On Xmas eve, healthcare reform by the numbers
On this Christmas eve, US Senators representing two thirds of the American public voted in favor of the most sweeping reform of healthcare in our nation's history.
So, first point: There was nothing anti-democratic here. This was a broad daylight, all-eyes-on-you decision by a Democratic Party that is currently functioning with a massive mandate.
More numbers? By now, everyone understands that this reform package is a muddle at best, a mess at worst. It's too expensive and doesn't do enough, and that's a lousy combination.
So, second point: The fix needs fixing, and that will come. Despite rhetoric from the Right, legislation of this kind isn't carved in stone.
Cost containment will have to follow, or the Chinese will stop collecting our IOUs.
And finally, it should by now be clear to everyone that the peculiar dynamics of this Democratic moment in history are profoundly centrist.
The one 'liberal' aspect of this bill is that it will likely be very expensive. (I'm very skeptical about the CBO's report.)
Responding to political necessity, reform backers jettisoned every single progressive standard, from single payer to the public option.
And President Barack Obama never objected.
Mr. Obama comes from the US Senate; and true to his political roots, he is neither a culture warrior nor a fire-burner.
He is an incrementalist, a tweaker, a step-by-step manager.
With Harry Reid running the US Senate and a very powerful Blue Dog wing, what you see is what you get.
In this case, Democrats moved healthcare reform farther than any other political movement in the last half-century.
Will that be enough for America?
Will Mr. Obama's temperate demeanor assuage some of the hostility from conservatives? Or will it merely inflame impatient liberals, who want bigger steps faster?
The biggest number in all these calculations is 2010, when once again the American people will chime in and tell Washington if it's on the right track.
posted by Brian Mann @ 12/24/2009 04:53:00 PM
12 Comments
12 Comments:
60+ House Democrats say "ANY" Health Bill with No Public Option is "Unacceptable" Here is the link to the article...http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/60-house-democrats-say-an_b_403243.html
No mention of how NY got completely shafted in this bill's medicaid formula to the tune of 5 billion a year (the House bill would have saved NY 4 bill; this one costs NY 1 bill a year). All while Nebraska and Louisana got sickening sweetheart deals.
Where the hell where Gillibrand and Schumer during the negotiations? For them to support this atrocity is unacepptable. It's Christmas Eve I might give Gillibrand a little bit of a pass seeing as she unlike Schumer is not a member of Senate Finance committee and has low seniority. The Senate bill is one of the worst pieces of modern legislation to come out of the Senate with all of its sweetheart deals and inequities. And no state is treated more poorly than NY is.
Hopefully NY's House delagation will declare this bill dead on arrival and accept nothing less than a Medicaid formula that treats NY the same as all other states.
Two-thirds of the Senate representing 45% of the nation.
All major polls show 55%+ America AGAINST this kind of health care reform. Seniors over 63% against it.
Why won't the senators, themselves, sign on to it for their own families?? You know, these enlightened 60.
What's wrong with this picture?
Other questions you missed:
If people are dying (according to Harry Reid) without this legislation, why are they waiting 4 years for the benefits to take effect? (Answer: because it's not about health care, it's about the democratic takeover of America).
Why do the taxes start immediately and the benefits are on a 4 year delay? (Answer: to make the CBO scoring hide the REAL cost of the boondoggle).
Why don't the benefits kick in until after Obama's second term run? (Answer: because this will sink the American economy, but it will be too late then).
Why don't the senators want to sign on for their own families? (Answer: because they don't want to wait in line to see a doctor, or be subject to a death panel).
Pretty smart senators we have, huh!
A couple of things.
Yes, the $ aspects of this are dodgy.
There are a lot of problems with the cost containment aspects of this bill and lawmakers will have to revisit that.
They won't have a choice.
My guess is that to insure tens of millions more Americans we will need higher taxes.
Which is a cost-benefit we'll debate (noisily, I assume) in the coming months.
Death panels: Nonsense. Cut it out.
There is plenty of stuff in this bill to complain sensibly about, but death panels aren't one of them.
The suggestion is a complete and utter fiction.
Regarding the polls: I refer you to this post from earlier in the month.
http://northcountrypublicradio.org/blogs/ballotbox/2009/12/do-americans-really-want-healthcare.html
The suggestion that 55% of Americans oppose healthcare reform is factually wrong.
It's true that most Americans oppose THIS bill, but a quarter of those people dislike it because it doesn't go far enough.
--Brian, NCPR
Brian:
You are correct that a majority of Americans oppose THIS BILL, and not health care reform.
I am for health care reform in the form of tort reform, take-away unfunded mandates, and health savings accounts, to name a few.
Real clear politics has an average of nine major polls including CNN, NBC, ABC, Quinnipiac, Fox, Gallup and others.
RCP (real clear politics) puts the average at 51% oppose, 38.4% approve, and I believe it is referring to THIS BILL, which means that some may oppose it for not going FAR ENOUGH.
Here's the link. Merry Christmas!
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_democrats_health_care_plan-1130.html
"My guess is that to insure tens of millions more Americans we will need higher taxes."
And Brian isn't it a fact, not a guess, that NOT to insure tens of millions more Americans means we'll need higher taxes as well, to cover all the people thrown off insurance rolls and into emergency rooms who come in with more expensive conditions because they couldn't afford preventive care?
I don't agree with all the particulars of this bill, but it is deficit neutral (one of its problems, I think, because the benefits don't kick int until 2014), and I thought a main point of the whole exercise was to keep longterm costs from more and more people needing ER care from materializing.
Or am I missing something.
This is nothing more than a HUGE, unConstitional and obscenely expensive power play. Those in favor will bear the guilt for bankrupting what remains of our economy. All will be forced to play or pay or go to jail.
I'm amazed anyone can see any good in this. It isn't health care reform, it's the largest voting block ever created in the United States.
The much ignored story isn't public option v no public option or death panels. Rather it is how one state got completely shafted with this bill.
http://www.wgrz.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=73031&provider=gnews
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2009/12/22/2009-12-22_health_care_reform_bill_numbers_for_new_york_state_are_sickening.html
NY has to cover 50% and will still cover 50% of its medicaid costs under this bill. Other states will have 100% of additional medicaid costs covered by the federal government for the 1st three years and between 85% to 95% thereafter. NY won't get these funds because we already provide the Medicaid coverage that will be mandated if this bill is passed.
So we're being penalized by the federal government for expanding coverage to medicaid just as the federal government is telling other states to expand coverage. The House bill, however, treats all states the same. But the Senate bill is apparently acceptable because NY isn't a "swing state". Does anyone believe Obama would let say Ohio or Florida get whacked like this?
Where were Schumer and Gillibrand?
Change you can believe in? I don't think so.
Looks like I miassed part of the second link:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2009/12/22/2009-12-22_health_care_reform_bill_numbers_for_new_york_state_are_sickening.html
Not done yet. There's a conference committee to deal with, so NY could get unshafted.
And Brian, I have to disagree with your math lesson: The number that counts is the 40 million uninsured Americans, and the tens of millions more on shifting ground because of health-care bills. Will it help them or won't it?
To make this all about the 2010 elections is to dehumanize and cheapen the debate.
And Brian, if you want to see some numbers that really count, check out this National Geographic health care chart featured on Andrew Sullivan's blog: http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/12/chart.html
It really says all you need to know about our wonderful private health care system.
Post a Comment
<< Home