Professor Jacob Hacker, the "godfather of the public option", and Senator Al Franken explain why they support passage of the Senate bill, even weakened as it is. Both found via Oliver Willis, who has consistently been a good source of blogger coverage and analysis on this issue -- Liberal Values has been another. And don't forget Paul Krugman. Update: The AMA comes out in support too.
Hey, all forty Republicans still voted against the thing -- there must be some good in it!
(Cross-posted from my home blog.)
Thanks for the links, Infidel
ReplyDeleteI'm still not convinced this bill is anything but a sell out and I'd like to know the name of every democratic senator that would not support the public option.
ReplyDeleteThis bill is crap.
I'm with you, Rocky, the more I learn about what's in it.
ReplyDeleteTalk about putting lipstick on a pig...
After reading what the people linked above had to say, I feel a lot more comfortable with it. They are among the people best-acquainted with the issues and with what it actually does and doesn't do.
ReplyDeleteInfidel, read people's comments under Krugman's op-eds on the "astonishing success" that this bill is. The public sentiment is clear and no amount of lipstick will change this particular pig into a beauty. Dems better prepare for a defeat, as unpleasant (and perhaps tragic) as it may be for their supporters and the country as a whole.
ReplyDeleteBetween the party of idiots and the sell-outs to corporate interests, the American public does not have much to choose from, politically-speaking. But they sure as hell can make their displeasure heard, both the teabaggers and gypped liberals, in the next elections.
I don't think the conference with the House will bring any meaningful changes to the bill -- Nelson and others have already taken care of that in the concessions they got for their vote. We'll end up with, "Sorry, we tried."
I see the political reality, Infidel, but I don't have to accept or like it -- and certainly do not intend to pretend that this bill is a worthwhile accomplishment, Krugman's et al's opinions notwithstanding.
BTW, it's easy for people like Krugman, with cushy, tenured and well-compensated jobs and excellent benefits, to extol this political "victory," as in their eyes it may be such indeed.
Not in mine, and not in those of majority of American people, whose lives are very directly and negatively affected by this debacle.
Here is what the bill does, among other things (and what Krugman et al. do not mention that often) -- via FDL:
1.The bill forces you to pay up to 8% of your income to private insurance corporations -- whether you want to or not.
1.If you refuse to buy the insurance, you'll have to pay penalties of up to 2% of your annual income to the IRS.
1.After being forced to pay thousands in premiums for junk insurance, you can still be on the hook for up to $11,900 a year in out-of-pocket medical expenses.
1.Massive restriction on a woman's right to choose, designed to trigger a challenge to Roe v. Wade in the Supreme Court.
1.Paid for by taxes on the middle class insurance plan you have right now through your employer, causing them to cut back benefits and increase co-pays.
1.Many of the taxes to pay for the bill start now, but most Americans won't see any benefits -- like an end to discrimination against those with preexisting conditions -- until 2014 when the program begins.
1.Allows insurance companies to charge people who are older 300% more than others.
1.Grants monopolies to drug companies that will keep generic versions of expensive biotech drugs from ever coming to market.
1.No reimportation of prescription drugs, which would save consumers $100 billion over 10 years.
1.The cost of medical care will continue to rise, and insurance premiums for a family of 4 will rise an average of $1000 a year -- meaning in 10 years, you family's insurance premium will be $10,000 more annually than it is right now.
I've always acknowledged that it has serious negatives. You seem to be ignoring all the positives.
ReplyDeleteBut they sure as hell can make their displeasure heard, both the teabaggers and gypped liberals, in the next elections.
As I've pointed out elsewhere, this is probably the Republican startegy. Their obstructionism creates a situation where it was impossible to get anything better than this. Then Democratic voters who don't understand the constraints created by the Senate rules get mad at Democratic office-holders, don't vote for them in 2010, and allow the Republicans to increase their power, allowing them to become even more effectively obstructionist, et cetera.
In short, I think you and a lot of other people are being manipulated. If you think this bill is a disappointment, wait till you see what happens if the Democratic majority in Congress gets reduced.
It would be easy for someone like me, who has good insurance I'm very unlikely to lose, to call for the bill to be defeated because it's so much less than we hoped for. If it were defeated, I would not suffer. It's the uninsured who would suffer. Yes, the bill gives them a terrible deal, but not as bad as what they have now and would still have if it failed. If it passes we can work to get them a better deal later. That's how such reforms have been put through in the past in spite of conservative resistance -- take what you can get and build on it to get more.
And again, all the anger and disappointment over this needs to be channeled into the issue of changing the Senate rules to eliminate the 60-vote requirement. If that requirement didn't exist, the Democrats would have gotten a good bill through without having to make all those concessions to Lieberman and the Blue Dogs, and we wouldn't be having this discussion.
ReplyDeleteI agree, but we'll soon forget, the way we soon forgot the damned electoral college that gave us George the Idiot.
ReplyDeleteRocky: the public option isn't dead, it's just not in this bill. As for the names of the Senators, I'd begin with Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson.
ReplyDeleteUltimately, the problem is that you would need reconciliation to pass it -- but the p.o. is useless without all the stuff that's in THIS bill.
Infidel, yes, there are positives in the bill, I'm just not sure they outweigh the negatives.
ReplyDeleteAnd, sigh, being told that one is "being manipulated" doesn't help. It suggests that one is incapable of critically assessing incoming information and forming one's own judgment. I don't feel comfortable with that. Not only I am being asked to accept this lousy bill as something inevitable (well, it is), I am also told, as are many others, how to feel about it. Forgive me, but that's just too much.
BTW, can we say with any certainty who's being manipulated? Perhaps those who believe that the bill will lead to more substantial changes are duped and/or deluded? It is hard to see, after all, how strengthening the private insurance industry -- through this "historic health care overhaul," no less -- could somehow lead to a single-payer nationalized health care.
So let's agree to disagree in our reactions and keep an open (and critical) mind, I'd say. I'll try if you do. :)
My guess -- or at least my hope -- is that some of the more liberal House members and senators will be able push through improvements later on, after the bill takes effect. If the legislation actually follows through on the negative things Elizabeth mentions, it would be fatal to the Democratic Party's chances of winning elections anytime in the near future. People forget lots of things or can't get clear on them, but just about everybody knows when you just took thousands of dollars of their money without giving them so much as a lollipop back for it, or when you promised them something good and instead punished them. That, they remember.
ReplyDeleteYes, lollipops make (almost) everything better, B-Dino. Especially the orange ones. :)
ReplyDeleteA good point. Seriously now. (Though I am serious about orange lollipops too.)