1. The tireless, and occasionally tiresome, advocacy on behalf of liberal bloggers and interest groups for the public option. Whatever you think of their tactics -- I haven't always agreed with them -- the sheer amount of focus and energy expended on their behalf has been very important, keeping the issue alive in the public debate.
2. The fact that the CBO thinks it will save money.
3. The seeming inevitability of health care reform, which neuters the voices of those who aren't opposed to the public option per se so much as the entire project of health care reform.
4. The fact that the locus of power has shifted from the Gang of Six -- Bingaman/Conrad/Baucus/Snowe/Grassley/Enzi to the Group of Six -- Pelosi/Dodd/Obama/Reid/Baucus/Snowe.
5. The "innovation" of the opt-in/opt-out family of compromises, which have more liberal "street cred" than co-ops or triggers and are potentially also much more politically advantageous.
6. The fading from memory of the tea party protests and the "government takeover" meme.
7. Polls in myriad swing states and swing districts showing the public option is reasonably popular in these regions.
8. Constituent letters and e-mails.
9. The insurance industry's "senior moment": forgetting that this isn't 1993 and that the shelf life of a misleading study would be measured in hours (rather than days or weeks) and would damage its credibility in the process.
10. The Washington Post's somewhat bizarre decision to make its poll showing support for the public option its lede in yesterday's paper, even though public opinion has been fairly steady on the issue for months.
10.20.2009
Why The (Impure) Public Option is (Probably) Gaining Momentum
@ 9:11 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
79 comments
Great, simple article. Loved it, and I plan on sharing it in my AP government class when he asks for articles.
Also: My first first since primary season.
About time to on the public option. Could we get a year statistical story chart of how the support for the pubic option has fared? Thanks for the good job all you at 538.
If the congress and the senate could only get the healthcare and the pay that the lowest paid citizens got. Things would shift big in this country real fast.
Good storytelling can change the world.
I second the request for a statistical story chart of how the public option has fared.
Also, great blog Nate! I rarely take the time to comment, but I always enjoy the insightful posts on here.
I'm not sure "street cred" is a measurable variable, and I think the "momentum" is largely media-based, but you're right on all counts, Nate.
Bad news, Nate. From Congress Daily:
The Medicare physician payment fix before the Senate is facing two major hurdles today: The bill does not have the necessary 60 votes, and House Democratic leaders said they would not take up the Senate's version even if it did pass.
"I don't expect to pass the Senate bill as currently written," House Majority Leader Hoyer said today. "I don't have any objection to and would support a Senate bill that's passed that deals with the [physician payment fix] that includes statutory pay/go within its framework."
The existing Medicare physician payment formula forces Congress to reverse annual cuts in physician reimbursement. Senate Democratic leaders decided last week to bring up a bill to repeal the formula, a move physician groups have repeatedly said must happen as part of the healthcare overhaul.
Without the Baucus plan's 25% cut in Medicare reimbursement, the plan's a budget buster again. And it's weaseling out of the hands of the Congressional leadership again into those of the Blue Dogs, as the reconciliation window has closed and a 51-vote strategy isn't an option anymore.
There go at least #2, #4, and #9 (CBO version).
The political calculus has changed. Centrist Dems were worried that a public option would anger conservatives and drive them out to the polls. They now realize that almost no matter what they chose to do conservatives will be in angry up rise against them. Thus the strategy has shifted to how do they energize progressives without pissing off moderates.
Notice the major shift, they realize conservatives are pissed off no matter what, so this is becoming a base election scenario. Having some sort of public option is a huge rallying cry. Dems can claim they stood up to "big business" and "the right wing" and "prevailed". (the degree to which they will have actaully done so will be open to interpretation but it will be at least plausibly debatable)
The public option at the state level will also accomplish a long time goal of liberal intelligentsia: how to mimic conservative populism at the state level. Conservatives have been much better at using things like ballot initiatives to turn out their base voters in local elections. This at least has the potential to allow progressives a similar chance.
Finally the as much as this is seen as a cause celeb of social liberals, unions members (economic liberals) are very much in love with this. This blue collar appeal is what will "push" many centrist Senators over the edge. Look at the often overlooked union rates in Nevada, Indiana, Montana, etc. Yes these Senators are more dependent on corporate cash than larger state members, but they also still need union "muscle".
The perfect scenario for many Blue Dog Dems is to vote against a filibuster, but against the bill. I think more time is being spent on developing a media counter strategy to conservative attacks on " a red med menace" than most people realize. I think a lot of this is going on behind the scenes. They don't want a repeat of being caught flat footed like they were this summer.
"Without the Baucus plan's 25% cut in Medicare reimbursement, the plan's a budget buster again"
This doesn't make any sense. Sure, it would be a budget buster if it included the $247 bil medicare reimbursement fix, but just because the current bill that fixes it isn't going to pass right now doesn't mean the fix has to be put in health care. It'll just pass in a separate bill later. It's incredibly unlikely they would allow a 20% cut to doctors - it'll just be a lot of posturing and come down to the last second.
"the reconciliation window has closed and a 51-vote strategy isn't an option anymore."
Uh, no. Another misunderstanding. Some House committee had to report reconciliation instructions by October 15th; that was done on that date and reconciliation is still as usable as it's always been.
Does the order indicate descending importance ?
You forgot to mention that the Health Ins Company dropped the son of Representative Jane Harman - Blue Dog from CA - who was Nay on the Public Option until they dropped her SON when he ruptured his eardrum and needed medical care. Now she is Yea on the Public Option and pushing other Blue Dogs. I believe she has at least one convert.
How did THAT Health Insurance Company strategy session go?
Health ins company guy to Lobbyist: "How do we drive home the point to Congress that we don’t need any reform to our policy’s?"
Lobbyist: "I KNOW ! Cancel a the policy of one of their CHILDREN when they need medical care. Brilliant!"
Health Ins co guy: "We already DO that. But you know, I don’t pay you enough, here take some more money we make off premiums for medical care."
I think the best way to go about it if you're for a strong public option is to simplify the fight.
The whole reason the progressives couldn't gain momentum was that they couldn't make a clear, simple case. We know already that the clearer the case, the bigger the support. It was Option A/Option B/Option X/Option Calvinball. And the conservatives and insurance industry pounced on that. It's a thousand pages. Nobody can read it. This is bad. That is bad. Let's read it again. Let's scrap the whole thing and start over.
After the insurance industry put that poll out, it came alongside a bunch of stories about the 'pre-existing condition' thing getting abused to epic proportions. That seems to be a bit of a meme now: what crazy stuff qualifies as a pre-existing condition now.
So the fight went from A/B/X/Calvinball to a much simpler Downtrodden Public Vs. Evil Faceless Corporate Fat Cats. And that's a fight EVERYBODY understands. We've already had that fight a couple times since the economy tanked, and the sentiment's not gone yet. The more the fight becomes a case of simply sticking it to the insurance companies, the better the bill's chances.
They did WHAT, Kerryth? Wow, that was dumb.
With all the commentary last year about how the Obama campaign was brilliant in its use of new media technologies, it's amazing how no one has been noting the importance of those technologies for health care reform.
Back in the Clinton years, that terrible article in the New Republic had a big effect that it could not today. We now have experts and activists in the blogosphere who quickly pick apart claims and studies so that a passel of lies doesn't have a major impact on the debate. Youtube clips from cell phones and video cameras showed the lunacy of teabaggers. Websites were used to organize and educate.
mtvcdm : Yup.
Great points Dopper. The Teaparty has actually hurt the Repub cause as it has driven even more moderates away from the party of Sarah and Rush. A truly inspirational outcome for the country, IMHO.
So the fight went from A/B/X/Calvinball to a much simpler Downtrodden Public Vs. Evil Faceless Corporate Fat Cats. And that's a fight EVERYBODY understands.
thank you - I nominate you to be Rahm Emanuel's replacement
@ Mainer, so true, nobody can jsut throw bs out there and expect it to stick as well as it used to...constant repetition and megaphones like popular Fox and talk radio help...but they do get refuted now and picked away at...like, do you see images of seniors freaking out about govt killing them anymore. When one of many emails, Obama is goign to send granny out on a iceberg, my parents had dinner party with old friends that always send them conservative scare emails, and my Dad, a conservative but pro single payer health care asked his friends if they thought govt was out to kill them and he was shocked when the normally easy to rile and scare wife said, "Oh, that has all been proven to be an incorrect rumor..." and she switched to another topic. I was shocked to hear this, these types ALWAYS fall for latest scary "world-as-we-know-it-is-ending" conservative scary email/Fox story and they knew this wasn't true...maybe their kids got to them, I don't know...but this would not have happened five years ago.
The stupid health insurance companies' Price Waterhouse study would have never been ripped as it was if not for internet...regular media can't be bothered to figure this stuff out, but they will report public sentiment and research provided to them.
Sites like this one can really tear through BS and provide a push back to stuff like fake polls....stuff MSM never much did.
Great post. But here's a question that's been bugging me for a while. Why is "A federal government run health insurance plan to be approved before midnight ET 31 Dec 2009" trading at 20% in Intrade? It seems to me that the odds should be considerably higher. Does someone out there know something we don't? Or is it just that particular timeline that the punters are dubious of?
What do you suppose happened to the teabaggers? Haven't heard much from them lately.
@Davy:
Considering that they probably watch Fox News, they can't exactly have a very long attention span. :P
Adopting an opt-out clause in the bill might be bad for the country, but it would be a political bonanza for Democrats. When those states that opt out realize what a mistake they made, the GOP is going to be in a world of hurt.
Then again, if the bill that finally passes is so flawed that it does not make things perceptibly better, the GOP will have a field day shooting it down.
@Brian Jenkins
The Medicare reimbursement fix has no direct relationship with the efficacy of the public option. You are conflating the public option with the overall bill.
But just to indulge your red herring: since we reverse cuts annually anyway, it's not clear to me why the "fix" is considered a new expenditure created by the House bill.
The reform was put in motion by the administration and the push for the public option has been there from the beginning. There was never time it looked like the public option wouldn't be in the final bill, so to give bloggers addicted to daily MSM memes and prone to panic credit for "keeping it alive" is a bit odd.
In fact, the legislative process is playing out almost exactly as the supporters of the public option in the administration and close to the administration said it would play out. It's not a coincidence that the biggest push for the public option is coming now, when it's needed most. And when the reform passes it will show that the administration took the right approach. It would have been strategically idiotic for Obama draw a line in the sand early on as many of the most panicky members of the left blogosphere constantly say he should have done.
Or perhaps putting left leaning bloggers at the top is just Nate engaging in smart political strategy by playing up to his base?
@ Yoink - Intrade is reactive, not predictive. I remember watching Intrade during the 2006 midterms. Republican Senate/Democratic House was the prohibitive favorite, while Democratic Senate/Democratic House was trading at junk bond status. After the polls closed in Virginia, and the vote tallies started to go Webb's way, the former stock tanked and the latter stock skyrocketed. I haven't been back since. Utterly overrated.
So the fight went from A/B/X/Calvinball to a much simpler Downtrodden Public Vs. Evil Faceless Corporate Fat Cats. And that's a fight EVERYBODY understands.
This - pretty much everybody knows (or is) somebody who's been screwed hard by the insurance industry. With the release of their study - the Insurance industry made it a us vs. them fight - and nobody wants to be on their side.
If 4. is true, then the "new" powerbrokers have to act fast, before momentum shifts.
If 9. is true, it may well be identified as the truning point in the debate, providing timid D politicians with cover to really get behind health reform.
Heh-heh. Calvinball. Brilliant.
WTF?
Public Option's not a done deal?
Opt in's are kewl?
PTB are concerned about moderates not liking a public option?
A vibrant public option, with government run plans open to all, is not viable?
Competition with insurers is not good?
A vibrant public plan will NOT solve the cost issue?
Centrist Dem's are worried about 23% whackaloons batshit crazed birthers who believe the planet is 6,000 years old?
For dawg's sake people, 70% and MORE of the public distrust the insurers, want a government run public option open to ALL people, and want it NOW!
538, Nate? What craptitude are you posting and allowing to run unfettered in your comments?
This is bullshit.
Nation's ripe for a vibrant public option, and only the corporatist dem mofo's are holding it back.,
And if the dem's and the WH don't get this done NOW, with a full and vibrant P.O., they will be put down at 2010 and 2012 like they were rabid dogs.
And they know this.
538, for you to empower ANY thing less than a fully vibrant PO in any way, shape or form is truly a desertion to a progressive purpose to serve the masses.
I'm apalled.
"the GOP will have a field day shooting it down"
Let's be realistic about this. Nothing in any of the health care bills will be fully in effect for years. No way you're going to see measurable benefits from reform until at least after the 2012 elections, long after Americans, with their notoriously short memories, have forgotten about the chaos surrounding the legislative process. Once health care reform passes, in other words, it will be almost immediately forgotten. Next year is going to be all about economic recovery. I doubt health care reform gets mentioned as an issue at all in 2010, except in the occasional primary.
Rick-
The insurance industry report, coming on the heels of the birther/teaparty/crazed right wing nutball summer of 2009, really hurt their credibility. Screaming fire in crowded room when everyone in the room has been consistently lied to is unlikely to be a winning strategy.
Here's hoping it leads to a loss of the antitrust exemption for the health insurance industry, which is part of what got us into this terrible mess to begin with.
Three points: the CBO's "save money" estimate is a joke. It is largely a function of taking Congress at its word that they will slash Medicare funding. Fat chance. Be honest folks - this sucker will cost a lot, and add to either the deficit or taxes. The obvious plan is to pass out the goodies now, and the pain after 2012. Leadership. But I wonder if exploding deficits and a collapsing dollar will force earlier action on the VAT (or some such).
I posted here six months ago saying that Krugman was right and the admin was angling for a VAT tax. In the last month, they have clearly been floating trial balloons on that. It's a scandal that this is not an upfront part of the debate.
This, can someone explain to me why we are spending this much only to cover 95% of Americans? So we only take care of half the problem? That is not universal health care. Hell, we already cover 90% - don't we? Why do 5% fall through the cracks? And is 5% a real estimate, or a rosy one. Are we going to find the problem even worse than that.
I agree with Brown. As another poster here has pointed out, Obama has done everything (marginally) unpopular this year. 2010 will see stimulus funding finally make its way into the economy, propping it up just in time for the elections. Obama will also paint the right into a quasi-racist corner with immigration reform. By election time, health-care and government-ethics won't be the defining issues. Immigration and Republican racism will be.
The way Obama has arranged things is disingenuous but effective. Hardly any voters pay enough attention to realize that the stated need for a "hurry up and don't-worry-about-the-fine-print" emergency economic stimulus in 2008 was a big lie, given that most of the money hasn't even been spent yet, and punish those responsible for so brazenly manipulating them.
Nate, you forgot a couple...
11. The Dem leadership is drafting a 1600 page bill outside of public scrutiny.
12. The resulting bill will not be posted for the public to read for even 72 hours before the vote.
13. The Dem media has been put on notice not to be like Fox News and actually report on the content of congressional bills.
"13. The Dem media has been put on notice not to be like Fox News and actually report on the content of congressional bills."
The punctuation makes this hard to understand. Are you saying that the media should be unlike Fox and actually report the news and uncover facts, as opposed to political advocacy work and making things up, which is what Fox does?
If so, I whole heartedly agree with you. Jeff made a point earlier about the administration being unwilling to be upfront about a VAT and I think part of the reason they're unwilling to do that is because they know the media will not do their job and deliver the facts to the public. Fox will put out their political talking points and mischaracterizations and every other news outlet will pick up what they say for fear of being labeled as the "liberal media".
I have no problem with a VAT tax...provided we do away with the IRS in the bargain.
Bart has a good point. Is there any excuse whatsoever for not posting the bill online before the vote?
Looks like #10 just bit the big one, too. Gallup reports the public option at 50/46:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/123782/In-U.S.-39-Say-View-Healthcare-Depends-Details.aspx
11. The Dem leadership is drafting a 1600 page bill outside of public scrutiny.
This is actually the normal reconciling of the 5 (I think?) existing drafts, right?
12. The resulting bill will not be posted for the public to read for even 72 hours before the vote.
You know very well Bart that these have relatively few words on it. :) That this is stuff that's been discussed over and over for months now.
That if you aren't going to read the damn thing within 72 hours you likely aren't going to read it at all.
Nate:
2. The fact that the CBO thinks it will save money.
The latest Pelosi proposal "saves money" by slashing healthcare provider reimbursement rates to the current Medicare cap plus five percent and freezes them there regardless of rising costs borne by health care providers. I predicted this looting from the outset.
If Pelosi is not lying and telling the AMA behind the scenes that Congress will lift this cap later as they are about to do for Medicare, she just lost the doctors and all rural Dems whose Medicare compensation rates do not even cover the cost of providing the health care.
4. The fact that the locus of power has shifted from the Gang of Six -- Bingaman/Conrad/Baucus/Snowe/Grassley/Enzi to the Group of Six -- Pelosi/Dodd/Obama/Reid/Baucus/Snowe.
You mean the bills are being revised in secret by a liberal leadership that does not have a majority for its proposals.
6. The fading from memory of the tea party protests and the "government takeover" meme.
Translation: Crossed fingers that Dems in red districts and states have forgotten their pissed off constituents now that they are safely back in the liberal confines of the DC Dem caucus. Sorry Nate, but that is just wishful thinking. See NPR discussion at bottom of post.
9. The insurance industry's "senior moment": forgetting that this isn't 1993 and that the shelf life of a misleading study would be measured in hours (rather than days or weeks) and would damage its credibility in the process.
Since the Dems have reneged on their promise to compel healthy folks to obtain insurance to provide the premiums to pay for all the sick people the government will mandate the insurers cover, the insurers have been flooding swing districts with ads noting the higher taxes/premiums the insured will have to pay. There is no mention of the press release study.
10. The Washington Post's somewhat bizarre decision to make its poll showing support for the public option its lede in yesterday's paper, even though public opinion has been fairly steady on the issue for months.
This is no mystery. The polling shows majority support for a public option when it is couched in terms of competition and where the cost is not discussed. However, these same polls show plurality to majority opposition to plans actually being offered by the Dems. This opposition is highest among likely voters.
So what is the Dem media to do? Pitch the favorable polling and ignore the opposition.
NPR's version of this propaganda this morning was to lead with the claim that a majority of Americans support a public option, then run audio clips of obviously scared Senators in red states opposing the public option (yes Nate, they remember their pissed off constituents), and then wondering how these Senators could stand in the way of the will of the people.
It is all very transparent.
@Jeff:
I posted here six months ago saying that Krugman was right and the admin was angling for a VAT tax. In the last month, they have clearly been floating trial balloons on that. It's a scandal that this is not an upfront part of the debate.
If there were really a chance in hell of a VAT, you can bet it would be part of the debate. As it stands it's political kryptonite, it's horribly regressive, and the White House denies seriously considering it.
I'm interested if anybody has a link to Krugman expressing this opinion; I did some googling and couldn't find it. Searching just for Obama and VAT the only things I found were this Washington Post story and a whole bunch of (mostly winger) blogs that oversold it like crazy. Of course the lede itself is a bit oversold ("some Washington policymakers are taking a fresh look") considering the rest of the story makes it clear that things are as they always have been. That is, a small faction of economic advisers thinks a VAT might be a good idea, and the politicians think it's nuts. The only difference is that now we need the money a lot worse.
This, can someone explain to me why we are spending this much only to cover 95% of Americans? So we only take care of half the problem? That is not universal health care. Hell, we already cover 90% - don't we?
No, we don't. According to the census bureau 15.3% of Americans were uninsured in 2007. But also, it's not right to look at the cost of the bill as paying only for x% of newly insured people; a lot of the cost goes to subsidizing people who already have insurance. And part of the cost pays for things designed to lower premiums for everyone.
Also, it's well-nigh impossible to get higher than about 97% coverage if you insist on not covering undocumented aliens. And if you want to allow an opt-out of the individual mandate by paying a fine (which all the bills do) you'll lose some more. So 95% is pretty close to the limit realistically.
@Hunter L. Cook
But also, it's not right to look at the cost of the bill as paying only for x% of newly insured people;
I also think it's funny to read people on the right who attack the health care proposals because they don't cover "everybody". Since the right wingers don't want universal health care, this is a patently absurd complaint for them to be making.
Nate - What is even more stranger than the WaPo headline about the Public Option is that just a month ago they ran a story about their September polling on Health Care which had this as the headline: "New Washington Post-ABC News survey shows more support if public option is dropped!" The problem with that headline is that once I looked deep into the article some 9 paragraphs in and consulted the poll tables did I discover that the headline was completely misleading. The article stated that in September a Health Care Bill with the Public Option had 55% support. Even with the 3% +/- it still had majority support although the disapprovals of such a bill was high. If you took out the Public Option the percentage of strongly disapprove of the Health Care Bill dropped but then so did support for the Health Care Bill down to 50%. Given the 3%+/- that puts the popularity of Health Care Reform possibly into the negative. Yet the whole gist of the article was how having the Public Option in the Health Care Bill is dragging it and causing it to possibly not be able to pass. It was a very strange bit of reporting that for the majority of the article talked about the numbers in the poll but did not actually tell you what the numbers were. Now in September they take what I think are softer numbers for the Public Option and declare it the big winner. Very odd and I wonder what happened in the course of the past month to change their mind - oh yes, the Huffington Post beat them on web traffic. I wonder if the owners have finally talked to their new Editor and explain to him that the WaPo is not the WSJ!
There's a whole lot more wishful thinking in Nate's and others' analysis than facts. I'm stunned at the continued insistance that people generally support a public option when is is so ill-defined. We went through this ad nauseum previously and it was conclusive that wording and question design make all the difference.
The smoke and mirrors approach of avoiding specifics and playing hide-the-ball will not last once there's actually something to vote upon. Flames ahead for this grandiose POS.
Hunter,
No, your comparisons are wrong. The 15.3% includes illegals, I'm pretty sure, and is considered a very high estimate by most (including the White House). And the 95% is 95% of people who are "covered by the plan". I.E., it does not include illegals. Strip illegals from the first number, or add them to second for a fair comparison. However you slice it, we're only going to cover about 1/2 of the uninsured.
On the VAT, Krugman is a known fan. Here is his predication that it will happen:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/27/opinion/27krugman.html
And among the admin officials floating the VAT is Emmanuel himself, so don't pretend its not being considered. Would it pass - no - but that's the worst part! The need it, but can't get it, and are spending anyway.
Upshot: the plan isn't paid for and only does half the job. It is also VERY unclear if it will help average americans with their insurance costs. The insurance industry study may be flawed(overly alarmist), but the admin's predications are equally flawed (i.e., rosey).
Davy said:
"What do you suppose happened to the teabaggers? Haven't heard much from them lately."
Actually it seems they are at war with the Republican Party. In the past few weeks they have been yelling at Senator Lindsey Graham (SC) for not being conservative enough!?!?! There has been some infighting among Tea Bagging Leadership about whether to closely align themselves with the GOP with the guy wanting to play kiss up to the Republican Party being ousted. And last night Rachel Maddow did an interesting piece how in the special election to replace Rep McHugh in a district that has not had a Democratic representative since the Civil War how the Tea Baggers are dissing the GOP candidate and are running a candidate of their own under the Conservative Party banner. The net effect is that the GOP candidate and the Conservative candidate are spiltting the vote and the Democratic challenger is actually ahead in the polls! Ah Tea Baggery!
Democrats should just forget about bipartisanship and pass the damn bill with the public option in it. Who cares about Republicans, they are going to vote against it no matter what. They never had any bipartisanship in the last 8 years so why should we? Pass the public option bill...the US has been meaning to do that since the days of FDR and Harry Truman.q
Tong said...
Democrats should just forget about bipartisanship and pass the damn bill with the public option in it.
:::chuckle:::
Bipartisanship? What bipartisanship?
The Dems have ignored the half dozen GOP plans and voted down nearly every GOP amendment.
Contrast that to the heavy imput the Dems had in Bush's Medicare drug entitlement, the Bush/Kennedy NCLB, the 2001 tax rebate (welfare) checks (a Dem idea), the AUMF's for Afghanistan and Iraq, the Detainee Treatment Act and the Military Commission Act, all of which passed with bipartisan votes.
Tong,
The Dems CAN'T pass the public option, and it has nothing to do with the GOP. It has to do with the fact that they don't believe the polls on the public option, which always talk nice about "competition" and so forth. When the thing is implemented, they fear the reaction of their constituents. The basic problem they face is that, on a host of issues, the Dems in power are far to the left of a critical slice of their constituence (indeed, precisely that slice that has grown and allowed their recent success.)
As for Shirkers, why is it absurd to point out that this massive bill doesn't pay for universal health care? It makes perfect sense to point out that the Dems, by their own measure and despite spending gads of money, come nowhere near their purported goal. By the way, its only a matter of time before defensive Dems start mouthing the talking points that they have long derided to explain this failure (i.e, "well, many young people don't want insurance" etc).
@Bart DePalma
The Dems have ignored the half dozen GOP plans and voted down nearly every GOP amendment.
With over 160 Republican amendments and suggestions in the Baucus bill, this claim that the Dems have "voted down nearly every GOP amendment" is a little scary. Were there like thousands of GOP amendments?
I've never heard the Bush years being promoted as having been a nirvana of bipartisanship. I think I'll have to save this post.
@Jeff
The Dems CAN'T pass the public option, and it has nothing to do with the GOP. ... The basic problem they face is that, on a host of issues, the Dems in power are far to the left of a critical slice of their constituence ...
On what planet do you sepnd most of your time?
As for Shirkers, why is it absurd to point out that this massive bill doesn't pay for universal health care?
It is absurd for conservatives to use this argument, because it is a transparent concern-troll tactic. If you had any desire for universal health care, you'd be pushing for it, rather than calling it "socialist". Since you don't want universal health care, it's obvious hypocrisy for you to criticize a proposal that potentially doesn't provide it. Makes you look kinda dumb.
Shirkers,
Something on the order of 50 Congressfolk represent distincts that voted for BOTH Bush and McCain (the latter in a terrible GOP year). Don't you get this?
As for universal health care, I do support it, and never called it "socialist". But even for those who do, its perfectly consistent to point out that the Dems attempt to provide it - at vast expense - fails.
Shirkers:
With over 160 Republican amendments and suggestions in the Baucus bill, this claim that the Dems have "voted down nearly every GOP amendment" is a little scary.
You are welcome to cite to the 160 provisions in the Baucus bill which were authored by GOP members of his committee, all of whom apart from the RINO Snowe voted against the monstrosity.
The GOP submitted over 500 amendments and I am unaware of any which were added.
@Jeff
Something on the order of 50 Congressfolk represent distincts that voted for BOTH Bush and McCain (the latter in a terrible GOP year). Don't you get this?
What I "get" is that nearly two thirds of Americans want a public option. Also that doing the right thing for this great nation and its people is something that should transcend petty electoral politics.
I also "get" that the right wing does not understand these factors, and is unconcerned about them.
Haha, no republican amendments...
The amendment to allow medicare to reimburse seniors for end-of-life consultations was added by Johnny Isakson, until the teabag fringe made their death panel charge and got this reasonable republican proposal booted from the bill
Two thirds no less! We'll then, what's the problem? Why isn't it happening? Because the Dems know that these numbers are bull - they rely upon the suggestion that the public option will increase competition and lower premiums, instead of increase premiums and harm competition. But for its die hard supporters, the public option is the first step toward single payer (Obama has been explicit about this). Translation: there is an esoteric game going on here. Competition is being used to sell the bill (somewhat successfully) as a polling phenomenon. But competition isn't the real point of the public option, and probably won't be the result. At some point, the bill is no longer about the salesmanship, and is instead about the actual results of the bill. Pols fear what the fall out will be, whatever the polls say now.
What kind of polling would this get: "do you favor a public option, even if its fails to lower premiums and increase competition in the insurance market?" That's a loaded question, but no more so that the one's being used on the other side.
@Jeff:
No, your comparisons are wrong. The 15.3% includes illegals, I'm pretty sure, and is considered a very high estimate by most (including the White House). And the 95% is 95% of people who are "covered by the plan". I.E., it does not include illegals.
Incorrect.
"Around 94 percent of non-elderly residents (those not covered by Medicare, which kicks in at age 65) would be covered -- compared with 81 percent today. Nearly half of the 17 million non-elderly residents who remain uninsured would be illegal immigrants." --AARP analysis of the house bill
On the VAT, Krugman is a known fan. Here is his predication that it will happen:
That's the best you guys have from Krugman? You're making a fairly incredible stretch. In the article you linked he praises Obama's 10-year budget but notes that after the 10-year window we have some structural problems that need solving. His main point is that something has to be done about healthcare costs. And then at the end he offhand mentions "Whatever politicians may say now, there’s probably a value-added tax in our future."
He's talking about the distant future. At no point does he ever say he expects the Obama administration to support such a thing. And then the last two lines of the piece read: "There’s only so much long-run thinking the political system can handle in the midst of a severe crisis; he has probably taken on all he can, for now. And this budget looks very, very good."
So no, that article does not in any way say that Krugman thinks Obama will support a VAT.
And among the admin officials floating the VAT is Emmanuel himself, so don't pretend its not being considered.
You do mean Zeke Emmanuel, right? He's the one who has pushed VAT.
Would it pass - no - but that's the worst part! The need it, but can't get it, and are spending anyway.
If the "worst part" is that we "can't get" the most regressive possible revenue-generation mechanism, we're in pretty good shape. Raise the money through a progressive income tax, dammit.
Upshot: the plan isn't paid for and only does half the job.
Wrong and wrong. You still haven't given any actual argument that it isn't paid for. Just saying they won't "really" do what the bill says is not an argument. And your argument for "only does half the job" is bogus as shown above.
It is also VERY unclear if it will help average americans with their insurance costs.
I'll give you "unclear" until the CBO premiums report comes out. But not "VERY unclear." We are of course talking about post-subsidy prices (either that or you can't complain about the cost of the subsidies), which should be enough to fairly clearly reduce rates. Add in the public option and it's a no-brainer; rates will go down for basically everyone.
The insurance industry study may be flawed(overly alarmist), but the admin's predications are equally flawed (i.e., rosey).
Equally flawed!? Not even close. The administration's numbers might be optimistic. But they're well within the realm of possibility. Contrast to the PWC "study" which only looked at the parts of the bill which could raise premiums. On page one they note that they are purposefully ignoring every part of the bill which might lower premiums. There is no comparison here.
In summation, every single thing you just said was wrong.
Because the Dems know that these numbers are bull - they rely upon the suggestion that the public option will increase competition and lower premiums, instead of increase premiums and harm competition. ... But competition isn't the real point of the public option, and probably won't be the result.
lol, so it's "bull" that the public option will increase competition...
Until a few sentences later, when it "probably" won't be the result.
Not that you deign to substantiate any of this. Why do that? After all, how could anyone think that a new insurance company increase competition? Ha ha, it's completely ludicrous! More options mean less competition, of course! Ignorance is knowledge! War is peace!
@Bart DePalma:
You are welcome to cite to the 160 provisions in the Baucus bill which were authored by GOP members of his committee, all of whom apart from the RINO Snowe voted against the monstrosity.
The GOP submitted over 500 amendments and I am unaware of any which were added.
Care to explain to me how the second sentence doesn't contradict the first?
And while I'm at it, the fact that the GOP members who added amendments voted against the bill doesn't change the fact that they did in fact add amendments. You said, "The Dems have ignored the half dozen GOP plans and voted down nearly every GOP amendment." That's not true.
Also, could you point me to any of the "half dozen GOP plans" please?
the colloquial term for the federalist public option is stealthcare.
Hunter:
Bobby Jindal summarized the GOP proposals for the WP.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/04/AR2009100402003_3.html?sid=ST2009101402985
The leading GOP bill is Rep. Tom Price's (R-Ga.) "Empowering Patients First Act," which the Dems simply ignored.
The leading GOP bill is Rep. Tom Price's (R-Ga.) "Empowering Patients First Act," which the Dems simply ignored.
Was that the 12-grade homework advertising brochure that the Republicants produced last June, or am I thinking of something else?
Hunter,
Congrats, you've proved that I'm making predictions and assumptions, just like you and everyone else here. Do you "know" that this plan will reduce premiums? Do you "know" that it will increase competition? No. So what the bloody hell is your point in insisting that I don't "know" all of my claims but only suspect them.
Your AARP analysis is of the House Dem bill, not the Finance Committee bill. The latter covers, as I understand it, 95% of American citizens (excluding illegals from the calculations).
As for the Finance bill being paid for - this is fairy land stuff. It collects revenues for 10 years and provides coverage for 6-8 (phased in). It relies on supposed Medicare cuts that will NEVER happen (hell, Congress is getting ready to fend off the already planned medicare cuts, as they always do). It assumes big revenues, absurdly, by arguing that health benefits that disappeared into the public option would be turned into increased employee pay (dollar for dollar) and thus taxed. Megan Mcardel has destroyed the assumption. The budget tricks are fast and furious.
On the VAT, no, Rahm has said it must be considered (he said this on one of the sunday shows). His brother is a big advocate, and is currently working for Geitner. Kent Conrad has said it will need to be considered. Wake up - its on the table. It HAS to be, with deficits this big, but there is no honesty about this.
PS Hunter. Since you are convinced that no one but liberals has any argument to offer, why don't you start here:
http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/10/scoring_the_baucus_bill_tax_dy.php
Read her blog regularly and you won't ever swallow the BS that comes out of the Congress again as to what's paid for and what's not.
In summation, every single thing you just said was wrong.
Ooh... I do believe Jeff just got pwned by Hunter L. Cook :-)
@Bart DePalma:
Bobby Jindal summarized the GOP proposals for the WP.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/04/AR2009100402003_3.html?sid=ST2009101402985
Hmm... are you sure you linked to the right article? Because the one I just read simply listed "10 ideas to increase the affordability and quality of health care. Some of these are buried within various Republican and Democratic plans that have been floated." In fact, it looks like the majority of these 10 ideas are included in the democratic plans already. Just off the top of my head:
- Purchasing pools: check
- Portability: check
- Coverage of preexisting conditions: check
- Transparency and payment reform: check
- Electronic medical records: check
- Health savings accounts: thank god, no!
- Cover young adults: check
- Refundable tax credits: check
So, tell me again, what were those half dozen GOP plans the dems ignored? Because you clearly must have been referring to a different article than the one you linked to...
Do you "know" that this plan will reduce premiums? Do you "know" that it will increase competition? No. So what the bloody hell is your point in insisting that I don't "know" all of my claims but only suspect them.
lol, because you SAY you know all of them, as, for example, you do later in this same post:
It relies on supposed Medicare cuts that will NEVER happen
Megan Mcardel has destroyed the assumption.
Wow, so this time, instead of totally refusing to cite your evidence, you've vaguely waved your hands in the direction of a blogger whose name you can't spell. Big fan of Ms. "Mcardel", no doubt? Anyway, that's a giant step up. Any minute now you might actually muster up the intellectual wherewithal to cite in which article she "destroyed" the assumption.
Persuter,
Right, its McArdle. Big bleeping deal. Your post is pure sophistry. I don't say that "I know for certain", rather, I'm engaging in rhetoric. As in "Bush will never pass a serious energy plan." One doesn't know such future events, but one state's them as definitive convictions based upon past experience and reasonable expectation. And as such statements go, a convinced denial that Congress can be relied on to slash medicare funding is about as certain as it gets. Why don't you address the issue itself: do you really think that planning for such cuts in the future is a responsible way to pay for this bill? Fulminating about my "certainty" is just a way of dodging the issue.
Jeff said...
~~~~~~~~~~
hmm, what will truly convince you to stop posting your winger spin/nonsense at 538 ;) just wonderin' ...
has convinced me to cease commenting on this site henceforth.
take care, blessings
p.s. why is it always winger conservative kindergarten trolls who threaten to take their balls and leave progressive sites, and then of course, never do. And they wonder why no one takes them seriously! Besides the fact they are winger trolls lol ...
Shiloh,
You're right. I gave it a month off, but can't stand to let some of these posts go unanswered. But I'm touched to see that you've been thinking of me.
Hunter,
If you need further evidence:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/21/health/policy/21health.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
These Dems are the people who you trust to cut medicare in the future? Come on. Medicare rates need to be part of the health care bill - not slid past to the tune of 250 billion. The responsible vote here was the GOP and the LARGE minority of Dems who bucked Reid. Disgracefully bad government.
Jeff said...
~~~~~~~~~~
So you do agree you're a winger kindergarten er childish troll, eh
... and the truth shall set you free!
btw, it wasn't quite a month, but, but, but let's not be picky ;) suffice it to say, once a winger troll, always a winger troll.
take care, blessings
p.s. if you stop posting at 538, I will stop thinking about you, honest! :)
Bart mentioned NPR, and that reminded me of something I heard on NPR this morning.
Turns out there's no anti-trust regulations on health insurance, so all this time, the insurance industry has been able to price fix legally and establish monopolies. There's been no motivation for them to compete for business.
I wonder if proper antitrust laws would eliminate the need for the public option, encouraging competition that currently doesn't exist.
But *gasp*, that would mean... THE FREE MARKET HAS BEEN SCREWING US OVER.
How could Bart and PK lie to us? They had me convinced that deregulation and complete market freedom would make everyone honest and keep prices low, with consumers able to choose their provider!
Oh, no, wait. Sorry... just like in evolution, corporations in a complete free market environment profit more by cooperation than competition.
And as it turns out, unchecked corporate greed hurts consumers. What a surprise!
Jeff…
Still afraid of “death threats” from me? I’ll bet you’re one of the dorks that believe in the “death panels” and the “birther” crap and the whole tea-bagger lunacy.
If you live in Colorado you can carpool to the next teabag rally in Denver with Bart De Palma. That way you can claim that 2/3 of the attendees carpooled! :o) Bart certainly won’t be encumbered by legal work, since he spends his days chatting here. I think the rally’s next month.
Gee, Pragmatus out from under his rock too? It's getting too easy to get under the skin of you and Shiloh. Not much sport in it anymore.
Disingenuously smug I'm not posting at 538 anymore 'cause my feelings were hurt, so pay no attention to my continuing obsession! Jeff, hysterically thinks he has an effect on others at 538.
Too funny!
btw, do all winger trolls who childishly say they are done w/538 never to return and then sheepishly return project their inferiority complex, or are you in your own delusional world ...
Not much of a challenge, indeed!
take care, blessings
Shiloh,
I argue my points forcefully, and perhaps too forcefully at times, but I never stoop to namecalling and insults. On the other hand, name calling and insults are vitually all you and the likes of Pragmatus post. Here's my suggestion: you ignore my posts, and I'll ignore yours. Consider mine marked "for rational liberals only".
@Jeff:
As for the Finance bill being paid for - this is fairy land stuff. It collects revenues for 10 years and provides coverage for 6-8 (phased in).
The exchanges and public option require time to amass a big pool of money. This is not complicated. But the CBO says the savings to the budget will increase past the ten-year window, when the revenues and costs are both stable. So your argument here (that we're really outspending revenue but hiding it by shuffling the windows) is bogus.
It relies on supposed Medicare cuts that will NEVER happen (hell, Congress is getting ready to fend off the already planned medicare cuts, as they always do).
Once again you are somehow arguing that the bill won't "really" do what the text of the bill says. Sorry, it doesn't work this way; if they pass it, the language inside goes into effect.
It assumes big revenues, absurdly, by arguing that health benefits that disappeared into the public option would be turned into increased employee pay (dollar for dollar) and thus taxed. Megan Mcardel has destroyed the assumption. The budget tricks are fast and furious.
No it does not and no she didn't. You are overreading what she says. It won't go "dollar for dollar" but some portion of the employers' savings will indeed become increased pay. She does not dispute this. Similar are the other modeling issues she brings up. In fact it's worth noting that she doesn't actually disagree with any of their estimates...she in fact says, "I can see the logic here, and it's very compelling as economic theory. But it's not exactly revenue I want to count on."
Now there's the funny part. I suppose she thinks the CBO should say, "well, even though this is our best estimate of these effects, and even though we believe they will show up to roughly these levels...we're just going to throw them out and assume they don't exist." The resultant scoring would be drastically less accurate...and hugely, unrealistically pessimistic. They are trying to be as accurate as possible and that requires modeling dynamic effects. Any serious economist would scoff at the idea of just totally leaving these effects out.
Congrats, you've proved that I'm making predictions and assumptions, just like you and everyone else here. Do you "know" that this plan will reduce premiums?
Followed closely by:
I don't say that "I know for certain", rather, I'm engaging in rhetoric.
Good to know that you are happily applying a completely different standard to you and me. Particularly when you're the one stating your opinions as fact and I'm the one saying things like, "I'll give you 'unclear'...but not 'VERY unclear.'"
Seriously...you bust my balls for saying that the subsidies "should" decrease the amount people have to pay because I don't "know" it for sure? And then you defend your own overly-certain statements by saying you're "using rhetoric?" One or the other has to go.
These Dems are the people who you trust to cut medicare in the future? Come on.
Either you don't really understand the issue discussed in the NYT story you linked, or you're being intentionally dishonest. The fact that they aren't going to repeal the rules doesn't actually make any difference at all; they always nullify them every year anyway. And it certainly has nothing to do with the healthcare bill.
@Bart DePalma,
Sorry, but the latest installment of "Bobby Jindal talks to children" doesn't coun't as a healthcare bill.
The Empowering Patients First Act does count, and it's the only one I've seen that I would call a real bill. I assume, then, that you meant "one" in your earlier post when you said "half dozen."
Also, that bill is basically just a bunch of tax giveaways and insurance-industry protectionism cobbled together with standard GOP wish-list items like random anti-abortion policies and tort reform. But that's a different story. The fact that the GOP did in fact produce a bill is nice. But the idea that the majority party should defer to that and base their biggest agenda item on it is patently absurd.
Jeff said...
Shiloh,
I argue my points forcefully, and perhaps too forcefully at times, but I never stoop to name calling and insults. On the other hand, name calling and insults are virtually all you and the likes of Pragmatus post. Here's my suggestion: you ignore my posts, and I'll ignore yours. Consider mine marked "for rational liberals only".
~~~~~~~~~~
hmm, from the same thread where you acted like a disgruntled kid and childishly said has convinced me to cease commenting on this site henceforth. one also commented using a general ad hominem re: all progressives:
In fact, reading the clueless commentary about Ronald Reagan on this comment line makes me realize that hope for the right is just around the corner. Their secret weapon: that the left is congentially out of touch.
one was probably hoping it would go unnoticed, eh.
Jeff said...
the left is congentially out of touch.
~~~~~~~~~
hmm, coming from a party of No! lemming like yourself. Yes Virginia, a party that has a major problem w/racism, hatred, lack of education, science deficiency, the teabaggers, birthers, deathers, 10thers, secessionists ie dumb as a rock dwindling yahoo demographics.
Yea, taking the above current Rep reality, southern white guys, into consideration, calling the Dems congential ...
Priceless!
btw, nice general ad hominem against the Dems as your projection was outstanding! ;)
Yea, when reasoned debate is no longer available, use a general ad hominem against the group indicating one is truly bankrupt, eh.
take care
p.s. apologies to rocks ... and hopefully my truthful ad hominems re: Reps were more descriptive than congential.
btw, if you ignore me, I will do likewise as previously mentioned, you're no challenge, notwithstanding all liberals were born stupid er congentially out of touch. Very subtle, but not subtle enough ...
Never stoop to namecalling, indeed!
take care, blessings
Such threads are now moot as Reid has said today that he is sure he has the 60 to put a Public Option in the final Senate Bill and there won't be 60 votes for the Amendment to strip it out. Once in, he only needs 50+Joe to pass it, which we all know he has. So now the only question left is what form the Public Option will take. Looks good for Dems, as they went up against the Repub opposition and won another one. If the Senate GOP takes a few more beatings on Immigration, Finance reform and climate, then I think they'll be down for the count in this Congress, anyway. Thus, if they don't gain a majority in either house next election, I think they may be out of power a long time - i.e. 16+ yrs.
-Jeff
Blogger Ickey said...
"I think they may be out of power a long time - i.e. 16+ yrs."
From your lips to God's ears
6. The fading from memory of the tea party protests and the "government takeover" meme.
Really? No wonder they say the Left lives in a bubble.
электронная почта без регистрации
Post a Comment