Hmmm. Thanks Move On. Another gross simplification of what's actually happening.
Even as a assured, lofty liberal I've just become more and more incensed by methods like this. Especially cause they're not even that funny.
I don’t think this is quite as far off-base as Sargent does. But to whatever extent you think Jane Hamsher is on an anti-pragmatic ideological crusade, any sensible look at things would indicate that Joe Lieberman is about a thousand times more at fault.
The key point here is that insofar as we’re really having an “ideological” dispute about the propriety of private health insurance, then what the left has shown throughout this debate is a willingness to bend extremely far in the direction of accommodation with the status quo.
The habit of insisting that only the right and the left have “ideologies” and that people in the center don’t is one of the absolute most frustrating elements of conventional political discussion in the United States. The fact of the matter is that “centrist” ideological taboos have been the big story of the Obama administration. That starts with the imposition of an arbitrary cap on the size of the stimulus bill, it continues to the utterly merciless and fanatical centrist opposition to the existence of any public option, to the Fed’s refusal to undertake further monetary easing, to the unwillingness to contemplate really stern measures against bailed-out banks and their executives, and on and on and on.
"Joe Lieberman can only hold health care reform hostage if we let him."
Nelson, D-Neb., said Saturday he made his decision after winning fresh concessions to limit the availability of abortions in insurance sold in newly created exchanges, as well as tens of million in federal Medicaid funds for his home state.
After months in which the Senate health care bill was held up over efforts to find some form in which she would agree to sign on to it, Sen. Snowe (R-ME) now says she will oppose it because it is being "rushed."
I haven't been this disillusioned in a long time - if you would have told me a year ago that a democratically-controlled congress would devise a health care reform package that was actually worse for consumers and better for insurance companies than what we have now, I would have laughed in your face.
I usually don't say much about legislative tactics because I figure you need some serious ground level knowledge before you mouth off about what's possible and what's not on Capitol Hill. But the fate of failed major initiatives is so obvious that I can't believe anyone is taking this seriously. When big legislative efforts go down in flames, they almost never spring back onto the calendar anytime soon — and that's especially true when big healthcare bills fail. It didn't happen in 1936, it didn't happen in 1949, it didn't happen in 1974, and it didn't happen in 1995. What makes anyone think it will happen in 2010?
If healthcare reform dies this year, it dies for a good long time. Say what you will about the Democratic leadership, but Harry Reid, Barack Obama, Rahm Emanuel, Nancy Pelosi, and Steny Hoyer all know this perfectly well. So do John Boehner and Mitch McConnell. (Boy do they know it.) But if it passes, here's what we get:Insurers have to take all comers. They can't turn you down for a preexisting condition or cut you off after you get sick.Community rating. Within a few broad classes, everyone gets charged the same amount for insurance.Individual mandate. I know a lot of liberals hate this, but how is it different from a tax? And its purpose is sound: it keeps the insurance pool broad and insurance rates down.A significant expansion of Medicaid.Subsidies for low and middle income workers that keeps premium costs under 10% of income.Limits on ER charges to low-income uninsured emergency patients.Caps on out-of-pocket expenses.A broad range of cost-containment measures.A dedicated revenue stream to support all this.What's more, for the first time we get a national commitment to providing healthcare coverage for everyone. It won't be universal to start, unfortunately, but it's going to be a lot easier to get there once the marker is laid down. That's how every other country has done it, and that's how we did it with Social Security and Medicare, both of which had big gaps in coverage when they were first passed.
But if we don't pass it, we don't get any of this. Not now, and not for a long time. Instead of being actual liberals, we'll just be playing ones on TV.
Insurers have to take all comers. They can't turn you down for a preexisting condition or cut you off after you get sick.
Individual mandate. I know a lot of liberals hate this, but how is it different from a tax? And its purpose is sound: it keeps the insurance pool broad and insurance rates down.
# Caps on out-of-pocket expenses.
# A broad range of cost-containment measures.
Subsidies for low and middle income workers that keeps premium costs under 10% of income.
Thanks to the economic burden of insurance mandates, Americans are feeling worse off than ever before, and they still can't get good healthcare. Vote for Joe Republican, he's for gun rights, he loves God and hates faggots, and he'll vote to repeal mandates and roll back the false socialist "reform" the Democrats rammed down your throat. This is America, you deserve the choice of whether or not to be insured.."
« Older Merry F***ing Gristlemas | Elephants are known to be obedient game players Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments