Tweet
I’m not sure exactly what Chuck Todd is trying to prove here:
[T]he speech also will be a failure if progressives — Obama’s second audience tonight — are still obsessing over the public option a week from now. We’ve said this before and we’ll say it again: Obama never made the public option the focus of his health-care ideas, in the primaries or in general election. In fact, he never uttered the words "public option" or "public plan" in his big campaign speeches on health care. But there is no doubt that the public option has fired up the left, and how he sells them near-universal coverage and lower costs — even if it means no public plan — could very well be the trickiest part of tonight’s speech.
From the Obama ’08 campaign document, "Barack Obama’s Plan for a Healthy America" (PDF):
The Obama plan both builds upon and improves our current insurance system, upon which most Americans continue to rely, and leaves Medicare intact for older and disabled Americans. The Obama plan also addresses the large gaps in coverage that leave 45 million Americans uninsured. Specifically, the Obama plan will: (1) establish a new public insurance program available to Americans who neither qualify for Medicaid or SCHIP nor have access to insurance through their employers, as well as to small businesses that want to offer insurance to their employees; (2) make available the National Health Insurance Exchange to help Americans and businesses that want to purchase private health insurance directly; (3) require all employers to contribute towards health coverage for their employees; (4) mandate all children have health care coverage; (5) expand Medicaid and SCHIP to cover more of the least well-off among us; and (6) allow state flexibility for state health reform plans.
I’m not quite sure how that jibes with "never made it the focus of his health care ideas," but YMMV.
But if the DC wags think that the base is going to get over its "fixation" on a public option in a week, I seriously doubt it. Here’s Rasmusssen from yesterday:
One major challenge is that while most voters oppose the legislation with or without a so-called “public option, that option is essential to supporters. In fact, without the inclusion of a government-run health insurance company to compete with private insurers, enthusiasm for the reform plan collapses among Democrats.
Mind you the polling data is from mid-August, well before the speech, but I doubt he moved that needle much:
Without the public option, just 50% of Democrats support the legislation. That’s down from 69% support measured a week ago. But here the enthusiasm gap is especially strong. A week ago, polling found that 44% of Democrats Strongly favored the reform plan. Without the public option, just 12% of Democrats Strongly support it.
Instead, he’s trying to exploit this:
A cautionary note should be issued on this topic: It’s likely that there is no common understanding of just what the public option is at this point in time.
Obama says he will include a public option in his health care plan, but stipulates that co-ops or triggers could satisfy his definition. But 179 members of Congress signed on to HCAN’s health care principles, which explicitly define a "public option" as not co-ops or triggers. It’s not going to be easy to walk that one back without completely demoralizing the base and potentially suppressing 2010 turnout just like the passage of NAFTA did in 2004.
110 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL Action
It’s all eggs, bacon, beans, with a fried slice.
just read the two Rasmussen links – and am astonished at how much they comprehend – it’s really not like them. now I know Todd is just some Network Suit’s bitch, but gee Chuckie shouldn’t you at least keep up with the Rasmussen kidz ?
Last night, Obama called single payer too “radical” and “disruptive” and yet he thinks it will take at least four years to get going on his grab bag exchange solution.
Surely a single payer system could be phased in over four years without causing massive disruptions to people’s lives! Are we not competent enough to do that?
He needs to explain to us why single payer will never be feasible for America.
There should be a national debate on why America is incapable of instituting a system that has been implemented elsewhere with great success. And Obama should lead it.
to clarify, we’re trying to hold Obama to a strong Public Option and not to single payer. I think its important to make sure that we clearly convey what it is we’re holding him to. The moment it seems like we’re trying to second-guess the deal than we weaken our contention that there is in fact a deal to which he should be bound. I absolutely think that he committed to the PO and we need to make sure that he knows that. The PO was the compromise to whatever alternatives might exist to it, including Medicare-for-all, true single payer (which is NOT Medicare-for-all), and VA-for-all/system socialization.
slice of shit?
the wierd thing is obama aknowledged the poll in his speech! and yet……
(i posted this upstairs too, but it “dovetails” with what you are saying)
The force progressives are exerting on the process is extremely important.
In the aftermath of the adress last night question were put directly to people like axlrod, that hadnt been raised before, such as what gaurantees are there that we arent going to be thrown to the insurance insustry dogs, forced to pay for expensive insurance that dosent provide any health care.
The PO IS the “market” solution to the question of how to “keep insurance companies honest”. If they abandon their own market ideology then it will become necsessary to find more traditional ways to make that happen, such as government power. Im fine with that, but it needs to be done. I hope we are looking forward to that possiblility, and are prepared to fight for appropriate regulation, and not just a make or break effort with the PO.
OT- Police: Man with gun arrested during Obama address
Incomprehensibility Galore:
“He talked about handcuffing the public option, which is essential…for a moderate like me,” says Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO). “Without handcuffing it, it could morph into a comprehensive government plan, which I think most moderates can’t support.”
Fortunately for me, she doesn’t speak for me, or for my self-interest. As such, I am a self-ascribed “aggressive moderate” and for her failure to recognize that she is a well-established creature of the Center-Right, is not surprising to me.
Now, I much prefer establishing a regimen for “open access” to both the Indian Health Services and the VA’s Medical Systemic. Therefore, a participant would pay their respective monthly or annual premium into the Treasury. For in doing so, this additional income, permits these two integrated health systems the much needed funds to expand its core delivery services (to their dedicated clientele) as well as driving costs down by 20% for all taxpayers since America’s newest Neo-Liberal, President Obama, has exclaimed that health care costs are driving the expansion of our national deficit.
However, the fiscal scolds cannot bring themselves to recognize that a government-run medical program delivers far more to the affected patient, in terms of health security than does the private sector. And by way of an example, lose your job and you’re out on the street. In contrast, having “open access” keeps the mind and body alive until new employment can be secured and of course, additional families members are included
Jaango
I realise the answer is likely “there is none”, but can anyone tell me what alternative mechanisms Obama is suggesting to control costs in the absence of a strong public option?
He keeps saying other mechanisms exist. Has he ever said what they might be?
I agree but his reasons for dropping single payer make absolutely no sense.
World War 2 was disruptive.
The American Revolution was disruptive.
The Civil Rights Movement was disruptive.
Single payer health care would not even come close to causing the kinds of disruption that Americans have undergone in order to bring about a better society and lasting change.
Anyone have an email address for Chuck Todd and his boss? We need to ask him to make a correction to his previous statement.
How could you have forgotten the false-flag op of eight years ago tomorrow? Was not that disruptive?
I know what Chuck Todd is trying to prove here, Jane.
He’s trying to prove he is stupid.
And he has proved it to me.
Jane, you are going after low hanging fruit quoting a gasbag like Chuck Todd.
Seriously what planet does he live on. What lower costs? How can you leave millions uninsured and call that near-universal? And note not a single word about improving anyone’s care or access to care. Todd is just an empty shell who is highly paid because an empty shell is exactly what the corporations who own him want.
Obama called single payer too “radical” and “disruptive”
But the Patriot act was just swell! And FISA spying on Americans.. is just peachy!
And those signing statements..gotta love ‘em!
And torture????? and those responsible..nah..not distruptive at all..we think those guys are just good eggs..we don’t want to hold them accountable..because..well just because..don’t ask so many questions will ya..
o/t
via a kossack -
Progressive Caucus taking your questions
and will answer on CSpan later today. you can ‘vote’ on questions as well
Yes we can…win an election.
Thanks for echoing my #13. And what about that unmentioned invasion of another sovereign nation under false pretenses (forged WMD documents)?
Well, I personally think being forced into bankruptcy because you get sick is too disruptive and radical, but what do I know?
The reason I support the PO strongly is because it is an incremental step toward single payer. That is why I am so married to the idea.
Don’t forget Preventive Detention!
see Glenn Greenwald today at Salon…
FWDiva
While the name in their language is unpronounceable, I believe it translates to “Planet I-Might-Need-A-Job-At-Fox-News”.
EXTREMELY important point. its ironic that without the market mechanism to keep prices down, the only way to do it is the dreaded “socialist” way of heavy handed govt regulation (which suits me fine) but that has GOT to happen.
Todd does not think Obama campaigned on a Public Option and Todd covers politics for NBC tell me does he EVER make these mistakes with the GOP? Not that it matters stupid or biased he still has to go maybe Glen Beck needs a Co Anchor?
Agreed I just thought I’d add I don’t see lower costs unless we pay the same for drugs that Canada and Mexico do.
They mostly involve pixie dust. You know strong regulation and stuff because as the financial meltdown showed this Administration is really into strong regulation. /s
By making the moral argument there is a double edge sword.
Obama essentially said HII is doing ”murder” for profit.
How do you continue to let people die and go bankrupt (get nothing rather than something…and maybe its a stepping stone).
At the same time how do you leave some to the fate of death and bankrupcy (the people left with nothing).
In any case no PO will suck since it means our econ likely keeps the HII anchor around our neck…we need to reduce cost…so they can charge us more for gas.
I keep seeing the same propaganda stuff showing up on many message boards..and blogs.. the talking points are getting spread as fast as they can..to shut up the progressives about Public Option it seems.That is what i am seeing right now all over the internet.
Chuck’s foolproof strategy for looking smart is to hang around people who are dumber than him. David Gregory… PRESTO! Todd’s a genius.
Disruptive? Is not a $663.8 billion tab to fight two senseless wars a bit disruptive?
oh and don’t miss this:
Sen. Claire McCaskill: I’m Happy We’re ‘Handcuffing The Public Option’
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…..r_embedded
The defense budget is mostly for things separate from the wars, which is why they’re always asking for supplemental spending bills.
As for Chuck Todd…please he is upper class so he can lie at will (actually a few lies will get him about an extra million a year from GE HCare).
If you’re really concerned about disruptions, take all the killing tools away from the generals.
Thanks, so my point was grossly understated. No one else here see that that enormous, unnecessary drain on the Treasury is a disruption?
Whats an election compared to a few trill 1/6 the econ?
Even in a bad year only 10 or 20 percent lose their job…and go makr millions in the private sector (or change the letter that dangles next to their name).
Single payer is radical and not feasible in American minds because they associate this with “Nazis” – known as National Socialist party. They confuse fighting Hitler with fighting socialism. The Republicans have made sure to drill into them from childhood that this is indeed a country of “rugged individualism” and freedom, and that this equates with you had better take care of yourself (even if that means living under a bridge, and dying from treatable diseases), because government is inherently “bad”. No logic required, raw emotion combined with brain washing is all that is necessary.
Todd:
Chuck would make a lovely dictator.
Thanks for nailing it, Gabriele. We can thank organized religion for assisting with the brainwashing. Also.
Bread. If you add shrooms and sliced tomato you would have a typical English brekkers.
Phrase from Madness lyric.
Hypo: The President campaigned on a public option. He is elected for whatever reason, most people think it was because of the incompetence pf his primary and general election opponents. First week into the job he receives numerous uncontradicted reports that the public option is not even close to passing the Senate because of blue dog support coupled with ineffective democratic leadership. What to do? 8 months later, same situation as in February.
obama certainly did run on the “public option”. Now he figures it will be impossible to get the votes for it so he’s trying to cover a retreat.
I am hearing a lot today about how there is nothing in any of the proposals that forces the insurance companies to have any kind of caps on the costs of the policies once they have to take everyone with pre-existing conditions and no recissions. What does anyone know about this?
SP is feasible for America now. It is not feasible for Obama and his fellow pols who get their money from the Insurance and Pharma corps. He is a sell out, pure and simple. Change? Phooey!
I could not stomach listening to a pack of lies last night so listened to his blah blah this morning. I would say “unbelievable!” but it was all that I had expected it to be.
Nope. He knows that, but he doesn’t want to admit it. That’s why we need to get him out of that “High Broderist Temple” in DC and realize that no public option means no progressive support for his plan.
But is isn’t. Rather, it’s impossible for him to get the votes WITHOUT it! All it takes are at least 40 Progressive Democrats in the House to vote “Nay” to sink the HMO/Pharma bailout ship. (’Cuz a plan with no public option amounts to just another corporate bailout.)
Yes, I distinctly remember Rahm’s call to Jane Hamsher to let her know to make Public Option the be-all-end-all. The White House allowed this to happen??
I am so glad I learned long ago that stupid and venal aren’t mutually exclusive, because Chuck Todd is no mystery to me.
Is this the way bills normally go?
I mean on the cost thing. OK I know some stuff like the pre-existing stuff would be nice but for most people health care reform means making the premiums cheaper. That’s the sine qua non of this whole crisis. And there’s simply nothing there. Obama promises lower prices but there’s no mechanism in play to do it. Not even a suggested one other than the PO. Even with the PO, he is pretending it will cause lower costs by competition which seems obvious bullshit. Anyone can see the only point to a PO would be single payer by the back door.
Pixie dust it is. The entire crisis, the entire bill. There’s no “there” there. Is there something squirreled away in one of the House bills that reduces costs? Some secret weapon that I’ve never heard of?
I cannot even imagine what a mechanism to cut costs would look like if you stick with the free market crap. This would be like passing a bill to fund a trip to the Center of the Earth without ever worrying that it’s impossible to get there. Is there some line in the bill that says,
This entire debate seems utterly fake. Am I really in some Swiftian satire and the real bill is being discussed elsewhere? On the one hand the Republicans are going on about killing granny and on the other the Democrats are operating as if saying the words “cost savings” is enough to create the reality.
Does captain sensible pop-up at some point in this process and write the real bill? How can a government function like this?
Todd is an idiot and NO! We won’t shut up. I understand that the DNC is sending out an email today asking for donation against this Joe Wilson thing. I can’t get into my email right now but, please! If any of you gets a request, if there’s a comment space, tell them that you’re not giving the DNC or any candidates that you’re not giving anymore money to them until after the bill passes with a strong public option! That should curl their hair!
The House and the Senate will pass rather similar bills, differing on Public Option among other areas. Then, conferees will write the bill. So who gets to confer? Harry and Nancy appoint conferees.
We should probably look forward to this appointment process, as these folks will write the actual bill.
Anyone see Todd and Jeremy Scahill get into it on Maher’s show? Todd made a snotty, condescending, inside-the-beltway remark about Scahill’s bona fides. (Scahill was making the point that the WH press corp doesn’t agressively burrow in on some of the nastier stuff.) Scahill maintained his cool.
I had already thought Todd was much too full of himself. After that episode, I was pretty much finished with him. Just another hired fool doing the bidding of his corporate masters…
Does Media Matters or anyone have a dictionary that qualifies all these entities with fact? I for one would like to have the access to the info about the front man for any company, the payouts any public official is taking, etc., so we know where the BS is buried, should that be the case. It would be an internet “fairness doctrine” that I would think that even the red side of the consciousness would cooperate, to a degree. I think they might have a hard time defending some of their own, but so will those on the other side of the coin. The teevee doesn’t provide any truth at all, no fact check, ever. It would put the nail in the coffin of the entertainment we call tv news.
Why don’t those on the internet tired of being called fringe, DFH’s, “untrustworthy” and amateur, pull together and have extremely fast access to the information about the scam, scammer, and be prepared quickly for any comeback. It would serve every one of us that stands up at a council meeting to the president. It will cause great controversy as the criminally righteous would explode and start talking like “The Drip” from Yorba Linda. They could never explain their involvement, and it would be refreshing to have every damn public figure well known for the paycheck they take that isn’t from us.
Sort of a “Hitchhikers Guide to the Sewer” Everyone needs to enter data, because it will be important that we know who is not “mostly harmless”.
pixie dust, song, dance, genies and wishes, rose gardens, flying horses, Wilson sober, Palin sane…. /s
PO has to be looked at along with mandates. At the time of that campaign document there was no Obama insurance mandate except for kids. Now we’ll have a mandate. I think the only way a middle class family escapes the mandate is if premiums exceed 10% of income (and there is no cheaper plan available). Then you have the “option” of opting “out”. What that means is that if they don’t have a PO, and one they qualify for, they can opt to be uninsured! Or they can stay insured and try to pay the bills until they reach the yearly cap. Emptywheel tells me she thinks for a family with a $60000 income, they could pay as much as 31% ($6000 in premiums and 12000 out of pocket) of their income for health expenses, or have to be uninsured.
The thing is…I really doubt the supporters of the option just support it for someone else. They support it for themselves. So step up, Obama. You said people would have a choice of public insurance. People want a choice of public insurance, day yesterday. If Obama or any of the Democrats had run around campaigning on Romney Care there would have been no enthusiasm at all from Democrats for “health care reform”. Sorry, Obama, this IS a partisan fight. The strongest supporters of health care reform want public insurance.
Co-ops as substitutes for a credible public issuer of quality insurance products is a non-starter. Co-ops are a mechanism for exchange. Without heavy new federal regulation of what private insurers sell, there’s nothing to buy via a co-op except the same old shit from Blue Cross or the Hartford or Medical Mutual. More likely, insurance products that sell credible insurance at a reasonable price can only come from a federally-run, publicly-owned and operated insurer.
Triggers merely give the already corrupt private insurers more time to rig the political system in order to prevent the trigger from ever being pulled.
Privates have had three decades to cement their control the payment system that controls access to medical care in this country for all but the wealthiest and most destitute. They have proven their untrustworthiness and their lack of bad faith.
To paraphrase a maxim George Bush once attempted to say, “Fool me for three decades, shame on you; fool me for another three years, but legally require me to buy your shitty products anyway, well, you can’t get fooled agin’.”
again, I don’t think it’ll work.. moral hazard again. Economically speaking, the mandate is linked not only to the no-denial feature, not to the PO.
Of course this doesn’t matter. My understanding is that the only solution to the individual mandate that we’ll agree to is WITH the strong PO or equivalent. If we don’t get the PO, we’re opposed to the bill altogether right? so isn’t the mandate without PO a moot point? at least in our strategy? or are we changing our strategy?
If our argument is about having a public plan (as option or otherwise), that’s what we should be focused on. To my mind, the other provisions of the president’s plan all depend on his keeping his word on the compromise.
Can someone please explain why Obama keeps talking up the public option when all the pundits keep insisting the public option is dead, dead, dead.
Why talk up the virtues of the public option when the conventional wisdom insists its a non-starter. (I keep hearing this, most recently from Lawrence O’Donnell/MSNBC & Al Hunt/PBS).
Finally, what the hell are we getting for $900 billion if there is no robust public option????
Can’t cost savings to be made by cutting out the middle man? To the casual observer, it would seem that eliminating the outsourcing services to private comapnies that operate for a profit would be an obvious cost savings.
Anyone. Yes? No?
I think when Obama talks about “cost savings” hes talking like clinton, about the cost to the fed gov. so health care “reform” becomes “welfare reform” except now its not only the poor they are beating up. in obamas case he is conflating “cost saving” though. he talks about “skyrocketing” costs to consumers, but acts in a way to set up cuts in governmet programs, that act as supports to consumers. very sleazy. but we cant let them get away with that. any bill passed needs to show that it will expand access to coverage, and “keep insurance companies honest” as well as providing them a near universal market,and eleiminating pre existing denying and cherry picking behaviors. THAT cant be forgotten or ignored even though we continue to push for the PO.
TAKE 10 seconds to support health care reform on The Seminal:
Tell Congress to Support President Obama’s HCR Plan
Yes, mandate without the PO is totally unacceptable to us.
Harry Reid has just come out for magic. What in the hell is he being allowed to ruin the country by his behavior when he isn’t even going to be elected again? His voters won’t put him back you idiots, do you understand? He is hated by his own voters and he has no political capital left, and you pathetic little boys and girls allow him to continue as leader? What in the hell does he have on you? Did he tell you about all the cheney wiretaps and blackmail you to follow him or be exposed as criminals, traitors?
Nothing else is believable considering no one wants anything to do with him except the dim bulbs in our senate. He’s a lobbyist now you idiots. Wake the hell up.
no. insurers are only part of the problem.. and a tiny part at that. the real issue is the underlying cost structure of the industry – layers upon layers of waste and corruption and abuse and overcompensation. Insurance is only about 18-20% of the total puzzle, and with underlying costs other than insurance growing at 10% a year, that 18-20% savings will vanish in only 3-5 short years even if we just outright shut them down today and imprisoned their CEOs. This rot runs a lot deeper than the insurers. The only thing about the insurers is that they’re the most obnoxiously trying to bribe our politicos into doing the wrong thing. The others, who are just as bad if not worse, are still in the shadows (or quietly making deals with at the WH, like big Pharma did last month). Insurers are the most visible enemy. They’re not the only ones, and they may not even be the worst.
He didn’t really do that. He didn’t talk about the PO when he outlined his plan. he talked about it under the distortions segment. He asserted it would be extremely small, available perhaps only in some areas that lack competition, perhaps with a trigger, perhaps as a “non-profit”. He called Medicare for All, which a completely open public option, would no doubt lead to rather quickly, “radical”. he warned his progressive friends that the basis of reform for decades is insurance reform(which isn’t true). So he brought it up, but he hardly talked it up, and sent the signals he was very open if not favorable to killing it. He talked about it at all because the base wants it and would have gone ballistic if he hadn’t. Essentially, he moved the Overton window right.
“lack of good faith”.
The $900,000 is the insurance industry bail-out. Given by the tax payer to the poor to partially pay their new mandatory insurance bill.
How do we keep Nancy Pelosi & the pledged public option progressives on board (for a strong public option?) After a few calls from Rahmbo, I can just see them calling just about anything a public option (co-ops, triggers, you name it!)
Rambo & the gang have been banking on the progressives caving in…. What can we do to prevent that??? This whole system just wont work without real price competition …. Are they telling me I should be happy I dont have to pay 12,000/year for health insurance, I’ll only have to pay $7,000? I cant afford that!!!
the fact that this is NOT an insurance problem but a healthcare problem is illustrated by this diagram:
http://www.brookings.edu/~/med….._small.jpg
As you can see, the annual rate of increase in healthcare spending between private insurers and medicare closely track each other, which shows that neither alternative has been able to contain underlying cost growth, despite the fact that those costs are more than twice that of our closest OECD competitors per capita. We’d be at parity today if we eliminated the insurers altogether and cut one third of the TOTAL costs out of the system. That means either hospitals, doctors and pharma people will have to become either that much more efficient or 1/3rd of ‘em have to get fired or disappeared or something. And even that just brings us into line with the worst of the OECD other than ourselves. Cut out another 1/3rd and you’d be competitive with top of the class. That’s how scr*wed we are.
Dollar for dollar, we have the world’s worst healthcare system by at least a 2x multiple.
But it has to be a PO without the damn “triggers” and that ‘aint going to happen. I think that the whole “debate” on Health care has shown that it matters not a hoot who is Pres or rather which party the pres is from as whoever gets to be the big boss he/she will still be just a new CEO for the same corporation.
What we need is a well populated Progressive Caucus to hold firm and refuse to vote for any damn bill, on anything (and I mean shut the bloody Congress down if need be) until we get decent Single Payer Health Care.
My Congressperson has been informed that she will not get my support, vote or money unless she votes no on any health reform bill that does not include a non-triggered PO.
I’ve never found that Todd is a particularly good reporter anyway. A little more homework and a little less pontificating on his part would be great.
The hospitals are owned by the Insurance industry so some of the figures shown as increased hospital care are just buried insurance profits.
well.. strictly speaking they don’t own ‘em, and even if they do it doesn’t mean they go away if the insurance companies do. By one calculation I’ve seen, the average surgeon has to take 95% pay cut to be competitive with Canada. Cardios have to take a 98% pay cut.
Can anyone point me to…
a) a lucid explanation of why our healthcare (NOT insurance) costs are so much higher than comparable countries’? I know a factor is useless $$ to corps, but the health CARE costs?
and O/T but…
b) Does anyone know about a 9/13 rally in San Diego? The link I can find has a regrettable lack of detail. (Like location…)
Thanks all!
As Jane has disclosed, Obama and Rahm seem already to have cut their deals with insurers. Keeping their promises regarding those secret deals seems to require Obama to use generic language about reform rather than to speak in terms of fundamentally reforming health care and the mechanism used to pay for it.
Never mind his promises to Americans. Them, he has to radicalize in order to make their demands seem unreasonable, radical and left of “center”, unlike those made by our goodj and trustworthy insurers.
Mr. Obama could make giving the keys to Chicago to Al Capone seem like the only thing a responsible mayor could do. Investigating the way he makes money or does business would be so radical. Mr. Capone might give his money to the party that opposes the current mayor and that would never do.
During the primaries, Obama told a private fundraiser in PA that there were some things he wasn’t going to be able to do due to the financial meltdown and its expense. Among those things were health care and education policies he was campaigning on.
This was reported by someone attending the fundraiser, but largely ignored (I can’t give the link as I’m on a libary PC and haven’t figured out how to cut and paste here).
Obama had a tendency to tell insiders things more closely aligned to his actual views that what he told the public.
So, as far as Chuck Todd is concerned, he probably got these insider tidbits all along and feels that since he knew what Obama really meant he’s right in saying that Obama did not campaign on a public option promise.
Obama did not campaign to the insiders and the powerful on that..…. He only campaigned on that to the rubes.
OT
Was pleased to see the great Ms Hamsher in this week’s Nation. And now I must “Go Blue” and drop some greenbacks in you honour. Thank you.
Gosh if that is the case they are being paid way too much money.
Profit not healthcare is the mantra…. is that lucid enough?
Chuck Todd is probably acting as stenographer for the WH spin. Make the conventional wisdom that Obama never promised public health insurance.
Chuck Todd is just another right-wing corporate tool.
Good response, though those numbers may be gross, without deducting for much higher operating costs such as malpractice insurance, overheads to collect amounts billed, the cost of private parking and gold-plating on some surgeon’s elevators, etc.
All that’s good for anecdotes and the rumor mill. But we’re not talking about socialized medicine in the sense of making health care providers government salarymen and women. Outside of the UK and Canada, they’re not; they are independent professionals most often paid by highly regulated private insurers or public ones that operate with none of the overhead or profit incentive – or extraordinary perks and compensation – demanded by American CEO’s.
Health care reforms are stage two, and socializing medicine is not the most immediate, interesting or practical option to do that. Stage one is improving access to health care. That requires removing private insurers’ bottleneck, radically improving what passes for the health insurance contracts they sell, and forming a public insurer to service the fifty to hundred million Americans those insurers won’t cover, won’t cover at an affordable price, or whom they rip off by canceling their coverage when needed. If auto and life insurers tried some of the same tactics health insurers get away with, they’d be out of business.
Mr. Obama and the concept of reform do not sit well; he made it from Chicago community organizer to president with the current system. Only sustained public interest and action will force him to wrestle with it, and only then at the margins. And his would be successors are watching what works and what doesn’t for him. This is a marathon, not a sprint.
well.. an experienced heart surgeon in private practice in the most expensive states can make more than $800,000 a year. He can make that much even if he services Medicare patientss… and he can make much more than even that if he has dual appointments and doubles at both a hospital and a private clinic. I used to have a neighbor who could conceivably make a couple million a year, after all of his various employment related commitments.
That same experienced surgeon working for the US Veterans Administration makes a base of $96,500, going up a few percentage points a year (and no, that number is not overly precise). That’s the difference between competitive, good public medicine and what America’s dysfunctional private/Medicare system pays.
I know drug costs are double because the US government essentially … has a big corrupt giveaway to big pharma. I don’t know how else to describe that when you have a sweetheart deal to pay someone double what their product is worth.
IMO the best solution would be to go to the CEOs and say,
agreed, but it’s exactly those other costs that have to come down if we’re going to save our healthcare system.
I looked back to see coverage of the Obama’s position way back when…and in speeches, he was clearly talking about a governmental insurance program. It was pretty straightforward.
Since then he’s back pedaled pretty well, substituting a national health exchange where public option used to be.
I am a little dumbfounded that he’s gone from public option with no mandate to no public option with a mandate. Up is down, down is up.
I come from socialized medicine. Without being too picky other countries, that I am aware of, with government paid and regulated docs are Cuba and Venezuela both with really good healthcare systems. Frankly I am a strong believer in socialized healthcare and I also believe that other “essential” services should be socialized as well but that is a “whole ‘nuther subject”.
We can all agree that TV pundits are not too bright but we shouldn’t obsess over their pronouncements any more than over anyone else’s for that matter. It’s enough that we are satisfied that our views are based on serious rational reflection and that they are arrived at honestly.
Now Obama’s rhetoric aside, he made 3 firm commitments last night while insisting that they meet the goal of reducing the cost of obtaining health insurance. These are, that private insurers agree to cover people that have pre-existing health conditions, that they can not drop those they insure when they become ill and that they abide by out of pocket limits to which their policy holders are liable when they become ill.
Each of these measures represent a significant additional cost to any insurer and in the case of a current private insurer they eat away directly into their ability to profit because private insurers make a profit exactly by avoiding these measures, among others. If these measures were imposed by law as Obama proposed then private insurers could only continue to profit at the rate they currently do only by vastly increasing premiums. So these measures if taken alone do not lower premiums but in fact raise them, unless if by some miracle private insurers decide to forgo their profits and good luck with that.
Now granted these additional costs would be mitigated only as insurers took on additional relatively low risk low cost customers but this would only happen if these same customers were required to acquire these policies and had no other cheaper option. Barring this other cheaper option, namely the Public Option, in essence a new equilibrium would arise where premiums settled at a higher rate.
The only means then to lower the cost of insurance premiums is to provide a public plan that offers lower rates and the same level of care. To establish the above 3 proposed measures in any permutation in the absence of the public plan would result in vastly higher premiums. That is unless private insurers become concerned only with covering the medical costs of those they insure purely out of the goodness of their heart.
Is this true?
These are the reforms that AHIP proposed.
I’ve got one observation from last night’s events:
* On MSNBC, The Ed Show was filled with superlatives for Obama, not only from Ed, but from the progressives he interviewd. Words like “home run” were the order of the evening.
* On the Rachel Maddow show, I only saw the last 18 minutes, but she seemed favorable, too. (I didn’t get to see KO, however)
Then I came over here to the live blog, and I was wondering if we were talking about the same speech! Almost everyone here was really down on the speech– overwhelmingly critical.
Seems progressives are quite divided over whether Obama’s speech was a Good Thing, or not.
Bob from HI
Now we know why we couldn’t have a Clinton back in the Whitehouse. She was ready for this fight. Obama was bought and paid for. Chuck could tell ya that but won’t. The corporate world is the big winner again. Who needs lobbyists when you have one living in the Whitehouse. Remind me why McCain’s tax credits for health insurance was bad. Remind me why Hillary’s mandate was bad. Obama told us they were time and time again, he must’ve changed his mind or is this the bi-partisanship he loves so much.
You see through the BS, clearly.
Merely creating an Exchange where the uninsured, many of whom are unemployed or underemployed, doesn’t mean the private insurance companies that decide to participate are going to compete against each other to sell more policies by offering them at a cheaper price — certainly not when they are exempted from laws prohibiting price fixing and they’ve been colluding for many years to sell policies at ever higher prices to a captive market.
They probably will offer some cheap policies with high deductibles ($7,500 or higher) and high co-pays (50% or more), but those are junk policies because they will kick-in too late with too little to avoid financial ruin and bankruptcy for any serious traumatic injury or illness. Basically, these folks will have to continue using the ER as their only medical remedy and pay the bills out of their own pockets. Thus, the mandate will make them worse off because they will be required to buy insurance with money they don’t have without reducing their medical bills .
This is why an affordable public option that compensates doctors, hospitals, and pharmacies at rates tied to Medicare’s rates, thereby controlling costs is absolutely necessary, if there is a mandate.
Last night Obama never mentioned caps on compensation paid under the public option, which together with reduced administrative costs, is the only way to assure the public option is cheaper and more affordable than private insurance. He didn’t mention it because the public option only works if it’s a precursor to single payer, which is the only way to consistently charge significantly less than private insurance companies and that, of course, will eventually drive them out of business.
He should have insisted on single payer from the beginning. Instead, he’s playing a confusing shell game pretending to offer a cheaper and universal solution that will lower the cost of insurance without disturbing the monopoly enjoyed by private insurance companies and accomplish this magical result without adding to the deficit by applying a little tweak here and another little tweak there, plus truckloads of pixie dust to taste. He can’t present a coherent explanation because it doesn’t exist and since he can’t back out of his backdoor deals, he keeps pushing the mess off on Congress basically telling them he’ll sign anything they pass and declare victory.
I’m convinced this is the real reason why the law will not go into effect until 2013, which is conveniently after the 2012 national election.
Meanwhile, he ignores the 800 pound gorilla in Afghanistan and Iraq that is destroying our financial house.
You are so right i got beat up by my daughter and her friends for supporting Hillary. I told them that Obama was an empty suit with a great speaking voice but under pressure he would fold like a cheap beach chair. look he gave up Single payer with out a fight could have been a bargain chip. if he had any balls last night he would have told the repuks that they had one of two choices either support his plan now or he will do it with 51 votes without them the only difference being he would drop the Public option and pass a Single payer Bill. but that I am afraid would take Balls which only Hillary has.
Nice words don’t count for much if anything, we should rid ourselves of that notion. What Obama accomplished if he holds firm to his words, big if, is that he has retrenched to a better bargaing position. He proposed some very onerous conditions on private insurers and gave some tepid support for the public option, but his proposals as they are are not enough and the uneasy feeling is that he is not commited to needed changes that will lead to his desired objectives of lowere insurance premiums and lower overall spending on health care, See my entry No 88
Frankly I was amazed that the Dems could only come up with two candidates both of whom were sell outs. Where the hell are some people with “stature”…. ah, they cannot run because they will not sell out. If you believe that Hillary would have been any better, or less a sell out, than Obama then I am afraid that you might have bought into corporate america.
We all remember someone like Chuck Todd from High School, excellent at brown-nosing, whether teachers or kewl kidz or jocks.
Todd has no sense of himself, he needs to approval of braniacs like Brian Williams to feel good about himself.
My point isn’t that the proposals aren’t needed, they are laudable and should be adopted. The point is that they represent an added cost to insuring people and if imposed on private insurers as they currently operate the result will be higher premiums, to offset these higher costs.
If these measures are instead imposed on a public not for profit plan the premiums will also by necessity be lower. That is the stated objective.
OK, so drug costs and salaries. What else…???
I guess what I was really after was this: Various estimates put our costs (premium + out-of-pocket, I think) doubling in 10 years after a whole bunch of wild increases. This at the same time that one corp (BCBS?) hit a denial rate of over 40% in my state.
Is this going on in other countries as well, or is the delta between us and them in rate of increase due to increased profits to corps, shareholders, and apparently physicians?
Short version: it’s not enough to rein in COSTS, also have to rein in rate of increase, and I don’t know where that is coming from.
For profit hospitals such as Humana and HCA run probably don’t go far in keeping costs down. Nor does it help that a subset of doctors also own Diagnostic Services practices (MRIs and such other tools) and have been accused of referring patients to their own facilities for oh so many tests.
My point is I’m not particularly impressed with passing the plan the insurers largely drew up in 2007.
I gotta say that I kind of like MoveOn’s spin in their petition campaign.
“Pass President Obama’s plan, including a strong public health insurance option.”
Basically, they seem to be taking the tack that they are free to interpret what the president said in their own way, and they’re insisting that he really meant to say that he wants progressives to demand a strong PO. Positive spin. And they’re going to act accordingly. Works for me.
And of course preventive detention is not too radical for Obama.
Humana doesn’t own hospitals. They sold off their hospitals in the early 1990s. They are a health insurance company.
Ooh! Yes, that wins.
He means “disruptive” to the bloated insurance companies, and to the rest of the greedy ancillary companies that feed off of the health care industry, who may fear greater control or preemption.
Thank you!
The Big Myth of 1994 is that The Dems Were Punished For Being Too Liberal. The problem, as Jane points out, is that Clinton started beating up on the base from Day One and expected them to take it with a smile.
But we’re not talking about socialized medicine in the sense of making health care providers government salarymen and women. Outside of the UK and Canada, they’re not; they are independent professionals
canada does NOT have socialized medicine.
“a) a lucid explanation of why our healthcare (NOT insurance) costs are so much higher than comparable countries’?” –
In France, which has the best health care in the world and universal health coverage, the government (taxpayers) pays for about 70 percent of a person’s medical care (the rest being paid out of pocket or through private health insurance). Costs are held in check by the government, which sets how much a doctor or a dentist can charge (with some exceptions), how much hospitals can charge, the price of drugs, etc.
I would guess that it’s these cost controls — and a completely different philosophy towards life and the value of money — that enables the French government to cover everyone while spending only slightly more per capita on health than the U.S. government — $3,139 compared to $3,076, according to the latest WHO statistics. In fact, the U.S. government spends a higher percent of its budget on health care than France – 19.3 percent compared to 16.7 for the French government, which nevertheless pays 79.7 percent of all healthcare expenditures of its citizens compared to 45.8 for the U.S. government. And still, despite spending so relatively little, France manages to have more doctors and double the number of hospital beds per capita than the U.S.
And, I would add, French doctors, along with everyone else, live pretty well.
yes, that’s basically how all the other countries [except us] — france, japan, switzerland, canada, younameit — keep health care affordable: the govt imposes hefty price controls. and the providers [and insurers, if present] are almost entirely non-profit.