The USA wants healthcare

[Gob]

A new AP poll finds that Americans who think the law should have done more outnumber those who think the government should stay out of health care by 2-to-1.

"I was disappointed that it didn't provide universal coverage," said Bronwyn Bleakley, 35, a biology professor from Easton, Mass.

More than 30 million people would gain coverage in 2019 when the law is fully phased in, but another 20 million or so would remain uninsured. Bleakley, who was uninsured early in her career, views the overhaul as a work in progress.

The poll found that about four in 10 adults think the new law did not go far enough to change the health care system, regardless of whether they support the law, oppose it or remain neutral. On the other side, about one in five say they oppose the law because they think the federal government should not be involved in health care at all.


http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/09 ... ml?_r=2&hp

[Scooter]

And those same people who think the gov't should have gone further are now poised to cut off their noses to spite their faces by voting Republican or, just as bad, staying at home on election day.

[The Hen]

Ms Bleakley is not the only one who is disappointed that the US doesn't have universal health coverage.

I can't belive that a first world country would put greed in front of citizen's health.

[Andrew D]

And those same people who think the gov't should have gone further are now poised to cut off their noses to spite their faces by voting Republican or, just as bad, staying at home on election day.

Which is exactly what the Republicans want: A nation of people so ignorant and so stupid that they think that noseless faces are good.

[Big RR]

So Andrew, what is your proposal; the democrats are the party that lacked the spine to stand up to the opposition and watered down the healthcare legislation so much that it is doomed to failure and could well be repealed in the future (setting the entire cause of healthcare reform back decades); some of the dems running are even boasting on how they voted against this bill. Other than through the ballot, how do we assure that the dems stand up and representing us--just voting them back in assures they won't.

[rubato]

Ms Bleakley is not the only one who is disappointed that the US doesn't have universal health coverage.

I can't belive that a first world country would put greed in front of citizen's health.

It is not the country which puts profits first it is a Republican party which kills more infants, children, and women in states where they dominate by denying health care.

The country is composed of the same people who are the most generous in the 1st world in personal giving it is Republicans who are happy to kill for profit.

yrs,
rubato

[rubato]

So Andrew, what is your proposal; the democrats are the party that lacked the spine to stand up to the opposition ...

Please exercise the minimum of intelligence required to notice that Democrats have not had the majority which is constitutionally required to enact their own laws.

If you can.

yrs,
rubato

[Big RR]

Gee rubato, you have me there; what would I do without your superior intellect? Please, point to what provision of the consitution requires more than a majority of members of both houses voting to pass legislation (other than in a veto override situation). Perhaps you are referring to senate rules on the number of votes needed to end a filibuster? Of course, this is nowhere to be found in the Consitution--somehow I thought a man of you superior intellect would have been able to muster enough intelligence to read and understand that. Sorry I overestimated you.

What an ass.

[Andrew D]

Well, Big RR, I do not have as dismal a view of either the statute itself or of the Democrats' performance in getting it through as you do. The statue has already put in place a number of what I consider to be good things:

--> Governmental review of health-coverage costs, so insurers cannot just unilaterally raise your premiums whenever and however much they want.

--> No more lifetime total limits on coverage, with annual limits restricted (and to be eliminated by 2014).

--> No denying coverage to children based on pre-existing conditions or excluding such conditions from the coverage.

--> No rescinding insurance policies except in cases of fraud.

--> Dependent adult coverage extended through age 25.

--> A $250 drug-cost rebate for people who hit the Medicare Part D coverage gap (with the gap ultimately to be entirely eliminated).

--> Expanded eligibility for the 340(B) drug discount program.

--> A tax credit for small businesses that provide their employees health insurance -- up to 35% of the employer's cost (going up to 50% in 2014).

--> Increased Medicaid drug rebate.

--> External review process for appealing health plan decisions.

Those strike me as salutary developments, and I don't see how they are "doomed to failure".

As to the Democrats' performance, we have discussed this before. I remain of the opinion that once it became clear that there was no way that a single-payer system, or even a "public option," was going to make it through the Senate, for the Obama administration to demand one might have made for good political theater, but it would have accomplished nothing real.

The real problem here is not what the Democrats have and have not tried to do. The real problem is that we have not given them the power to do it.

In 1932, FDR took office in the midst of an economic calamity. The American electorate also turned control of the House and the Senate over to the Democrats. (The Republicans had controlled the House since the election of 1916 and the Senate since the election of 1918.)

In 1934, the economy was still a catastrophe. Although unemployment had dropped slightly, it still stood at over 20%. But Americans were smart enough not to turn Congress back over to the party whose policies had contributed so greatly to causing the disaster in the first place.

On the contrary, they increased the Democratic majorities in both the House and the Senate. The Democratic majority in the House went up from 72% to 74%. The Democratic majority in the Senate went up from 61% to 72%. (In those days, it took 2/3 rather than 3/5 to break a filibuster in the Senate.)

That is what we should be doing now. Instead of throwing a new President's party overboard at the first opportunity, we should give that party a real chance to implement its policies. As I have said before, I do not know whether Obama's and the Democrats' (well, most of the Democrats') policies will work. But I do know that after eight years of Republican mismanagement (including four years when the Republicans controlled the Senate and six years when the Republicans controlled the House), it is long past time to give the other team the ability to put its policies into place.

Imagine what could have happened if since January of 2009 there had been 72 Democratic Senators. The Democrats could have implemented their policies. We could have at least started toward a single-payer health-care system. We could have genuine, rationally progressive income taxation. (Let's not forget that during the decades of America's greatest-ever economic expansion, the highest marginal tax rate was at or above 70%; and for much of that time, it was above 90%.) We could have real worker protection, real environmental and financial regulation, real investment in public education, etc. In short, we could actually join the community of civilized nations rather than remaining their cousin the barbaric behemoth.

Well, that could still happen. It seems highly improbable -- more's the pity -- but it's not impossible.

And that's what we should be working for. Instead of carping about how the Democrats haven't done everything (or even most things) that they said they wanted to do, we should be trying to enable them to do the things that we want them to do.

[Big RR]

Andrew--I see your point, and we can discuss the merits of the health care bill passed another time, but my real fear is that it will end up costing most people more for the same or even less heathcare coverage than they now have. Between the ridiculous threshold for the cadillac policies (and th attendant penalties), and the lack of price controls, or any alternatives, to level premiums, what we will see is the costs spirraling without service increasing (and why should it, everyone is required to deal with the health insurance cmpanies no matter what they charge). YEs, those with catastrophic illnesses will benefit, as will those who do not have accees to healthcare now, but the majority of people will nto really see much of a benefit and, IMHO, will be paying more for less. And this is setting the stage for a repeal vote. And IMHO that would be the worst thing that could happen to meaningful healthcare reform.

As for your other point, my real concern is that i don't know if the democrats have any ideas they embrace as a party; most of the promises campaigned on are abandoned again and again as they seek to become republicans "lite", and it is this shift I am concerned about. Real change was seen under FDR and the dems, somehow i doubt even if they had 72 senators, that a progressive consensus could be reached. And that's my biggest concern. the republicans, majority orminority, seem to always scream and shout and usually get at least part of their agenda--the dems just seem to sidestep the tough issues.

[Gob]

Interesting quote I read elsewhere;

"Healthcare insurance in the US is like a backpack. You sell people this backpack and tell them it's a parachute. In fact you tell them it's the best goddamn parachute in the whole wide world. It's only when the plane is crashing and they have to jump out, that they find it's only a backpack."