Comments on: Obama Says Senate Vote is a “Big Victory” for Health Care Reform

By: Lone Star Rules

Lone Star Rules — Fri, 25 Dec 2009 12:16:13 +0000

One last comment on this ‘political art-manship’ business that has drawn such controversy (as it should) around the health plan.
Senator Dodd was already on board with the plan yet The leadership threw a $100 Million his way for a hospital as part of the package.
This isn’t political maneuvering or some kind of ‘art of politics’ nonsense: this was flagrant payola for one of the insiders, pure and simple.
There are rumblings that the people of Nebraska are saying ‘thanks but no thanks’ to their $100 Million dollar political payola. I wonder if the people of Connecticut will say the same thing? And, what about Louisiana?

By: Lone Star Rules

Lone Star Rules — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 12:57:37 +0000

So if this health reform Bill is so good why does Reid & Company have to bribe their own guys to vote for it?
Not only that but the numbers in these particular bribes are staggering. Yeah, we all get it – deals are made, compromises struck and the art of politics depends on this process. But, what about the merits of the Bill? Seems to me that we need to keep our eye on the ball. How about asking why Harry Reid granted a concessions to the tune of $1.2 Billion divided up among three or four Senators on the Bandwagon. There are their own guys for chrissake. Is the Bill that weak that he had to prop it up with back room deals that were so big they couldn’t be swept under the carpet? Turns out that $1.2 Billion is still a lot of money. (whew – I was worried after we all started to get used to “Trillion” as something that smacks of a lot of money)
Didn’t the President grease everyone’s palms with the Stimulus Bill? Seems that this was the President’s house warming gift back to the team; was Nebraska and Louisiana somehow not included in the mix there?
Let’s take a look at this Health Bill and see why guys from the home team require being paid off to get aboard.

By: progressive mama

progressive mama — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 16:03:39 +0000

tpj, I did answer. Perhaps, you didn’t like the answer :>)
“I believe Congress will need to be pressed to ensure more efficiency and fiscal responsibility is achieved.
“If you look at the evolution of other efforts in the direction of universal coverage, more effective cost-curve measures tend to follow taking the first step or two toward universal coverage. So, I do not believe this is mission accomplished but it’s gotten us on the path with a compass, rather than still flailing about in the woods without a path or a compass.”
In other words, I don’t think congress will make sure the cost efficiency measures are enacted and improved without pressure from above and below. The onus is on us to hold them accountable. I think we should take that on, and make sure it happens.
We create our destiny, n’est pas?

By: tjp612

tjp612 — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 15:52:11 +0000

“…and I personally don’t just give fiscal responsibility and fiscal efficiency lip service…”
But yet, you avoid answering the following questions:
- Do you really believe that Congress will cut $500 billion in Medicare funds?
- Do you really believe that Congress will cut physician pricing?
If the answer to either is “yes”, on what basis?
Congress has RARELY ever taken positions to cut spending, particularly for entitlements.
These cuts are not going to happen. This legislation will be “historic” in that it will be a significant chapter in the history of America’s demise.

By: progressive mama

progressive mama — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 15:06:15 +0000

Does Sheldon Whitehouse know that? Posted by: Foghorn Leghorn | Dec 21, 2009 6:48:26 PM
Absolutely. Sometimes a little fire and brimstone rant is necessary and personally I’m glad he slammed Republicans for their “desperate, no-holds-barred mission of propaganda, falsehood, obstruction and fear.” Truth isn’t “extreme” :>)
““When it turns out there are no death panels, when there is no bureaucrat between you and your doctor, when the ways your health care changes seem like a good deal to you, and a pretty smart idea, when the American public sees the discrepancy between what really is, and what they were told by the Republicans, there will be a reckoning. There will come a day of judgment about who was telling the truth.” Sen. Whitehouse
Somewhat related, I thought Jonathan Chait’s “The Rise of Republican Nihilism” piece at TNR was certainly worth a read.
“Whatever the merits of President Obama’s agenda, it is clearly a response to objectively large problems facing the country. The administration has selected three main issues as the focus of its domestic agenda: the economic crisis, climate change, and health care reform. The issues themselves offer a stark contrast with Bush’s 2005 crusade to reshape Social Security. While sold as a response to the program’s long-term deficit, the privatization campaign was actually motivated by ideological opposition to Social Security’s redistributive role. (Bush refused Democratic offers to negotiate a fix to the program’s solvency without altering its social-insurance character.) By contrast, it is impossible to dismiss the problems Obama has chosen to address. In all three areas, the Republican Party has adopted a stance of total opposition, not merely because it disagrees with aspects of Obama’s solutions, but because it cannot come to grips with the very nature of the problems of modern American politics.”

By: progressive mama

progressive mama — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 14:33:29 +0000

Ezra Klein has a fun little item in his blog this week. He’s asking health care experts what they’d like Santa to realistically add to the bill during conference. this morning Diane Archer said, nationalize the exchanges– and that is an idea I wholeheartedly agree with.
“The federal government should implement the law in a uniform way and relieve the states of the burden of setting up whole new insurance markets and regulatory structures–unless they choose to and demonstrate their ability to–as the House bill provides.”

By: progressive mama

progressive mama — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 14:29:37 +0000

No, we can’t have ANYONE getting anything better than everyone else…
—
I’m not sure where you get that Medical Advantage is “better”– particularly if you read the studies. It was implemented to achieve certain objectives and it has not achieved them, hence government funds could be used more efficiently and effectively– and I personally don’t just give fiscal responsibility and fiscal efficiency lip service, I think its a worthwhile goal and I support efforts to work toward that goal, and I use political activism to press (“push”) for achievement of those goals.
Overall, I have a tendency to be on Team Wonk, including in health care reform. That’s why I read wonky blogs and reports.
I believe Congress will need to be pressed to ensure more efficiency and fiscal responsibility is achieved.
If you look at the evolution of other efforts in the direction of universal coverage, more effective cost-curve measures tend to follow takiing the first step or two toward universal coverage. So, I do not believe this is mission accomplished but it’s gotten us on the path with a compass, rather than still flailing about in the woods without a path or a compass.

By: tjp612

tjp612 — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 14:07:48 +0000

“The Senate bill will cut excess subsidies from Medicare Advantage, an alternative to Medicare used by a quarter of seniors.”
No, we can’t have ANYONE getting anything better than everyone else, so let’s cut Medicare Advantage, a program seniors pay into to receive care at a higher quality than the “average” Medicare receipient receives.
Again, liberal “equality of outcome” on display from liberals.
But going back to my point: Do you really believe that Congress will cut $500 billion in Medicare funds? Do you really believe that Congress will cut physician pricing? I don’t. The “savings” Obama is claiming is based on these assumptions. WHEN Congress refuses to act on these cuts and kick the can down the road (as they have for years with the “doc fix”) the premise of “savings” will fall like a house of cards, debt/deficits/taxes will skyrocket and our standard of living will be eroded.
Just what the liberals want: “equality of outcome”. Achievers are punished in the Age of Obama.

By: ellsbells930

ellsbells930 — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 11:45:55 +0000

tierra – where do you get that things are improving? Because Obama says so? There is nothing improving around here. People still don’t have jobs. My spouse is still making 25% less than he was a year ago. My child’s college tuition is still going up. My electric bills are about to go up 33%. My heating bills are set to go up 10%. And now, my health insurance premiums are going to skyrocket more than what they already are. So what exactly is improving?

By: ellsbells930

ellsbells930 — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 11:41:53 +0000

tjp612 – I agree about “unintended consequences”. Government programs are full of them – healthcare in particular. The introduction of the Prospective Payment System (DRG’s) by Medicare had the “unintended consequence” of creating deliberate manipulation of charges by providers to cover the shortfall of payments by Medicare (something that was part of my job for years) – which caused the “unintended consequence” of insurance companies pushing HMO’s & premium prices skyrocketing.
But -hey – let’s just do more of the same since it worked so well the first time