How Confident Are You That Whatever HCR Bill is Passed Will Be a Net Gain?

[Lunar]

I don't know why I should care anymore about this bill myself (a reasonable possibility of the slightest of net gains).  I hope my pessimism is misplaced.

Interpret "initial healthcare reform supporter" however you will, I don't view that as "The Democratic Plan" nor do I view that as the Republican plan (which is what? tort reform and tax cuts while mumbling something hypocritical about Medicare? Puh-lease, send me to barfville first)

Lieberman's latest political backstabbing and his lack of any interest in the actual policy is only one of many factors.  Other notable factors include the White House cutting a $150m deal with Big Pharma while Dorgan attempts to use that deal to blow the entire thing up.  Honorable mentions include the general ineptitude of the Democratic Party and both parties' members prioritizing electoral strategies over actually helping people who are literally sick and fucking dying.  The Tea Party's scorched earth approach towards Republicans who seek to actually improve the bill is not helping either, but the Maine Twins seem to be among the 10% or less of senators who actually care about helping people. 

I'm deeply sorry for the biased wording of my poll options no I'm not.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Hillary is passing a bill?

[Lunar]

Hillary is passing a bill?

Obviously I meant the Human Rights Campaign, the gay-rights group.

Nah, good call.  Typo while rewording the thread title.

[© tweed]

lock to be a net loss as whatever passes will do nothing to reshape the foundations of the system and will take the issue off of the table for another decade.  unless enough people starve by then

[Lief 🗽]

Guys, most things that end up passing will be a net gain. Obviously something with the public option or the medicare buy-in would be a bigger net gain than something without, but whether or not those are included, some thirty million people who couldn't afford health insurance will be able to after this bill passes. That's a net gain. Insurance companies won't be able to suddenly take away coverage when you get sick or deny you coverage because of a pre-existing condition. That's a net gain. Some ten million more poor/working class people will be covered by medicaid. That's a net gain. Some Harvard economists calculated that 45,000 people a year die from lack of health insurance. That's half a million people's lives saved in the next decade. How is that not a net gain?

Is this bill perfect? Obviously not. But it's so, so much better than nothing. And for the past fifty years, Democrats have been trying for perfect and giving up when they'd had to settle for only just "good." And each time we fail, we get a little less ambitious, until one day we'll give up:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So, at the very least, let's get our foot in the door. Yes, insurance companies won't be as punished as we'd like them to be. But I don't think some desire to make insurance CEOs suffer is worth improving the lives of millions of Americans and saving the lives of hundreds of thousands. Progressives haven't really won anything since LBJ passed the Great Society. For the next forty years, all we've done is try to preserve the status quo or prevent the country from lurching too far to the right. But this bill is actually a good, solid progressive step forward in the right direction.

[Lunar]

Lief I read Ezra's blog too, every day, and it makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside when nothing else in the world does, but is this bill really going to result in thirty million people being covered who were not covered previously?  The guy's a convincing perpetual optimist and incredibly intelligent, and I understand the importance of incremental success (I don't accept Tweed's argument* that a bill that helps people but doesn't correct fundamental problems will actually just serve to placate the people and help the status quo).

*Nor do I accept these sorts of arguments in general.  For example, I have a gay friend that constantly argues against civil unions on the basis that placate the electorate, but to the people in Utah and Kansas who don't have basic hospital visitation rights or inheritance rights these sorts of theoretical arguments are absurd.

Remember, we don't even know what the bill is going to look like yet.

[Lief 🗽]

Lief I read Ezra's blog too, every day, and it makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside when nothing else in the world does, but is this bill really going to result in thirty million people being covered who were not covered previously? 

Well, the CBO says it will and independent studies say it will. I mean, you could be skeptical about these calculations, sure, but if you're not going to trust anyone, what's the point of even passing legislation? Maybe it'll fail, and then we're all probably fucked, and I mean both the Democratic majorities, President Obama, liberals, and probably the country as a whole. But I think we're also pretty fucked if we don't do anything at all. I think it's reasonable to have at least some faith in these people.

[Rowan]

Lief I read Ezra's blog too, every day, and it makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside when nothing else in the world does, but is this bill really going to result in thirty million people being covered who were not covered previously? 

Well, the CBO says it will and independent studies say it will. I mean, you could be skeptical about these calculations, sure, but if you're not going to trust anyone, what's the point of even passing legislation? Maybe it'll fail, and then we're all probably fucked, and I mean both the Democratic majorities, President Obama, liberals, and probably the country as a whole. But I think we're also pretty fucked if we don't do anything at all. I think it's reasonable to have at least some faith in these people.

There's a CBO report on this new concoction they have?

[opebo]

I'm really only concerned about the provision of free medical care for those under approximately the 'poverty line', but yeah, whatever is passed cannot be any worse than the total exclusion from health care which was the case before.

[Lunar]

Lief I read Ezra's blog too, every day, and it makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside when nothing else in the world does, but is this bill really going to result in thirty million people being covered who were not covered previously?  

Well, the CBO says it will and independent studies say it will. I mean, you could be skeptical about these calculations, sure, but if you're not going to trust anyone, what's the point of even passing legislation? Maybe it'll fail, and then we're all probably fucked, and I mean both the Democratic majorities, President Obama, liberals, and probably the country as a whole. But I think we're also pretty fucked if we don't do anything at all. I think it's reasonable to have at least some faith in these people.

By "these people" do you mean the members of the Democratic majority?

Some people I trust more than others.  Nancy in the House, for all of her flaws, has a great deal of my trust.  Maybe I just believe San Francisco isn't as radical as it's painted, who knows, I'm biased as hell when it comes to who I trust.

The alternative is not to abandon everything of course.  I want the Democrats to pass the best thing they can and I know it's important to future progressive/pragmatic/whatever legislation on the docket.  But I'm growing increasingly cynical that the final bill will be anything except a giant hand-out to certain special interest groups that supported the bill at the expense of other special interest groups that opposed it (i.e. politics as usual).  As I implied in my edited footnote for the above post, while we might bitch and groan, if the bill results in SOME people getting healthcare, that's somebody's life we're talking about not a friggin' number. 

Again we still have to get the CBO scores on the medicare buy-in that the White House/Lieberman have rejected, and we don't have the CBO scores for whatever compromise of compromise of hollow compromise will result from the end game of this process.  

[Lunar]

There's a CBO report on this new concoction they have?

beat me to it.

[Lunar]

I mean, take Dorgan's absurd amendment I alluded to in the original post.  What it does is allow Canada to resell drugs to the United States that American companies HAVE ALREADY SOLD TO CANADA (pop. 30m) wholesale and let Canadian companies operate as middlemen for our own products.  Absurd, and the amendment won't be able to pass without transforming the entire bill into the Titanic, but could such a ridiculous amendment as a stand-alone bill do more good than the entire HRC bill?

[Rowan]

Burris isn't on board:

He added: “My colleagues may have forged a compromise bill that can achieve the 60 votes that will be needed for it to pass. But until this bill addresses cost, competition and accountability in a meaningful way, it will not win mine.”

http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/15/burris-pushes-back/

[useful idiot]

lock to be a net loss as whatever passes will do nothing to reshape the foundations of the system and will take the issue off of the table for another decade.  unless enough people starve by then

I'm in agreement. I think the best thing to happen would be for any plan that has been put on the table to fail. That way next time around we can do it right and get single-payer.

[Lunar]

Burris isn't on board:

He added: “My colleagues may have forged a compromise bill that can achieve the 60 votes that will be needed for it to pass. But until this bill addresses cost, competition and accountability in a meaningful way, it will not win mine.”

http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/15/burris-pushes-back/

He won't vote against cloture.

[Lunar]

lock to be a net loss as whatever passes will do nothing to reshape the foundations of the system and will take the issue off of the table for another decade.  unless enough people starve by then

I'm in agreement. I think the best thing to happen would be for any plan that has been put on the table to fail. That way next time around we can do it right and get single-payer.

impossible to make that leap in one jump without restructuring the American political system.

[Sam Spade]

Once they finally put it their compromise into statutory language that I can read, I'll give my opinion.

As for what's been passed or written so far:

Fiscally each bill consists of so many smoke-and-mirrors games that how it would actually be put into practice would be so dramatically different than what the legislation says that I don't whether I can make an accurate commentary other than - multiply what they say it'll cost by two, at minimum, and then subtract for the amount of rationing that you actually think a government panel can push through.

As for the actual health care benefits - I certainly wouldn't want to be an old or a sick or, especially, a doctor.

But that's not the legislation in front of us.

[opebo]

As for the actual health care benefits - I certainly wouldn't want to be an old or a sick or, especially, a doctor.

It is relatively easy to avoid being a doctor, but avoiding being a sick or an old is very difficult, and most times involves the unpleasantness of a gun in the mouth.  So, lets just all assume, since it is reasonable to do so, that we are all sick and old, as at any rate we will be quite soon.

[Хahar 🤔]

Whatever is passed will make things worse, thanks to the brilliant minds of people like Max Baucus.

[Mint]

Whatever is passed will make things worse, thanks to the brilliant minds of people like Max Baucus.

[Lief 🗽]

Whatever is passed will make things worse

why?

[Vepres]

Y'all are assuming a bill will in fact pass

[Lunar]

Y'all are assuming a bill will in fact pass

There's clearly an option for people like yourself who think there's a chance that Obama won't sign something called "Health Care Reform."  I think analysts universally disagree with that prognosis though.

[nclib]

Whatever likely will pass will be a net (slight) improvement over the status quo unless the Stupak/Pitts ban is enacted.

[Ogre Mage]

We have been trying to pass health care reform since Harry Truman.  The last time was with Bill Clinton in 1993-94.  Before that, Carter in 1977-78.  I am not willing to wait another 16 years (approx. 2025) if we fail this time.  Costs are spiraling out of control and have been for some time.  And the number of uninsured and under-insured is not improving.

As far as the left is concerned, I say -- when Social Security was passed, it wasn't the expansive program it is today.  It took many years to evolve and eventually became very popular.  You must start from somewhere, even if the start isn't a great one.  Or to quote a cliche -- Rome wasn't built in a day.

The bill will succeed if it controls costs and raises quality.  I am not qualified to say if it will do that over the long-term.  But I think the serious minds around the table working very hard on this (not Joe Lieberman) will keep hammering away on that goal if the bill passes.