Join 3,416 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


"So now that I've kissed your ass, what do I have to do to get a deal?"
August 3, 2001 12:25 PM   Subscribe

"So now that I've kissed your ass, what do I have to do to get a deal?" - Bush cuts a deal on the "patients bill-o-rights". Is this going to appease those who keep shouting "concession and bipartisanship" or will they hate him all the more?
posted by revbrian (19 comments total)

 
MeFi discussions of Bush are beginning to make me long for the days when every other post was about Nader.
posted by lileks at 12:45 PM on August 3, 2001


I form all opinions of politicians based on where they come down on amendments to OMB Circular A-110.
posted by rschram at 12:57 PM on August 3, 2001


Norwood is a Republican, revbrian. The fact that Bush has to fight so hard to get his own party on board shows why the rest of us are nonplussed with his ultraconservative theocracy.
posted by rcade at 12:59 PM on August 3, 2001


Revbrian,
How is cutting a deal with ONE member of your OWN party got anything to do with compromise or bipartisanship? All Dubya has managed to do is torpedo any chance of a PBR passing for yet another year. Exactly what his handlers wanted. Gotta please the big money!
Why should it be OK to sue a doctor for an erroneous medical decision but not an HMO for doing the same thing?
HMOs give more money to Dubya that's why!

Now on the "kissing my ass" part, hey Dubya, I'm ready to drop the drawers anytime you're ready to drop to your knees!
posted by nofundy at 1:05 PM on August 3, 2001


"'So now that I've kissed your [rear end], what do I have to do to get a deal?' Bush asked, according to several sources familiar with the meeting.

"It was Bush at his best"


OMG, people are so WRONG.
posted by rushmc at 1:05 PM on August 3, 2001


[Why should it be OK to sue a doctor for an erroneous medical decision but not an HMO for doing the same thing? ]

I don't know. Why don't you ask the democrats who passed the HMO founding bill in 73?
posted by revbrian at 1:10 PM on August 3, 2001


[Norwood is a Republican, revbrian. The fact that Bush has to fight so hard to get his own party on board shows why the rest of us are nonplussed with his ultraconservative theocracy.]

The bill is NOT a republican one. Bush didn't want any part of this at all! he wanted 500k caps, not 1.5mil.

I hate to break the news to you but all republicans are not card-toting idealogues like democrats seem to be. There's quite a bit of diversity of thought out there.
posted by revbrian at 1:12 PM on August 3, 2001


Why should it be OK to sue a doctor for an erroneous medical decision but not an HMO for doing the same thing?

Why should it be OK for an employee to sue his employer over a mistake by an HMO when they aren't in any way involved in the decision making process? Just because a bill is named a "Bill of Rights" doesn't automatically make it a good idea.
posted by ljromanoff at 1:17 PM on August 3, 2001


Maybe because the employer decided to give the employee that HMO?
posted by Ptrin at 1:25 PM on August 3, 2001


I hate to break the news to you but all republicans are not card-toting idealogues like democrats seem to be. There's quite a bit of diversity of thought out there.

Are you talking about the same Republican party I see on TV all the time? They make the Borg seem like an honest exchange of ideas.
posted by owillis at 1:26 PM on August 3, 2001


Hey owillis, I'm not putting you down, But I can guess 99% of the time exactly where your gonna come down on an issue and I've only been reading your blog for a month or so. People who think alike, tend to gravitate torwards one another. It's natural!
posted by revbrian at 1:33 PM on August 3, 2001


Maybe because the employer decided to give the employee that HMO?

So? Unless the employer is knowingly hiring an HMO of dubious quality they should not be liable as they are not involved in making any decisions that would result in damage. Throwing the employer in there as a target for HMO lawsuits will only result in more people without health insurance, as employers will not be able to afford to provide insurance to their employees and insurance for themselves to cover HMO-related lawsuits.
posted by ljromanoff at 1:33 PM on August 3, 2001


The bill is NOT a republican one.

All 214 Republicans in the House voted for it and only three Democrats did. Norwood's a conservative Republican congressman from Georgia in his fourth term.

How can you state that this isn't a Republican bill? The only "concession and bipartisanship" that took place here was between Bush on the right and Republican moderates.
posted by rcade at 1:56 PM on August 3, 2001


This is a defeat of bipartisanship. There was already a bipartisan coalition in place before Bush stepped in to break it up along party lines. That guy -- what a uniter he is.
And ljromanoff, the other bill only allowed patients to sue employers if they were directly involved in deciding which treatments are allowed.
posted by jnthnjng at 2:19 PM on August 3, 2001


Throwing the employer in there as a target for HMO lawsuits will only result in more people without health
insurance, as employers will not be able to afford to provide insurance to their employees and insurance for themselves to cover HMO-related lawsuits.



The bill only applies to those employers who make medical decisions by approving claims, or to those like John Deere or GM who have their own company health plan. Democrats did not see a reason to allow them a loophole from liability for what is a medical decision. If I'm not mistaking, this is still in the compromise Norwood bill, so the President is signing off on this anyway.

The statement that there will be less insured is a matter of crystal-ball prediction (just like Clinton's 1993 tax increase was going to ruin the economy, right?) and it should be qualified as such and not as a statement.

Also, Number of persons covered is a goal, but obviously if the quality of coverage is not good (i.e. HMOs can deny what procedures they want) it certianly calls the term "coverage" into question -- the fact that people have coverage for checkups and some drugs but can be denied other more costly procedures is not comforting.


republicans are not card-toting idealogues like democrats seem to be

Oh like Dems don't have our John Breaux's and Charlie Stenholms and Zell Millers to contend with...I DO agree that you may see less Republicans who wish to be vocal in public about their support of this President's agenda.


Is this going to appease those who keep shouting "concession and bipartisanship" or will they hate him all the more

To present it for one second as Bush doing the right thing for bipartisan purposes is dishonest. It was a popular bill, and he was forced into it. If not for the Democratic Senate, Patients Bill of Rights would never have been brought up.

If you're real question is "Are Democrats helping Bush by showing him the way to issues that people care about?" the answer is, they might be.

Why don't you ask the democrats who passed the HMO founding bill in 73?

I dont think in that time anyone could have imagined an industry set up to cut costs at the expense of human health and life.
posted by brucec at 2:30 PM on August 3, 2001


Lobbying on behalf of shareholder profits is as slimey as it gets when the issue is health care.
posted by chrismc at 2:47 PM on August 3, 2001


The bill only applies to those employers who make medical decisions by approving claims, or to those like John Deere or GM who have their own company health plan.

Yes, this bill does, and after amendment. The original Democrat bill had no such limitations.
posted by ljromanoff at 5:37 PM on August 3, 2001


But I can guess 99% of the time exactly where your gonna come down on an issue

Personally I'd say I agree with the way left about 65-70% of the time. I differ mostly on welfare, education, and trade.
posted by owillis at 6:20 PM on August 3, 2001


[Personally I'd say I agree with the way left about 65-70% of the time. I differ mostly on welfare, education, and trade.]

I didn't mention the left. I said YOU!
posted by revbrian at 11:39 PM on August 3, 2001


« Older Serendipitous convergence of current events and "u...  |  Sen. Biden may scotch missile ... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments