Healthcare Decision Thursday: Prediction Thread

[blackascoal]

If Obama had gone to battle . . .

Get your head out of your ass, BAC. Obama would magically turn Blue Dogs into singly-payer proponents by sheer strength of oratory? Same foe Joe Lieberman, BIll Nelson, Max Baucus, Susan Collins, Snowe and the rest of the so-called moderates in the Senate.

Medicare for all never would have passed. Ever. Hell, Joe Lieberman said he'd support a Medicare buy-in for people 55 and over and then crawfished on ever that incrementalist approach.

You need to get real.

It isn't me who has their head up the ass brother. I know how Washington works .. I've been there.

You keep missing this part .. Obama is a corporatist. Corporations have been the biggest beneficiaries of his administration BY FAR.

Your notion that Obama had no choice but to produce this unpopular crap legislation is totally and completely ridiculous. He did not have to pass the crap he did when he did. He could have taken a REAL healthcare bill to the country during the midterms .. backed by not only those who elected him, but also by those who were demanding healthcare reform from the republicans.

This capitulation/settle for crumbs logic is not what leaders are made of. Now he's in a fight for a second term against Romney .. who should have been easy .. which of course his supporters will blame on racists.

We disagree on strategy and outcome brother.

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

DH Lieberman also said that Obama never once asked him to support the Medicare buy in for 55 and up.

That 55 and up buy in was a back door way in and I'm sorry but there is no way you can say Obama couldn't have gotten it passed. He never tried, and this we know for a fact.

 

[Bonestorm]

The #1 problem is spiraling healthcare costs. No one really disputes that.

I dispute that.

As for actively seeking to keep costs high, the admin admitted that when they emailed a pharma lobbyist telling them they'd keep restricting imports on drugs, so prices could stay high - to reward pharma for all of their help on the bill.

So leaving the law with respect to re-importation of drugs is "actively keeping prices high?" I don't see it that way.

As for "that's how the world works," it won't work too much longer if industry keeps writing bills that continue to bankrupt the country. Like I said - there are those who understand the current economic situation, and those who don't. If those who don't win the day, they'll understand soon enough.

Spare me the drama, Oncelor. Really. What you seem to fail to understand is that the ACA dramatically improves the deficit picture in the long term. That's going to bankrupt the country?

I know you like to wear your deficit-hysteria as a badge of honor to prove just how independent-minded you are, but that doesn't make you right on the merits.

 

[Bonestorm]

DH Lieberman also said that Obama never once asked him to support the Medicare buy in for 55 and up.

That 55 and up buy in was a back door way in and I'm sorry but there is no way you can say Obama couldn't have gotten it passed. He never tried, and this we know for a fact.

Lieberman is full of shit. He campaigned on it! He proposed it! Then when the idea became part of a compromise as an alternative to a public option (which Lieberman also opposed), Lieberman said he would join in a Republican filibuster against it.

Pretending Obama could have gotten it passed when he didn't have the votes is asinine.

 

[Onceler]

I dispute that.

So leaving the law with respect to re-importation of drugs is "actively keeping prices high?" I don't see it that way.

Spare me the drama, Oncelor. Really. What you seem to fail to understand is that the ACA dramatically improves the deficit picture in the long term. That's going to bankrupt the country?

I know you like to wear your deficit-hysteria as a badge of honor to prove just how independent-minded you are, but that doesn't make you right on the merits.

It's not hysteria. It is genuine concern. The list of economists who do not see the crash we're headed for is getting smaller every day. And bills like this only shrink it further - because it is wantonly fiscally irresponsible. It's la la land to just say, "hey, let's cover everyone!", as though we have endless budget. I'm on board w/ covering anyone, but tackle the ridiculous, out-of-control costs WITH that effort...not as some afterthought, or token measure. Otherwise, you're just setting it up for failure.

And how in the word is it not possible to see that as actively keeping costs high? Any common sense measure WOULD remove restrictions on imports to lower costs. It's the very minimum the admin could do. They made it clear that they kept the restrictions as nothing more than a reward to big pharma. If that doesn't piss you off to the extreme, you have a much different expectation or our gov't than I do. You're way too accepting of the ongoing corporate takeover.

 

[Bonestorm]

It isn't me who has their head up the ass brother. I know how Washington works .. I've been there.

You keep missing this part .. Obama is a corporatist. Corporations have been the biggest beneficiaries of his administration BY FAR.

Your notion that Obama had no choice but to produce this unpopular crap legislation is totally and completely ridiculous. He did not have to pass the crap he did when he did. He could have taken a REAL healthcare bill to the country during the midterms .. backed by not only those who elected him, but also by those who were demanding healthcare reform from the republicans.

This capitulation/settle for crumbs logic is not what leaders are made of. Now he's in a fight for a second term against Romney .. who should have been easy .. which of course his supporters will blame on racists.

We disagree on strategy and outcome brother.

So you're of the view nothing would have been better? I respectfully disagree and very seriously doubt that the mid-term elections would have improved the chances of something better passing.

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

Lieberman is full of shit. He campaigned on it! He proposed it! Then when the idea became part of a compromise as an alternative to a public option (which Lieberman also opposed), Lieberman said he would join in a Republican filibuster against it.

Pretending Obama could have gotten it passed when he didn't have the votes is asinine.

Well, I suppose what you are saying then is that Obama knew that Lieberman would never vote for it so he didn't bother putting any pressure on. I have more of a healthy respect for the power of that particular bully pulpit. But even if that turned out to be the case, then BAC is right. Obama should have fought for it anyway, and then ran the midterms on it. It's not like he could have lost the midterms any worse. I wonder what would have happened if American families had had something to vote for instead of something to vote against?

 

[Bonestorm]

It's not hysteria. It is genuine concern. The list of economists who do not see the crash we're headed for is getting smaller every day. And bills like this only shrink it further - because it is wantonly fiscally irresponsible. It's la la land to just say, "hey, let's cover everyone!", as though we have endless budget. I'm on board w/ covering anyone, but tackle the ridiculous, out-of-control costs WITH that effort...not as some afterthought, or token measure. Otherwise, you're just setting it up for failure.

That hilarious. The ACA improves the deficit and debt picture. It doesn't make it worse.

And how in the word is it not possible to see that as actively keeping costs high? Any common sense measure WOULD remove restrictions on imports to lower costs. It's the very minimum the admin could do. They made it clear that they kept the restrictions as nothing more than a reward to big pharma. If that doesn't piss you off to the extreme, you have a much different expectation or our gov't than I do. You're way too accepting of the ongoing corporate takeover.

I'm so old I can remember when doing things like this was called "coalition building" and was a virtue. I think keeping the status quo on re-importation is a small price to pay (really no price at all) to build support for an important piece of legislation that will prevent needless suffering of millions of Americans. But that's just me.

 

[Onceler]

That hilarious. The ACA improves the deficit and debt picture. It doesn't make it worse.

Come again?

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

As much as I disagree with Onceler DH, I find acceptance of the idea that we can't reform health care without the Insurance Industry's stamp of approval very disturbing. In fact, it's more than an acceptance, it's an insistence. We needed a leader on that. If enough insurance whores were voted out, year after year, then things could not stay the same. But you need a leader. We didn't get one. We got a lackey. I don't even like to think about what he did with health care.

 

[Bonestorm]

Well, I suppose what you are saying then is that Obama knew that Lieberman would never vote for it so he didn't bother putting any pressure on. I have more of a healthy respect for the power of that particular bully pulpit. But even if that turned out to be the case, then BAC is right. Obama should have fought for it anyway, and then ran the midterms on it. It's not like he could have lost the midterms any worse. I wonder what would have happened if American families had had something to vote for instead of something to vote against?

It's Joe Lieberman we're talking about, Darla. Joe "I'm campaigning for John McCain not Obama, lost a Democratic primary and am now a party of one, look at me, look at me" Lieberman. I don't think the idea that Obama could jawbone Joe Lieberman into voting for something that he said he would filibuster is "healthy respect for the bully pulpit." It's wishful thinking.

 

[Bonestorm]

Come again?

I thought I was quite clear.

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

It's Joe Lieberman we're talking about, Darla. Joe "I'm campaigning for John McCain not Obama, lost a Democratic primary and am now a party of one, look at me, look at me" Lieberman. I don't think the idea that Obama could jawbone Joe Lieberman into voting for something that he said he would filibuster is "healthy respect for the bully pulpit." It's wishful thinking.

I don't remember his saying he would filbibuster it, I only remember his supporting it, backing away from that support, and then telling the media Obama never even asked him to support it. But I believe you that he did, I just don't remember it.

 

[blackascoal]

So you're of the view nothing would have been better? I respectfully disagree and very seriously doubt that the mid-term elections would have improved the chances of something better passing.

Yes, I am of the opinion that nothing would have been better AT THE TIME. If republicans stood in the way of a good healthcare plan .. then pass nothing, take the good bill to the American people and demonstrate how republicans stand in the way of what they demanded when they elected Obama. That would have rallied the troops and given then faith that Obama was actually the leader they thought he was, not the corporate shill they now know him to be.

The only rationale there is to vote for Obama is that his evil is somehow less evil than Romney's .. that is if one plays the foolish game of "lesser evil."

 

[Onceler]

I thought I was quite clear.

$1.7 trillion over a decade? And it won't even cover everyone.

I understand desperation for universal healthcare, and I believe everyone should be covered. But to make the leap to "I'll take any costly, industry-written bill that comes along" in exchange for that...no way.

This bill deserves to go down. They need to get back to the drawing board, and sign a pledge to not speak to or read anything from any lobbyist associated with the healthcare or insurance industry.

 

[Bonestorm]

$1.7 trillion over a decade? And it won't even cover everyone.

I understand desperation for universal healthcare, and I believe everyone should be covered. But to make the leap to "I'll take any costly, industry-written bill that comes along" in exchange for that...no way.

This bill deserves to go down. They need to get back to the drawing board, and sign a pledge to not speak to or read anything from any lobbyist associated with the healthcare or insurance industry.

Um, it reduces the deficit and debt. Or are you suddenly one of those people that doesn't accept the CBO?

 

[Onceler]

Um, it reduces the deficit and debt. Or are you suddenly one of those people that doesn't accept the CBO?

I'm a CBO guy, but....

A) They doubled their estimate of how much it would cost, in just over a year
B) The CBO said themselves that there are WAY too many variables & factors to accurately predict any reliable #'s over the next decade

Ergo, it's a crapshoot. It's not a well thought-out piece of legislation; it doesn't address cost-cutting in any meaningful way; and it was written by the pharma, healthcare & insurance industries.

What's to like?

 

[apple0154]

I don't watch "newz" ( Jon Stewart), or any of those parody guys -it's fun -but distortive.

There is much wrong with your post: Paki was not happy we used a CIA Op to find bin Laden, Obama turns it into a campaign moment.
He caused the event to be highlited, and Paki ( which has many Islamic fundamnetalists) was under intense pressure to protect their sovereignity.
The point - do your warring, and don't inflame the local populace.

Further aggrevating Paki, but the deal kiler was when we shelled their troops. That led to the closure of the suply lines -they're still closed.
get out? He's the one whom escalated AfPak -he's the guy who droned so many houses, he drove Paki into the SCO - completely out of the western sphere.

Tell me what was accomplished by escalating in AfPak? * and recall we're promising a support role for another 10 years.*

I won't getinto the droning - listen to Gary Johnson -the guy I'm voting for, he uses the term "perpetual war" which we are now engaged in.
Or simply Crusades 3.0

What was accomplished is the US got Bin Laden. Run. Hide. We'll get you, sooner or later. There was no need for the constant televised Bush mouthing off about "we'll do this" and "we'll do that" and some cowboy reference to "smoking them out" like we used to see on Gunsmoke.

Obama did what he had to do. As for a support roll we'll see how many troops stay. The "perpetual war" was Bush's MO. After 10 years it's time to call the game.

 

[apple0154]

I can't disagree on the sentiment regarding expanding access. However, to me, that goes hand in hand with reducing costs. If no meaningful effort is going to be made to reduce costs in conjunction with a bill this massive, it will ultimately be self-defeating. The country simply can't afford it. Them's just the facts. There are those who realize what kind of financial shape we are in, and what that bodes for the future - and those who seem not to. We're one reckless program like this away from a sequel to the '30's.

BAC is right - the healthcare/pharma industry wrote this bill, just like they wrote the prescription drug bill a decade ago. Not only does the bill not seek meaningful cost reduction - it actively seeks to keep prices high in some cases.

No one disputes that the biggest problem with health coverage is that it costs too much; it's one of the main reasons we have so many uninsured in the 1st place, and why companies have been dropping coverage for working Americans for years. What kind of gov't do we have when the biggest piece of health legislation in years does not really address the #1 problem with healthcare, and rewards those who are responsible for that?

The objective was to get some kind of coverage for everyone or nearly everyone. The goal was to change the "reality" or what's become known as The Overton Window (At any given moment, the “window” includes a range of policies considered to be politically acceptable in the current climate of public opinion, which a politician can recommend without being considered too “extreme” or outside the mainstream to gain or keep public office. Overton arranged the spectrum on a vertical axis of “more free” and “less free” in regard to government intervention. When the window moves or expands, ideas can accordingly become more or less politically acceptable.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window

"Society" isn't ready for a one payer/government system so it has to be done in increments. Getting the drug companies on board was vital so drug prices weren't touched. However, once ObamaCare gets established and people see the lies and distortions that were spread about government medical they'll be more receptive to government medical. Once public opinion changes and it will as witnessed by every country that has government medical then the price of medical care will drop as the government will negotiate with drug companies and medical supply companies.

Drugs made in the US and shipped to Canada are cheaper in Canada. Why? Because Provincial governments supply the medication to the citizens while covering a portion of the cost. A Canadian citizen has the option of purchasing a drug covered by a Provincial plan or another drug not covered. So, let's say there's two drug companies. The Canadian government negotiates a price with one company. That company will sell many more pills than the other company because that medication is covered by the plan.

Due to current public opinion Obama can't afford to take on all aspects of the opposition so he defers to the drug companies. That will change as soon as public opinion changes and public opinion is guaranteed to change just as it has in every other country that has a medical plan.

One has to be patient.

 

[Bonestorm]

I'm a CBO guy, but....

A) They doubled their estimate of how much it would cost, in just over a year

No, they didn't.

B) The CBO said themselves that there are WAY too many variables & factors to accurately predict any reliable #'s over the next decade

Standard caveats in any such projection.

Ergo, it's a crapshoot. It's not a well thought-out piece of legislation; it doesn't address cost-cutting in any meaningful way; and it was written by the pharma, healthcare & insurance industries.

No, it isn't a crapshoot. You're obviously working from the conclusion and then developing a justification for your conclusion. Hence, your reliance on right-wing talking point in opposition to the law.

What's to like?

Let's see. Affordable healthcare for millions of presently uninsured low and moderate income Americans. The end of recissions. The end of lifetime and annual spending caps. The end of denials of coverage based on pre-existing conditions. The modernization of medical record keeping. The 80-20 rule capping heath insurance profits, which basically turns health insurance into a regulated utility. Allowing adult children to remain on parent's plans through age 26. Expanding Medicaid. And that's just for starters.