(0 comments)
Ezra Klein highlights an important point about the baffling health care debate going on in Washington right now:
There are elements of health reform that are important, but will be sharply unpopular. Almost 60 percent, for instance, oppose efforts to tax generous health care benefits. I’d guess that when people hear about penalties in the individual mandate, that policy will prove controversial too. Luckily, there are some elements of health reform that meet with overwhelming public approval. Among them is the public plan. According to the poll, 76 percent of Americans believe it’s either “extremely important” or “quite important” to “give people a choice of both a public plan administered by the federal government and a private plan for their health insurance.”
Much in health reform is unpopular. The choice of a public insurance option isn’t. And given the many hard and controversial choices that will need to be made to achieve health reform, it’s not clear to me that the Democrats can afford to lightly remove the genuinely popular aspects of the legislation.
Leave a Reply
Fast Food
Official Gingrich-Cain 2012 response to Rick Santorum’s homophobia: “Rick, Rick, Rick. Don’t you know that the anti-gay bigotry only carries water if you have a few failed straight marriages under your belt?” Follow all their other words of wisdom here. (0 comments)Ron Paul Quote of the Week: Honest Rape
Here’s Grandpa Fustypants on rape and abortion:“If it’s an honest rape, that individual should go immediately to the emergency room, I would give them a shot of estrogen.”
via (4 comments)Unhinged vagina-shackler on Komen’s volte face:Cancer is Cancer! Aboration is Aboration!
(0 comments)Since it’s Mitt Romney week everywhere, I figured I’d post this op-ed by an ex-Mormon, which is a pretty interesting take at the institutional culture of the LDS church. Not much to say about it, but it’s definitely worth 5 or so minutes of your time. (0 comments)Why Bipartisanship Is Impossible, In One Sentence
When one party climbs back to power by promising action on the economy, does nothing on it, and instead spends literally all its time trying to hurt the other party. (0 comments)New From The Gingrich-Cain Front
Newt rants about cable movies he doesn’t like, and flips out when Herman tries to seize control. Catch all the fun here. And the main site is here, as always. (0 comments)Headline of the Week: Making Rapeanade
Leave it to TBogg:
(0 comments)Rick Santorum Suggests That When Life Gives You Rape, You Should Make Rapeanade Back when I was in junior high and the Clinton Impeachment was going on, I could hardly have imagined that Clinton would be used as an excuse for wrongdoing by Republican leaders. But that’s where we are. Interesting, isn’t it? (0 comments)Catch up with the official Gingrich-Cain “Great Statesmen” series over at @GingrichCain12. (0 comments)Only 65% of White Americans Have a Favorable Opinion of MLK Jr
…with a whimper. Drum is worth reading on this. I think he’s just got to be the most overhyped and overcovered guy who never managed better than third place since…Joe Lieberman? (0 comments)Mitt Romney's Overwhelming Inauthenticity
It’s amazing to me that Mitt Romney brings up France as a scary comparison point to himself so often when he spent years there and speaks the language. It’s such a minor point, but telling. Of all the people running for president, Mitt Romney has to be the most aware that the rightwing caricature of ... (0 comments)Mother Teresa Doesn't Deserve Sainthood
Case in point. It’s amazing how all the famous/respected Catholic figures from the 1990s have turned out to be incredibly corrupt, isn’t it? I’m sure they’re somehow connected. Of course, as I’m a Protestant I know little about such things. (1 comments)I Fixed It! Ban Sitting Politicians From Running For Another Office
Wonkette reminded me of one of the provisions that I want to write into my fantasy Constitution:No person who holds any elected office shall be permitted to seek election to any other office until he shall have permanently vacated his current post.
(2 comments)The Kardashians want their own magazine?
Unintentionally hilarious: “Bachmann, 55, told a small group of supporters Tuesday night that she was staying in the presidential race…”What other kind of group of Bachmann supporters could there be?(0 comments)Santorum Finishes #2, Sliding Down In The Final Minutes To Lose To Romney
DOWN THE VINE
Syndication
To overcome the legions of lobbyists for the healthcare, insurance, and drug companies, supporters are going to have to contact their elected officials almost weekly. If we do not, then the lobbyists will rip and dilute anything that is passed until it is worthless.
Let's pay attention to the whole question, shall we?
"In any health care proposal, how important do you feel it is to give people a choice of both a public plan
administered by the federal government and a private plan for their health insurance––extremely important, quite important, not that important, or not at all important?"
Extremely important …………………….. 41
Quite important …………………………… 35
Not that important ……………………….. 12
Not at all important ……………………… 8
Not sure …………………………………… 4
Of course it's important to have a choice between the public and private! We wouldn't want to force everyone into a public plan--right? Does this mean _all_ those people who think having the choice is important are in favor of creating a new public plan? Hardly. And even if they're familiar with the issues involved and oppose the creation of a public plan, as I do, would that make intoroducing the new public plan as a choice "unimportant" ? Hardly. I think it's of grave import--and a bad idea.
So this question is worded in such a way that, for at least two reasons, even those who oppose a public health plan would consider the choice of it "important". That makes it useless.
sorry G but I think you're grasping at straws on this one. why would people think that it would be "important" to include a choice between a public plan and a private plan if they didn't support the idea of a public plan?
from the wording of the question, it's pretty clear to me that 75% of people believe that it is either "Quite Important" or "Extremely Important" to "give people a choice of both a public plan administered by the federal government and a private plan for their health insurance" "[i]n any health care proposal".
As I said, I too think the choice is very important--vs. e.g. forcing everyone into a new single-payer system, but this doesn't mean I'm in favor of new public plans.
A useful question would ask something like : "Are you in favor of a public health plan administered by the federal government, provided everyone has a choice between it and existing private plans."
I highly doubt you'd get a 76-20 split. Perhaps 60-30.
you're evading the text of the poll. 75% of the respondents said that it is important to include a public option choice in the health care package put forward by congress. we can have our disagreements on the merit of that proposition but i think you're obfuscating the results of this poll
Nice try, Gherald, but you're twisting things to suit your own position. If you're going to argue for your position, at least do it honestly and state your reasons. Why do you not think that having a competitvely priced menu of insurance options from which we can all choose, including the plan congress can choose, is not a good idea to consider? My small business employer offers a plan that I choose not to buy into, and instead buy my own independently. The more choices, the more competitive, the better the prices and services. What's not to love?
PChun: Why do you not think that having a competitvely priced menu of insurance options from which we can all choose, including the plan congress can choose, is not a good idea to consider
It's better than some ideas, like single-payer, which is why it is important that people be given a choice.
Separate from this, I have reasons for opposing the creation of a public plan, which I've posted about numerous times. You can check out my blog's label: healthcare, but in particular this post.
i think implementing a competitive public option is the only way to achieve healthcare reform. short of that, we'd probably be better off doing nothing. if the only thing we're left with at the end of the day is an individual mandate that forces people to buy into private insurance, we might as well have done nothing.
What we should do is eliminate tax breaks for employer plans, which is a boondoggle for the middle class and regressively unfair to those who don't work for an employer that provides health insurance. This would put everyone on an equal footing, and make it easier for lower income workers to get the care they need on the open market (because the care of those making more than them would no longer be subsidized with tax breaks).
And we should set up new health insurance exchanges, where HMOs blindly bid on providing various levels of service, and consumers choose. This would effectively transition us away from employer-based healthcare, which is a relic of the industrial age.
I think you're crazy to say a federally-administered health plan is the only solution and that without one we'd be better off doing nothing…
if you want a good example of doing nothing being better than doing something, look at medicare part D. it was the pharmaceutical lobby's wet dream. who wouldn't love dumping hundreds of billions of dollars directly into their pockets, without any ability on the govt's part to negotiate for lower rates.
the same thing will happen if we get the worst kind of health care bill imaginable. want to know what that bill would look like? look at what the insurance companies are ASKING for. they basically want an individual mandate to buy their insurance product. who wouldn't love that? keep selling the same shit and simply add millions to the insurance rolls and have the government pour hundreds of billions of dollars into your pocket for the privilege of letting the ppl in.
I went to your site Gherald and looked at your material. The only thing I really want to know is what your connection with the insurance industry. Your content would indicate that you either represent the insurance industry, or are employed by them. The points brought up in your sight all seem to indicate that the only interest for the health care industry is in the profit of the insurers. What you cannot seem to grasp is the fact that millions of Americans cannot get any type of coverage and are so feed up with the insurance companies that they are close to rebellion. And if that happens, with all the other problems that cooperate America has helped bring about, we will be in a bigger mess than ever.
I have no connection to the insurance industry. An immediate family member is an R.N., and several years ago I did IT work for a pharmacy. That's as close as I am to this.
:: What you cannot seem to grasp is the fact that millions of Americans cannot get any type of coverage..
What's stopping them?
"What's stopping them?" Where to start? For one, individually-purchased health insurance is insanely expensive. Also, millions of ppl wouldn't be accepted because of some kind of preexisting condition. It's a pretty long list…
Mine costs $800/month for me and my husband, YIPES!! My best friend pays $1,000+/month, cash. Many many retirees from large companies were promised lifetime health coverage, but the costs are crippling even these large companies. Something's going to change, has to. This isn't an old issue of insurance charity to the poor. It's a big issue for everyone. Maybe not for Gherald personally right now, but I bet he knows many that are impacted and need this reform. (PS:Thanks for this discussion and to all of you, Gherald included! Really appreciate this way of connecting with everyone and sharing info and opinions.)
(meh, I had a few paragraphs in response but the comment system ate it. Also, it's borking my links with extra forward slashes)
I usually cut and paste from word, and if you post to long of a response the system goes bonkers. I sold insurance and looked at trying to sell it again. Unfortunately I have ethical standards and cannot lie to people enough to earn a living that way. If you ever want to have an idea how bad it is, in trying to buy insurance, ask an agent to you home, tell him you have diabetes and what would be a ball park quote. Then you will have a faint idea of what so many people have to go threw.
Via memeorandum, I see the NYT has a poll that shows a similar 72-20 split, with this question:
68. Would you favor or oppose the government offering everyone a government administered
health insurance plan — something like the Medicare coverage that people 65 and older
get — that would compete with private health insurance plans?
This is better wording--and even allowing for the left-leaning house effect of NYT polls, more support than I expected.
good find. that tracks the other polls that i've seen that show a consistent well of support for a public plan at around 3/4s of respondents. my sense is that people (like me) have seen how horribly a private insurance market has performed and therefore are receptive to the idea that a public plan needs to be put in place to drive competition with private insurers
i especially enjoyed this bit: "The poll found that most Americans would be willing to pay higher taxes so everyone could have health insurance and that they said the government could do a better job of holding down health-care costs than the private sector." Me too.
WASHINGTON -- Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean says there can be no meaningful health care overhaul in America without a public option for individuals not now covered.
Dean, a medical doctor and former chairman of the Democratic Party, said in a nationally broadcast interview that the strong Republican opposition to the plan that President Barack Obama is pushing doesn't surprise him. Dean said, "We've had a government system for 50 years. The Republicans didn't like it then. It's called Medicare."
He also said in an interview on NBC's "Today" show that he can't imagine any health care overhaul without a government-funded option, asking "why would you put a trillion dollars into something that hasn't worked."
Dean maintained that "the only way you could really reform the health system and bring down the costs … is give Americans a choice between a public and private system."
This is a topic that will see every conceivable road block put in the way of any sensible program. The insurance industry alone will spend billions of dollars to block it, just as they did last time. Just as the financial industry is spending billions to block any reform of the market place. Until the power of these numerous will paid lobbyists can be controlled the peoples voice will be drowned out by those of the paid for speakers.