Everyone knows the healthcare bill will suck, but that doesn't make it useless

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

A lot of discussion here has taken the form:

"X is a positive development in the senate."

"Yeah, but the bill sucks."

Of course it sucks. We have known for a long time it was going to suck.

When five committees write bills and all five of them suck that means the final result is likely to suck.

There will be no speedy or widely available government insurance option. There was never going to be one.

And as public policy everything other than single-payer is a byzantine circle-jerk, in some ways designed to fail.

All true.

That does not, however, moot the importance of differences between sub-optimal outcomes.

Of course it sucks, but it matters whether the bill sucks donkey or just sucks pony.

(See, there was a pony!)

I am genuinely pissed about the whole deal while simultaneously pleased and excited by the possibility the final bill may exceed my expectations.

The difference between a trigger (imperfect) and an opt-out (imperfect) is HUGE, even though both options are sub-optimal. The difference between a weak PO and no PO is HUGE.

These little wrinkles in which sort of sucky plan we get will matter a lot in the likely shape of American health ten years from now.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

1. Some dumbass unrecc'd the HEADLINE

There wasn't even time to glance at the actual post.

I know it's a lot to ask that people get a sense of the OP before unrecc'ing, but geez...

[derby378]

3. It wasn't me

But some of us had real hope that a strong public option would see the light of day. It feels like the insurance companies and their cronies who stormed City Hall are being rewarded for bad behavior, and that doesn't set well with me.

[villager]

6. Unrec fever is strange and pervasive 'round here, but your point is well-taken

Additionally, it enables less sucky additions/changes to the bill -- a la Medicare -- further down the line.

Plus, in terms of managing perceptions, it allows Obama to pursue more of his legislative agenda.

Some of which, we can hope, is still nominally progressive...

[joeycola]

8. I will give a REC but I am sure

the unrec folks will overwhelm this discussion.

[Joe S]

28. Uhh.....

...what wuz da OP about again?

[dionysus]

2. maybe peope are sick of the daily "everyone knows the adminstration sucks at everything" threads

saying everyone agrees with you is rather funny when it's obvious they don't... :shrug:

[nightrain]

4. we've been shoved under the bus by the monied and bought off, but it will be termed a "success"

[joeycola]

5. I think are a lot of people will very disappointed/angry -out

there in the general public.

[ProSense]

7. What nonsense. People have fought to make this bill stronger despite tremendous opposition and you

think this stupid simplistic assessment makes sense? Union leaders, progressive elected official and grassroots organization don't think the bill will "suck," and they continue to fight to ensure that.

[joeycola]

9. unions are upset -as most likely the more expensive plans will be taxed.

[ProSense]

12. Maybe you need to keep up

Organized labor has strongly opposed taxing insurance policies, fearful that union members would be disadvantaged.

But the head of the AFL-CIO, Richard Trumka, seemed to indicate new flexibility on the issue in a conference call with reporters.

"If you show me a definition of a Cadillac plan that hits the Cadillac plans and not the middle class, then we'd take a look at that, of course," Trumka said. "If you wanted to tax the Goldman Sachs plans, I think that's fine," he said.

link

AFSCME President McEntee: Senator Reid’s Bill Is a “Significant Improvement”

[joeycola]

15. I am keeping up as best I can.........see WPost story

Lets have a discussion rather than you constantly berating me such comments such as keeping up. Thanks.



..........Despite the uncertainty, Reid said that omitting a public option would leave too few guarantees that the health coverage Congress would require Americans to buy would be affordable. Democrats have already significantly weakened major cost-containment provisions in the House and Senate bills. A proposal to end the tax-free treatment of employer-provided health benefits -- the most expensive loophole in the tax code -- has been scaled back in the Senate to become a tax only on the most expensive policies. And neither chamber has fully embraced an independent commission conceived to dilute Congress's powers to determine Medicare spending.

In a speech Monday, Christina Romer, chairman of the president's Council of Economic Advisers, listed a public plan among a series of provisions under consideration on Capitol Hill that the White House considers likely to reduce the long-term costs of health care.

Romer also said that taxing high-cost, or "Cadillac," insurance policies -- an idea many labor unions adamantly oppose -- is "probably the number one item" likely to stem rising costs, because it would encourage employers and their workers to choose cheaper policies. An independent Medicare commission also would help to drive long-term costs, Romer said.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/26/AR2009102603488_pf.html

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

16. Binary thinking is more fun than it is useful

Something be lame while also being a “Significant Improvement”

Unions consider these plans to be SUB-OPTIMAL. Unions also favor them over alternatives.

There is no contradiction there unless one insists on a Manichean world-view.

Great is better than good. Good is better than average. Average is better than terrible. Etc..

[ProSense]

17. You're so full of it. The unions strongly support the House bill:

From the AFSCME statement:

Now we will work to improve the bill on the Senate floor and to pass a strong bill in the House.

Nothing about the bills being lame or suck. Your OP is nonsensical.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

10. Blah, blah, blah

Sorry, your habit of barking "nonsense" and "absurd" whenever you don't understand something or just dislike a poster is losing its charm.

The President thinks it is sub-optimal--inferior to single-payer--yet very important. So do I.

So go bark at him for a while.

[ProSense]

13. That's a good description of your OP. n/t

[brentspeak]

19. It's been pretty well established that your role here is as DLC/K-Street representative

[dionysus]

20. LOL... yeah buddy everyone who disagrees with you is a DLC operative.

:rofl:

[Jennicut]

23. I think we were outed! But I sure am not being payed enough.

[dionysus]

25. i'm gonna get a gold plated jetski with my k-street money. how about you?

:hi:

[Jennicut]

27. Oh, I could buy a coffee with the 3 bucks I made.

Really, it is hilarious to label people you disagree with as DLC. Can average, non politician people even belong to the DLC?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

22. I doubt that's true. K-street can afford better

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tom Rinaldo]

11. You perfectly threaded the needle

You got folks on both sides of the fault lines at DU upset with this OP. I often aim for that same needle hole with mine, but it's tough to not blow it and piss off one side more than the other :)

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

14. You raise an intriguing philosophical DU concept...

Since DU is psychologically organized around opposition that makes a truly innocuous statement the most controversial of all, since it can be opposed by all sides.

[Oregone]

18. "The difference between a weak PO and no PO is HUGE"

Depends on how weak. If only 3 people are eligible, due to stipulations about having to be named Henry Whimbly Oconner, 38, and red headed, well, it doesn't help everyone else.

Right now amendments are hitting the floor. There is no sensible argument against amendments that may strengthen the PO and open it to more people. While you may judge its existence as a litmus test for success, there is no reason to fight against efforts to strengthen it.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

21. Devils and details, of course

A single-payer health system funded by regressive taxation would suck.

Any of these general ideas could be horrible in the details.

But it is much easy to modify a program than create one. I see the distinction between weak and non-existent as important.

But I concede that I cannot know that. It's a judgement call.

[alcibiades_mystery]

24. You are 100% correct

The question: How do you go from an absurdist industry run system to single payer system? Answer: Slowly, incrementally, with massive resistance, and through numerous sub-optimal stages.

Duh.

[phleshdef]

26. I'm pretty much with you. Just getting the ball rolling on these items is enormous progress...

...considering where we are at the moment.

If people would stop it with the insatiable desire for instant gratification and take a longer term view on all this, they would probably save themselves from a lot of anger fueled hurt.

[Orsino]

29. We were never going to atone for our many sins with one election...

...nor in the first year. Repairing and reversing the damage done by decades of conservative neglect would be the work of many, many years in the best circumstances--and we're having to do it using substantially the same Congress we had under Bush/Cheney.

Our victories will be small ones. Let's make 'em the best they can be.