Kennedy’s Great Mistake

“Indeed, this is one very attractive feature that Obama has neglected to sell: the exchanges will mean lower prices, immediately, for everyone who buys health insurance individually now and for all the small businesses that choose to participate.”

I think you hit the nail on the head Joe, he’s not explaining very well how the reforms can truly help small and medium sized businesses, even large ones. People are caught up in half-truths and blatant lies, but if he were to point out that competitively American companies are fundamentally have higher costs of doing business as a result of healthcare costs, he may be able to open people’s eyes to the reality. Add on top that companies ship American jobs overseas where the average healthcare costs to those employees are – wait for it – zero. Ok I may be exaggerating, but there is some truth to it. But I don’t see anyone in the administration highlighting this aspect of healthcare reform.

Joe, I’m not an all or nothing Liberal, but you know what, the media is trying a little too hard to remind us that Kennedy was the deal maker. Every member of the GOP is on the airwaves trying to convince us that if only Ted Kennedy were here we could reach a compromise. Well that is as much a lie as death panels. McCain, Hatch, had an opportunity to negotiate with Kennedy and they chose not to. Now they are preaching, along with every member of the mainstream media, that incrementalism is the way to go now, jettison the public option, because that’s what Teddy would do, do do it for him. Please give me a break. What the GOP fears most in this moment, is that Democrats will unify and become energized by Teddy’s passing, wanting to do one last thing in his name. My God the mere thought that they might come together and do it without them must have them quaking in their boots. So by all means ignore that aspect of the scenario and stick with the “scale it back for Teddy” meme.

Using false analogies is a sign of ignorance. Using someones death to push a political agenda is beneath contempt.

And why are the caught up in the lies? The media has failed miserably in its role as fact finder and purveyor of truth. The sole function of the media has become score keeping and in this role it becomes important to only cover the impact of zingers, in the same way ESPN covers the 3 point shot, it won’t give you the true nature of the game, but it’s the most exciting.

Dee, very good points to your response to my comment, I agree wholeheartedly. My response to your post, I’m particularly bothered by the GOP’s responses, the connotation that if only Ted was there to negotiate with them would make it all possible – sheer disgrace, especially now that its convenient for them to say it after he’s died. As if its kept any of them from manning up and being honest negotiators and offering ideas rather than hysteria. Amazing what people will say over someone else’s grave.

One question about shedding employer based insurance — won’t companies still wind up offering cadillac plans to executives, as perks? Won’t high-valued employees still tell their employers — “I want you to supplement my public plan with something that, say, pays for Layzik eye surgery if I want it?” That’s not an argument against shedding the employer norm, just want to point out that major inequities will still exist and that we will find ourselves asking why, say JP Morgan will buy a cadillac health plan for Jamie Dimon but not its bank tellers.

There are Republicans out there who are going to vote against health reform, without even reading the proposed legislation, and yet, day after day, we are treated to threads here implying that liberals are the ones being unreasonable. There may not be even one Republican who votes for change but I’m sure Klein and KT will find a way to blame the failure on liberals.

Joe Klein:
.
the exchanges will mean lower prices, immediately, for everyone who buys health insurance individually now and for all the small businesses that choose to participate
.
“Immediately”?
.
Really?
.
How do you come to that conclusion?
.
One of the things that frequently irritates your readers about posts like these is the lack of any support for your assertions, Joe Klein.
.
“Think about the pricing difference between a supermarket and a mini-mart”
.
No, think about the pricing differences between long-distance telephone carriers…and the difference in customer service between these giants. Unless there are literally price controls, the “magic of the marketplace” isn’t going to fix this.
.
Unless there is a significantly cheaper alternative, prices will continue to accelerate upwards –un-sustainably.
.
I (and many others) actually agree with you that an employer mandate is counter-productive, except in immediate terms of paying for a program that’s far, far more expensive than it needs to be…because of a lack of public alternative.
.
I know you’re out here to sell us the plan too, Joe Klein, but really…”September is back to school month“?
.
Unlike, say, Ezra Klein (who actually knows what he’s talking about, even though I also sometimes disagree with his conclusions), you obviously don’t really care about this issue from either a personal or a professional basis. Your interest seems to be purely political, and it really shows here.
.
Why don’t you try to really add something to the debate besides Conventional Wisdom punditry (“The lessons from the past are…”), and answer this question:
.
When you look at data from the OECD (warning pdf) that says this:

Total spending on health care, per person, 2007:
.
United States: $7290
Switzerland: $4417
France: $3601
United Kingdom: $2992
Average of OECD developed nations: $2964
Italy: $2686
Japan: $2581

, and you see that we are spending $7290 per person–more than twice the OECD average– on health care, why exactly is that the case?
.
Where is all of that money currently going, Joe Klein?
.
Perhaps if you were able to explain how it is that our country is paying Manhattan housing prices for health care, whilst everyone else is paying Newark prices, you’d have some credibility to assert that “exchanges” composed of insurers like Aetna and Cigna and Wellpoint would “mean lower prices, immediately“.
.
So how does that work, Joe Klein? It’s not like we’re all getting Park Avenue results in terms of health care outcomes, so why is our health care system so wildly, disproportionately expensive?
.
Please, stop with the tired punditry, and do some journalism on this subject.
.
Thanks for reading and considering this, Joe Klein.

On the chance that repetition creates emphasis: As Stuart said, How will “exchanges” without a public option mean “lower prices immediately”? I keep hearing this without any justification. Please explain!

Amazing all the liars in this debate– but you and the proponents of the public option. That either makes you naiive or delusional.

Why should any Republican “honestly” negotiate with the left since the bill is fraught with issues that as people discover buried in the bill, oppose.

Liberals argue that Republicans will vote against the bill without reading it. Did we not have a porkulus bill passed wihtout it having been read and the push for HR 3200 to be passed without being read? Dems voting in ignorance (I know that’s redundant) is righteous legislation but Republicans doing it is tantamount to treason?

I simply do not understand how anyone can think a mandate of some kind is unnecessary, unless serious preconditions remain a virtual disqualifier for health insurance. I understand the problems with mandates, but I’d love to hear from someone who thinks they’re unnecessary. From what I can see, the combination of no mandates, prohibiting the rejection of people with preconditions, and a bad economy only works if people are saints and/or stupid.

(Or maybe repetition also indicates too quick a reply.) Joe, you admit that global competitors have an advantage with their public approaches to health care. But then you say all we need is to, somehow, big-box our existing for-profit insurance, and — ta-dah — everything’s fine. The demand for health care is not and will never be the same as the demand for a toaster.

I think the logic is based on a general faith in the magic power of the market.
.
I’d be interested in knowing how exactly these exchanges would operate. (I suspect some article has already covered this, so if anyone has a link or something that would be great.) Does the exchange have a staff who negotiates with the insurers? Who appoints the staff? Does the exchange only negotiate with a few insurers? Who decides which insurers they negotiate with? If they instead negotiate with many insurers, wouldn’t that dilute their negotiating power with each insurer?
.
BTW, I have been busy lately so I haven’t been obsessively reading about politics like I normally do, but it’s a bad sign that I’m this lost about the details of health care reform. If busy, well-educated people who watch and read at least some news regularly are confused about basic details, the success of the health care reform smear campaigns is less surprising.

Single payer and public option are off the table, so why not get rid of the mandate. F*ck, let’s abandon the whole thing. Let the entire system collapse and try again in 2024.

One of the determiners of the cost of group coverage is the size of the group. The larger the group, the more healthy people available to pay premiums in to cover those who get sick. Insurance exchanges will allow prices to lower because of the larger pool of contributers.

Rose:
.
The mandate to which Joe Klein is referring is the “employer mandate”, not the “individual mandate” that was the subject of controversy during the primary campaign.
.
The employer mandate is to compel employers to buy insurance from the same insurers that they do now, or else pay the government money that goes toward a public option…no, wait, there is no public option anymore.
.
Hmmm..so where does that money go, again?
.
Anyway, Joe Klein means the new laws forcing businesses to buy insurance with no price controls from companies like Aetna, not the new laws forcing uninsured people to buy insurance with no price controls from companies like Aetna.
.
Sounds like a popular plan!
.
People will love it!

“One of the determiners of the cost of group coverage is the size of the group. The larger the group, the more healthy people available to pay premiums in to cover those who get sick. Insurance exchanges will allow prices to lower because of the larger pool of contributers.”
.
I’m surprised this idea is being labeled socialist or fascist by the right as well, since that is the same idea behind single-payer systems. Some of us refer to it as the concept of amortization.

Paul: How does grouping existing carriers into an “exchange” expand the pool of contributors — without mandates? It seems as though you’re saying the pool will increase because the costs will go down because the pool increased.

Is this is what people mean by a “uniquely American” solution: government forced support of the for-profit insurance industry?
We don’t need to reinvent the wheel. We could have better quality care today for every man, woman, and child by changing the financing model. Germany and France manage quite well with a combination of employer and worker contributions to public heathcare programs, with minimal government supplement.All this talk about insurance exchanges and mandates is just an attempts to keep things as they are. Instead of talking about multiple systems — one for children, one for old people, one for poor, and another for employees — we should have a single system that guarantees the same basic coverage for every legal resident. If some employers want to offer extra coverage above that minimum, then let them do so. Let them offer private options to the public plan.

I be b’lievin tha’ll be exact’ wha’ happens, Art, me lad!
.
‘Xcptin when 2024 rolls ’round, we’ll do nothin’ more’n waste exhaustin’ months applyin’ bandaids an’ splints t’ th’ 14-yea- dead market-based corpse, proppin’ it up ag’in, an’ declarin’ reform ‘complished.
.
Tha’ be ‘ow we do things in th’ 21st century, havin’ left all our testicular fortitude b’hind in 1994.
.
F*ck indeedy.
.
Yarr.

I’m not sure which is worse, KT channelling White House talking points on health care, or Klein channelling Blue Dog talking points on health care.
_
While Joe’s talking points are far dumber, its clear that Karen (unlike Joe) actually understands what she’s writing about, which in some ways makes it worse.

Reaching out to Andropov was a big mistake too . . ..

A major factor in all of this, Joe did hit on, but I think without much thought how important it really all is to this issue.

Obama has neglected to sell: the exchanges will mean lower prices, immediately, for everyone who buys health insurance individually now and for all the small businesses that choose to participate.

Choice. In America we have grown accustom to choice. Who we choose as our Physician or Healthcare provider.

Most Americans understand that the Democrat plan has always been one of socialized, “everyone gets the same deal”. It is big government dictating to us what we shall and shall not do.

Unfortunately there is a very large contingent of Americans who still cherish the fact we can CHOOSE to do this or choose not to. Some of us even base our employment with a company based on the benefit package which is offered as part of our employment with that company. Again, choice.

Stuart spouts off all the statistics about all the OECD countries and how “cheaper” it is versus what we have in the United States. But, do they have a choice? Absolutely no. They get to choose from ONE program, and one program only.

Rose is right, rightwing conservatives refuse to give up their faith in the power of the market to solve all our problems or voodoo economics. It’s ironic that they have much more in common with the Marxists they despise than with most free-market economists who DO believe government has a roll (and a stake) in providing services to its citizens. Just like the far right, Marxists were ideologues who fervently believe how you achieve economic success is just as important as meeting your goal. Just think of all those dreay seven-year plans.

Joe, I used the “Costco” argument in on another site. Buying paper towels in bulk is much cheaper than buying an individual roll. I think that is something the public really understands.

And it’s not as if we don’t want expect our government to do nothing. If that was the case, presidents who preside over the nation during bad economic times wouldn’t get the boot.

Whatever you think of Rustydog’s ideas, this is a remarkably well-put rebuttal.
.
To a large degree, these are the ideological issues we’re dealing with.
.
This is not to say that Rustydog is making a comprehensive policy argument, e.g. “the freedom to pay too much is sustainable through X program or incentive”, but these are important ideas to accept or reject in whole or in part explicitly…unless you’re a politician or Joe Klein, I guess.

Which is why the GOP maniacally opposes the public option. Got it. The GOP is in favor of more choice and more options…except when they aren’t.

This is not to say that Rustydog is making a comprehensive policy argument

Perhaps the understatement of the century.

How does grouping existing carriers into an “exchange” expand the pool of contributors — without mandates?
.
My question exactly.

Yeah, I understood it was an employer mandate. And I understand the problems with a mandate and no public option, and no limit (instead of subsidies) on the % of income people have to pay for insurance. But all those problems suggest single-payer, not just the rejection of mandates.
.
If people can be covered with no preconditions, they have little incentive to buy insurance when they’re healthy, especially if efforts to reduce the cost of insurance are ineffective and the economy remains weak.

Thank you stuart for your kind words as usual.
.
I have not disagreed with some type of reform overall to both Healthcare and Health Insurance. In a previous thread I responded back to jsfox with this…
.
1. Pass tort reform in legislation which is mandatory across all states. I believe this one thing will help to drive down costs to hospitals and physicians, and that alone will put pressure on them to lower prices.
.
2. Pass regulatory reform for insurance companies. Do not allow them to terminate someone’s insurance due to pre-existing conditions. This will eliminate the un-necessary bankruptcies that You and others have cited as a reason for single payer / Government Option. Also allow a former employee to continue their benefits, even if they want to pay 100% of the cost. Eliminate COBRA.
.
3. Revise the regulations currently in place for Medicaid, allowing for more people to qualify for this already existing Government backed program.
.
4. Put a price cap on costs with heavy fines for abuse. For any hospital, Doctor or other healthcare provider. No more $1,000.00 per pill charges for Tylenol or other drugs. Shorten the time period to drug patents so other drug manufacturers are allowed to offer a generic brand to a popular brand name medication, sooner.
.
5. Once these changes have been made, then offer a “Public Option” for competition, but have limits as to how much the Public Option can be tax payer subsidized.
.
6. Legislate inter-state and inter-country sales of insurance plans and medications. No longer allow the many restrictions which are currently enjoyed by the insurance industry having State by State protections against competition.
.
Passing these 6 simple proposals will drive down the costs, and still provide the level of care we have come to expect in the United States. AND, it will still provide us with CHOICE!

The ways in which the Democrats have botched this issue are almost too numerous to mention.

Indeed, this is one very attractive feature that Obama has neglected to sell: the exchanges will mean lower prices, immediately, for everyone who buys health insurance individually now and for all the small businesses that choose to participate.

This is merely one example of how Obama has blown it on both substance and messaging. Prior to the Town Hall Jihads launched by the John Birch Wing of the GOP, the central question about the legislation was “How are we going to pay for it?” The frame of the question ironically suggests that reform would be costly and something we cannot afford, rather than a way of saving Americans billions of dollars per year.

Exhibit No. 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,001 that Time magazine is written by some of the world’s most stupid leftists – Time magazine headline declares: “After Kennedy’s Death, Silence from the Pope.”

Earth to Time magazine and Jeff Israely: Kennedy was a nobody to the Catholic church and a sworn enemy of the Catholic church, to boot. Consequently, the “silence from the Pope” should not surprise anyone from the thinking, non-crack addled community. Many people on the planet die each day, and the Pope doesn’t make a statement on behalf of each person who has died.

Also, Israely asserts: “In what may mark the final flicker of Kennedy influence in American Catholicism ….”

Earth to Jeff Israely: There has never been any “Kennedy influence in American Catholicism”, you wishful thinking, leftist fool.

“Joe, I used the “Costco” argument in on another site. Buying paper towels in bulk is much cheaper than buying an individual roll. I think that is something the public really understands.”
.
I personally prefer Sam’s Club or Walmart. And, it still allows free enterprise to continue. How many Costcos are in Russia or China, southernbell?

Actually people in France, Britain and Canada generally have more flexibility to choose physicians because virtually all physicians are working in one system open to everybody. And people visit doctors outside their specific area all the time. They don’t have to worry about their insurance only working at one hospital.
.
It’s true people don’t have much choice in how they pay for their health care – through taxes – but they have a lot of choice in which health care providers they see. Sure, it’s less choice than the ultra-rich have in America, but certainly more choice than the middle-class have.

The greater the market power gathered in the exchanges, the better the chance of controlling health care costs.

Also a better chance of price fixing, more confusion over all the options and fine print of each plan, cost of health care variance due to location of provider…I’m not sold on the concept of ‘the market’ always working to drive down costs, particularly with respect to an irrational product like health care.

(Think about the pricing difference between a supermarket and a mini-mart.)

Hmmm…Most supermarkets offer items from various vendors which compete on quality, quantity, and price point…also, they often offer store or value brand items, which basically taste the same, but are sold at a lower cost.

Joe, by using this analogy, are you now arguing for what amounts to a public option?

Money quote from the above link:

“I see a tremendous opening for store brands to exceed name brands…The consumer understands how much money goes into this marketing and they want alternatives. They don’t believe in the ethic of it.”

…the exchanges will mean lower prices, immediately, for everyone who buys health insurance individually now and for all the small businesses that choose to participate.

The best you can say is ‘maybe’…My opinion is that an exchange by itself won’t put enough downward pressure on insurance pricing and the cost in providing health care.

There is zero logical reason that people should receive their health insurance through their employer. The biggest strategic blunder of Obama and the Democrats (assuming that they want to pass reform legislation) has been their refusal to challenge the fundamental premise of employer-provided health insurance.

Right now, it seems like a forgone conclusion that real health care reform will fail. Why? Because the pockets of insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies are deep enough to bury the activists on the other side. But imagine if the Democrats said to employers: “We will lift this burden from your shoulders.” What would happen?

1. Politically, suddenly it wouldn’t be the little guy against big insurance companies. It would be insurance companies pitted against the rest of corporate America.

2. Democrats could make it a patriotic issue: This will make American factories more competitive. This will make American companies more competitive.

3. Americans would suddenly see employment rise as employers were able to take what they were spending on insurance and hire new workers.

4. Americans would suddenly see their wages rise, as their employers could pass on their savings to their employees.

5. Democrats could promote it as a way to provide a private sector stimulus to the economy in order to drive America out of the Great Recession.

6. Americans would no longer be forced to stay in jobs they hate for their health insurance. Rusty said “Some of us even base our employment with a company based on the benefit package which is offered as part of our employment with that company.” Umm, this is a bug not a feature. People should primarily base their employment decisions on the nature of the work and their monetary compensation. Not tangential benefits packages.

“Your interest seems to be purely political, and it really shows here.”
.
And he can’t even get the politics right. The big problem isn’t the employer mandate, it’s the individual mandate without a public option. Forcing people, especially liberals and libertarians to buy insurance from the private corporations that killed single-payer and a public option will be political suicide for anyone dumb enough to try do it.

Rusty gets at what is really the chasm in the debate between liberals and conservatives.
Let’s say I am a restaurant owner and I think it is an obligation to my employees to provide them benefits. I have to charge enough for my product to make that happen.
Now let’s say a guy opens a restaurant next door and decides he doesn’t like the idea of his employees getting benefits, in fact he pays them so little they qualify for public assistance (which he also complains about paying for). He can make his product a lot cheaper than mine and undercut me solely because I am trying to do right by my employees and Jesus or Allah or the Spaghetti Monster.
A liberal believes a floor should be set where the most evil and deadbeat employer in town is setting the standard all of us have to chase to stay in business. A conservative does not, and thinks freedom to pay employees next to nothing, hire 12 year-olds, serve dog meat if they get a good deal on it, etc. is more important than government-imposed baselines, laws or rules. These things are tyranny to Republicans like Rusty.
There is no getting around this or meeting halfway on what is really a completely different mindset.

My sentence about the evil and deabeat employers should state that liberals believe this guy should NOT be setting the standard the rest of us have to chase.
I just read Rusty’s comment on Tort Reform as well. Tort Reform has been ruled unconstitutional here in Arizona. Now how can you Republicans screech on about freedom and the 10th Amendment and choice and all that and then claim that you would like to see federally mandated Tort Reform shoved down our throats. I am actually rather impartial to Tort Reform, but the hypocrisy on this issue really annoys me.

Some of the other problems with Klein and Pearlstein’s Nixon analogy are the following. There is a Democratic president in power, not a Republican, the Democrats have a huge majority in Congress, and they have 60 votes in the Senate. In other words, there is absolutely no need to compromise with Republicans.
.
What is the point of giving the Democrats such a clear mandate when they are still incapable of doing anything once they have it?

And let’s not forget Massachusetts’ attempts at providing coverage to all. The laws of supply and demand did not work, as adding so many more people to the ranks of the insured did NOT make insurance companies lower their premiums.

Our capitalist models simply don’t work in health care very well because we’re dealing with human beings, not merchandise.

I have thought for a long time that since business and their money runs our government, that the way to get any change enacted was to wait for a situation to become so untenable for big business that they were the ones demanding change.
For instance, I think if the feds did enough of those Bush-era type raids on businesses, published the biggest illegal alien hiring miscreants (for boycotts) and made it too punishing and cost prohibitive for employers to simply hire illegal aliens, we would get real immigration reform in about a week.
I thought we were at the point where the current employer linked health insurance system was so terrible that business would demand it changed. The way they are putting the brakes on it makes me think we might not be there. Maybe Dems should put a Republican plan up for a vote, (e.g. Enzi’s Ten Steps) and name it just that: Let it pass with all Republican and Bush Dog votes. The Republican health plan would break the bank faster and make a bad situation worse. Then when Republicans are sunk even worse and business is even more strained by the weight of health care we try again.

square 1′s post makes a lot of sense.

When talking about health care costs one real mistake Dems and Obama have made is not constantly harping on the fact that one reason take-home wages are flat is because employers have to keep spending more on benefits, mainly health insurance.

OR,
.
We could work together, in a bipartisian – tripartisian – quadpartisian way to come to a consensus that everyone can agree upon.
.
You know, something that ALL Americans can agree with and accept.
.
Not-withstanding choice in this matter, the 2nd problem with our Democrat proposed plan is that the Democrats who penned the bill in question have made it so complicated to read and comprehend the average American truly does not understand it at all.
,
1,000 page bills for this type of issue is absurd.
.
To quote Conyers I believe it was who said;
.
“During his speech at a National Press Club luncheon, House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.), questioned the point of lawmakers reading the health care bill.

“I love these members, they get up and say, ‘Read the bill,’” said Conyers.

“What good is reading the bill if it’s a thousand pages and you don’t have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?”
.
Well Mr Conyers, I DO want you, my elected representive to READ THE FRACKING BILL!!!
.
Not only READ it, but also understand it before you say “Aye” or “Nay”.

Rustydog:
.
In the absence of a Medicare For All plan (single-payer), I support every single one of your proposals, although I need a much more specific plan for “tort reform”, not just some generic “reform” statement –the point of tort being to protect private individuals against bureaucracies, institutions and systems which calculate the cost of screwups against the cost of lawsuits when assessing the necessity of quality control.
.
I’m also not sure what you mean by “limits as to how much the Public Option can be tax payer subsidized“, but as long as the American Plan can bulk negotiate medicine and hospital costs on behalf of all of its tens of millions of policy-holders simultaneously (huge volume discount), and as long as any individual and business can easily sign up, I’ll bet we can agree on an outline.
.
Does anybody have serious problems with Rustydog’s individual proposals (he may be leaving a few things out)?

rusty,

Even though I don’t agree with all of your points, I think your 13.3 post is one of the best concerning health care options. I am just disappointed that Republicans are offering this as an alternative plan.

One of the quickest ways to have jobs shipped overseas is to have a strict mandate for what employers have to provide. Whether or not you think that’s worth that price is a different story. Just sayin’.

Yes, the Kennedy family has never been in good standing with the Vatican, and has actually openly postured and flaunted this to publicize this divide, especially JFK, fearing reprisal at the polls were he to appear too close to the much-hated Catholic church to hold the Presidency. Whether this was indicative of the Kennedys’ actual viewpoints or mere posturing to appease a bigoted America remains unclear. However, Kennedy was not an influential Catholic politician, he was an influential politician who so happened to discreetly subscribe to the Catholic faith. Why the Vatican would ever feel compelled to issue a statement with regard to his passing is beyond me. There are 1.2 billion Catholics, worldwide. The Kennedy name will only get you so far beyond American borders.
~
With that said, though, Textee, how is this article leftist? It’s simply bad journalism, not ideological from what I can gather. Israely obviously has no understanding of the Vatican and simply wished to incite controversy. Typical journalism today. Write a story on a fabricated self-serving controversy, then take credit for illuminating this non-existent controversy.

You are the worst kind of idiot, a stupid one. I know you think it probably means the same thing but there are subtle distinctions. Ignorance means you don’t know, but you could learn, stupidity means no matter how much you lean your won’t know. But an idiot doesn’t know what he doesn’t know and can’t learn what he doesn’t know and is two damned stupid to know the difference.

Thank you fhmadvocat for your response.
.
Did you mean “I am disappointed that Republicans are NOT offering this as an alternative plan”?
.
I’m a little confused as to what you meant. If inserting “not” into your sentence, then I whole-heartedly agree with you.
.
To stuart:
As to your question on “limits”, I believe that any Public Option should be cost-neutral. Meaning that the amount of money one pays for the Public Option Insurance Plan by participants will cover all costs. Tax-payer should not or will not be burden with subsidizing the Public Option Plan, which in and of itself would make it an unfair playing field for the Private Insurers.
.
Tort reform should not set quality standards or outcomes. If I am understanding your definition, you believe Tort should be some form of quality standards. In my experiences in healthcare and assessing quality of care and outcomes, this needs to be a major part of any healthcare organizations plan of care. Tort in my opinion only limits the amount of money any individual may get for “screw ups” for the care they received. Negligence is usually the cause, not the specific procedure had it be followed properly to begin with.
.
People who have had harm should be compensated for their loss, but at a figure that is sane and rational, Not in the form of a payment that equals a lottery bonanza.

I have to disagree here. Democrats and Obama have been making this case for some time. Unfortunately, without the media functioning like a megaphone, the real story doesn’t get out. that’s why we can thank them for all these lies, they have helped Republicans promote their propaganda but find the truth too boring to cover.

Joe Klein:
.
Why isn’t the good faith, patriotic policy discussion that Rustydog (a movement conservative) and I (an n2 liberal) are having anywhere to be found in our political press corps?
.
Is it perhaps because we then wouldn’t need intermediaries like your colleagues to insert themselves into the process and stupidly split the baby in half between our positions, thus proving their “Objectivity” and “Pragmatism” and “Seriousness”?

Does anybody have serious problems with Rustydog’s individual proposals (he may be leaving a few things out)?
.
Except the inter-country competition idea for insurance, no. And I still think a mandate is necessary, but a cap on what people are obligated to pay needs to be implemented along with the mandate. Obviously expanding Medicaid and having a public option reduce the problems associated with a mandate.
.
Ironically my rationale for supporting a mandate – it’s a bad idea to count on people being saints and/or sinners – is very conservative.

“for everyone who buys health insurance individually” .
.
Sorry Mr. Klein, that’s a huge miss on your part. If you have a health issue, you can’t buy individual health insurance at any price. If you are over 45, you most likely have at least one health issue.

Discreetly Catholic, with Rose Kennedy famously going to mass twice every single freakin day, that’s a neat trick. Kennedy energized the Catholic vote but responded to questions about the Pope as any potential president should. You know they do take an oath to uphold the constitution and unlike the GOP who want to bring their god into every piece of legislation, Kennedy believed in the separation of church and state. But there wasn’t a catholic home that didn’t display a photograph of Kennedy framed on their wall next to the photos of Jesus and a wooden crucifix. Portraying him as estranged from his religion is more about the GOP’s propensity to revise history to suit their agenda. This is just one more example of that fact free politics the GOP loves to practice.

Do you mean the auto jobs that moved to Canada with the government provided health care?
.
Actually my favorite argument for universal coverage is it will help us with capitalism in a big way. The biggest job growth in the last two decades has not been with fortune 500 companies but with small business. Small business is shafted by our current system where their 10 employees cost a ton more to cover per person than mega corporation with 10,000 employees.
.
You also will have people more willing to be entrepreneurs and quit their dead end jobs if they know that they can’t be medically bankrupted and/or unable to pay a bill if their child or spouse comes down with a dreadful illness. How many people are in jobs they shouldn’t be in just because of insurance? Think of the drain that causes our economy. How many great products, services, inventions have never hit the market place in this country because the person was chained to their old employer because of a pre existing condition, or fears about insurance.

Rusty -

You need to explain why having a Public OPTION is not adding to choice. No body is shutting down the private insurers they’ll still be there. Your insurance company will still be there. If you do not like the government in your life and want nothing to do with anything the government runs do not choose the Pubic Option. If you want to choose the Public OPTION then yes there will be rules, just like there are rules now with your present insurance company. And speaking of choice unless you have some truly gold plated plan your choices are already limited. You cannot see a Dr. out of your plan unless pre approved. (50 50 shot here) You cannot choose to get some medical treatment unless your insurance company approves it. And if all of a sudden you get sick and THEY determine this was a pre-exiting condition do you have the choice of stopping them from dropping you?

I find this whole choice argument rather specious since most health insurance companies dictate to you and me what they will and will not do already. What Drs you can and cannot see already. Yes you have a somewhat limited choice of not going with them, but it is limited.

Please, Dee, stop making excuses for failure. Obama and the Dems have NOT been making this case. They have NOT proposed dismantling the employer-based health-insurance scheme. They have NOT supported single-payer. They have NOT insisted on a public option. They have NOT insisted that ALL Americans be able to buy into a public option. They have NOT insisted on using the full purchasing power of the government to negotiate better rates. They have NOT challenged the frame that reform will be costly. And they have NOT rolled out an aggressive marketing campaign to sell their ideas.
.
Here are a few questions:
.
1. How much do U.S. businesses spend per year on administering health insurance plans?
.
2. How many people do U.S. businesses employee to administer health insurance plans?
.
3. On average, how much would an average American’s wages go up if her employer did not provide health insurance?
.
4. On average, how many U.S. jobs are transported overseas per year to avoid paying health care costs?
.
Do you think that maybe, just maybe, if the White House lined someone up to appear on the cable news shows every day and every night, and on the Sunday talk shows, for the past six months that the American people might have an even greater appreciation of the value of a government-provided health-insurance system?

trifecta55:
.
Really well said.

Don’t pat Joe Klein on the back just yet. Ask him exactly how an exchange will lower prices.
.
Then just wait. And wait. And wait some more.
.
The problem is there is nothing in an exchange that will inherently drive prices down. Believing that just because there is compeition that people will pay smaller premiums is frought with unicorns and pixie dust. But Joe Klein can’t possibly admit that or he actually doesn’t realize it which is worse Which is why there is a need for a public option inside the exchanges because its the only mechanism to actually help bring down costs. But see Joe Klein has said repeatedly that the public option is “controversial” so he can’t change his mind now. He is committed after all to not looking like a liberal and we all know that public option just SCREAMS liberal (even though over 60 percent of Americans support one in just about every single poll) So he will sell the exchanges like hell and hope nobody notices that if 10 high priced insurance companies compete side by side you will end up having the choice of quality not price.
.
But you just watch, long after this debate is over and a bill is signed into law one way or another, Joe Klein will “discover” shortly after just how important a public option is. But as usual it will be too late.

trifecta, you make several good points. However, one of them reminds me of what companies like Wal-Mart have done, which is offloading their employees onto welfare while compensating them by…keeping wages the same. What I mean is that lots of companies instead of providing coverage themselves (which they were capable of doing before) will dump their employees into the government plan, creating an unnecessary build up and strain on the system.

Sorry, I thought I hit reply to this comment in the right way. Also, I do in fact think your statement about it encouraging more people to be entrepreneurs is very intriguing. I guess neither of us will know until it’s put in place.

[...] Kennedy thought his greatest mistake was rejecting a health care deal with Nixon. [...]

Dee
~
I said: However, Kennedy was not an influential Catholic politician, he was an influential politician who so happened to discreetly subscribe to the Catholic faith.
.
To which you replied: Discreetly Catholic, with Rose Kennedy famously going to mass twice every single freakin day, that’s a neat trick.
.
To which I would subsequently reply by asking what the tendencies of Rose Kennedy have to do with my assertions on the tendencies of Ted Kennedy?
~
Furthermore, going to Mass is in no way indicative of whether or not someone discreetly subscribes to their faith. Naturally, it should come without saying that a Catholic attends Mass. This in no way speaks to whether or not they are open about their faith or to whether they actually adhere to Catholic doctrine, which, with respect to the Kennedy family, is at best on only half of Catholic teachings.
~
You also said: But there wasn’t a catholic home that didn’t display a photograph of Kennedy framed on their wall next to the photos of Jesus and a wooden crucifix.
As an ardent Catholic myself, thank you ever so much for your insights into the Catholic community. Clearly you do not know anything about Catholicism. While JFK was in some ways popular with Catholics, if for no other reason than him being the first Catholic president, he was certainly not a Catholic hero. It is one thing to believe in separation in church and state. It is quite another to bow to anti-Catholic bigotry by giving a major speech on how the Vatican will not guide your decisions. This should have been a given, yet his ambitious indulgence of America’s prejudice was a major setback for Catholics in the US. Essentially he was asking America to accept him in spite of his Catholicism. But, you know, you’re the expert on Catholic culture, you know all the Kennedy pictures and “photos of Jesus and a wooden crucifix.” How very nuanced, Dee.

[...] Kennedy’s Great Mistake At least, Kennedy thought so: his refusal to cut a deal with Richard Nixon in 1971 on universal health insurance. [...] [...]

[...] « PreviousHealth Reform: The Outlook Next »26 Lies About Health Reform Kennedy’s Great Mistake Posted by Joe KleinFriday, August 28, 2009 at 8:48 am 63 Comments • Trackback (1) • Related Topics:ted kennedy At least, Kennedy thought so: his refusal to cut a deal with Richard Nixon in 1971 on universal health insurance. (Well, it was his greatest public policy mistake.) As Steve Pearlstein writes in the Washington Post today, there are lessons in that for Democrats. I think Pearlstein’s pres read more [...]

[...] to deploy it, but many others have followed suit, including Ezra Klein of the Washington Post, Joe Klein of Time, J. Lester Federer of Newsweek, Fox and Orrin Hatch, and George Stephanopoulos on [...]