced roles.
.
I’m not sure what you mean by “being human”.
.
Surely some humans are worth more than others, right?
.
I’m pretty certain that liberalism doesn’t mean considering Pol Pot’s worth the same as Dr. Jonas Salk’s…

I’m pretty certain that liberalism doesn’t mean considering Pol Pot’s worth the same as Dr. Jonas Salk’s…
.
stuart,
.
Just MY take, but I think she’s saying we have to be VERY careful about putting ourselves in the position of making that determination. If I’m going to appoint myself to be a judge of character or worth, I better be very careful to be consistent.

afguy:
.
If I’m going to appoint myself to be a judge of character or worth, I better be very careful to be consistent.
.
There’s certainly no disagreement about that.

“Both Daschle and Dole work for a major Washington, DC lobbying firm, Alston & Bird. Many of Alston & Bird’s major clients are from the health care sector including the American Hospital Association, HealthSouth Corp, and pharmaceutical companies Abbott Laboratories, Bayer, Celgene, and Mylan Laboratories. In total, Alston & Bird is currently representing 31 clients from the health care sector. Of the $2,730,000 reported income received from clients, nearly 50% of that, $1,070,000, comes from these 31 health care clients.”

Daschle, Dole Release Health Care Plan, Forget to Mention They Are Health Care Lobbyists

Which, of course, he paid for. Big difference between that and forcibly extracting money from me or reducing my healthcare to pay for other people’s recklessness or criminality.
.
Um, no there isn’t a big difference. Pooled risk is pooled risk. Extracting more in benefits than you paid in is the same whether you paid in insurance premiums or taxes. If I am in the same risk pool as a reckless AIG executive, do you think my premiums don’t go up when he plows into a telephone pole? Do you think my benefits aren’t at risk of being cut to cover the cost of his hospitalization? Do you not understand how insurance works?
.
But even if you believe that crap, there is no excuse to not support a public option where people pay premiums (just like private insurance) and simply use the market power of the government to negotiate lower prices. The ONLY reason to oppose that is to prop up private carriers.

Rose, I’m with you & So-Bell, and I was shirted up for Obama throughout. I still think Hill would have had a much harder time winning or governing. Yes, there’d be no fewer votes in Congress in support of her agenda, but I think her relative unpopularity would have provided her a lot less capital, though I agree she’d have been far more likely to use it. Not to mention the media’s hostility to her vs. Obama.
~
As various progressives (before Maher started saying it), have put it, if not now, when. What in heaven’s name is his holding this cap for?

I still think Hill would have had a much harder time winning or governing.
.
Given the economic crisis and the historically bad McCain campaign, I think all the hours we spent arguing about electability were as pointless as speculating about which charity Ahmadinejad will give his Nobel Peace prize winnings to.
.
The irony is that the Edwards supporters probably talked more electability than anyone else… I still believe electability is important, but in retrospect it’s probably not a good idea to obsess so much on something that’s essentially unknowable, when there is real stuff to talk and think about.

ruby (way back) –
.
I were referrin’ t’ th’ politicos in th’ beltway when I were referrin’ t’ semantics…they be havin’ their war o’ words trying t’ frame th’ debate.
.
Fer meself, t’ be clear, I be in favor o’ a single-pay system fer everyone. I also be realizin’ tha’ the Congress – as expected, an’ th’ President – which be heartily disappointin’, be lackin’ th’ testicular fortitude t’ just go ahead an’ move t’ single-pay (per’aps in stages). Talk o’ th’ public option be a way t’ try t’ get some cover, an’ maybe get th’ process begun. If th’ numbers wantin’ t’ enroll in th’ public option be overwhelmin’, then they can be sayin’ they have th’ support for single-pay.
.
My fear be tha’ both o’ ‘em will be cavin’ t’ th’ corporate medicine interests and we’ll be gettin’ nothin’ from this process bu’ some electronic medical records (not a bad thing), an’ some token amount o’ self-policin’ from industry (t’ placate – GOD knows why! – th’ GNOP). An’ things will go a merrily rollin’ along until ALL th’ wheels be fallin’ off an’ we be run into a ravine.
.
I be havin’ a terrible hard time abidin’ this sort o’ cowardice an’ shaftin’!
.
How be THA’ fer th’ start o’ a dialogue, lassie?
.
Arrgh!

Which, of course, he paid for. Big difference between that and forcibly extracting money from me or reducing my healthcare to pay for other people’s recklessness or criminality.
.
spob, but if you don’t pool health care expenses individuals will actually have to pay more because of the nature of economies of scale and preventive medicine. Again, that’s why Medicare and Medicaid expenditures alone take up more than 6% of US GDP, while Britain covers all of its people through the NHS for 9.4% of its GDP.
.
You’re essentially saying you’d rather pay more money in order to deprive other people of health care. Honestly, that’s twisted.

spongy ye ink-leakin’ squid –
.
Ye mean t’ be tellin’ me tha’ should ye be wrappin’ yer car round a pole whilst drunk, th’ total amount o dollars it be costin’ fer yer hospital, surgery, xrays an’ lab work, MRI, medications, an’ ongoin’ PT would be bein’ paid solely out o’ yer own pocket??? Ye contributed tha’ much all by yerself???
.
‘r be it just possible tha’ some o’ yer other fellow-insurees be endin’ up pickin’ up a significant portion o’ yer tab?
.
If ye paid it all yerself, why in th’ world would ye be needin’ insurance in th’ first place, mate? Just set yerself up a wee savin’s account an’ put yer own money in! Tha’ way, ye don’t be payin fer anyone else, an’, more important since this hypothetical situation be involvin DUI, no one else be havin’ t’ pay fer ye!
.
ARRGH!

It’d only be morally ri’, ri’, spongy?
.
Arrgh!

I don’t think money should be extracted from me to pay for the common defense of Spob. But guess what.

Well, if she were “electable” I reckon she’d have been “elected.” Whatever vendetta the media may have had, the fact is she ran a crappy campaign and lost, period. For employing Mark Penn alone, it was deserved. Other than health care and her admirable tenacity, I don’t see a lot of diff between a Hill or O admin.
~
In the end, I wish Dean were in the WH. IMO, he’d be far more willing/inclined to threaten the status quo. The media simply disliked Hillary–Dean was deemed an outright threat. That is always the person you want in power.

Oh I mean electable in a general election. I think all the Democratic candidates except Edwards, Gravel and Kucinich probably would have won, although some of them with smaller margins. The media and all of us I think instinctively prefer emphasizing the Obama campaign’s successes at the expense of the McCain campaign’s failures. But actually the McCain campaign made Kerry’s campaign look like a model to imitate.
.
It’s hard to pick my favorite McCain campaign gaffe but I think showing the photo of Walter Reed elementary school in Beverly Hills during his convention speech – giving him a green background again! – was the best.
.
And I totally agree that she ran a bad campaign…

BTW, I should note that jayackroyd always said that electability was a non-issue because McCain was such a bad candidate, even before the economic crisis. He was 100% right and I was 100% wrong.

I’d also add that HRC’s coattails would have been a lot shorter, and god knows that even with our current dem majorities, nothing particularly admirable is getting done. Having Patton at the helm, ramrodding legislation, taking the lead, might overcome those slimmer margins, but …
~
In the end, this is team we’ve got, not the one we might like. The question for dems, in my est., is where do we apply pressure. Do we attack Spob & co. Do we focus on the media. Do we attack spineless/bought & paid for congressional dems or the corp overlords. Perhaps yes to all of the above, but who’s the guy with the most cap, the most pop, and the most power in the entire world? Put the pressure on him and that sh!t rolls downhill. Focusing on the other jokers in the debate without smacking Obama to attn., that will get us nowhere–which is exactly the faux reform one way road we’re on.

jcapan:
.
I think I understand it now. The GOPers are totally insane. That much I understand. But what I didn’t know is the media and politicians speak to the rest of us, and not the other way around.
.
However I can draw more than a few parallels between the Iranian elections and the current state of health care reform.
.
It has to do with the rampant self delusion that they are actually doing health care reform…

Fitty: I’ve come to appreciate blogging/commentary b/c it affords us possibilities to estab. some sense of community, sometimes harsh, sometimes warm, a la reality. But unlike SZ’s chosen methods (detente with those I deem enemies of our interests?) I don’t think this is a dialogue we’re having w/the villagers. They talk at us, they humor us, but at the end of the day their product does not change. If it does, if it tapped into reality (Froomkin) it’d be banished. So, of course, KT is a gracious wonderful human being, we can all agree, but until we’re willing to lay it all on the line (patriotism perhaps) sacrificing the personal for the collective…
~
Likewise, of course, I don’t think our elected officials represent us or our interests. Our democracy is that in name only. Yes, if like Iran, we take to the streets by the millions (if we got off our asses and untapped from the Matrix, they’d do our will), but I’m afraid the net, like the illusory empowerment of voting, is yet another pressure valve, allowing the dirty populists to vent a bit, make them think we’re listening, we’re engaged and then we’ll represent our real electorate in the end, our f’ing patrons. Which we’ve just seen in practice.
~
For me, the rampant self delusion (smack myself stupid) was having another bromance for Obama for a two year period, when of course (I’m freakin’ 39 not a dumbarse kid) I knew he was going to be another WJC, that he was palatable to the estab. guardians. If he weren’t, he’d have been destroyed like Dean or unwelcome altogether (Paul, Kucinich etc).

[...] Karen Tumulty in Time mag about recent polls: Both the NYT/CBS and Wall Street Journal/NBC polls out today have produced some “honeymoon [...]

[...] the insurance companies seem to swaying the Senate. Despite poll after poll after poll shows a vast majority of their constituents want the choice of a public [...]

[...] | Comments (0) | Permalink | Trackbacks (0) | Email This As we have noted here before, two recent polls have shown three-quarters of the public support the idea of giving people the choice of a [...]

[...] administration at 11:00 am by LeisureGuy Karen Tumulty of TIME: As we have noted here before, two recent polls have shown three-quarters of the public support the idea of giving people the choice of a [...]

[...] The poll numbers. As Swampland readers know, the public option has enjoyed strong public support all year. But what surprised some on Capitol Hill was that it continued to do well in a [...]