Comments on: Rob Andrews Might Vote For “Five More Years of Exploding Health Care Costs”

By: fatster

fatster — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 16:30:17 +0000

Supposedly, Obama really, really backs a public option. I guess that means all else failed.

By: slowereastside

slowereastside — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 15:52:33 +0000

If Medicare pays 75% of a provider’s bills and everyone is on Medicare, then what’s to stop providers from simply increasing their prices by 100% or 300%?

So in your view, the American population as healthcare consumers -300M strong- should have prices dictated to them by 1M doctors who won’t allow more people to become doctors in this country?

And you have the audacity to call Medicare For All ‘antithetical’ to the American way?

Get lost and get out of the way of the free market.

By: MarkH

MarkH — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 03:46:42 +0000

I think some of them have the idea (a very old idea) that you only get lower prices with ‘group rates’. So, they support the employer-based system. Well, to a certain extent that’s fine. But, when it excludes millions of people you’ve got a problem.

There’s also the question of whether ‘group rates’ is really containing costs or just making it better for this group at the expense of that group. What difference does it make if the prices go up all across the board over decades, so that eventually nobody can afford to pay (whether unemployed or as part of an employed group)?

We need cost containment AND to cover more people (hopefully all). This is a different ball game and the older guys are still replaying their winning game from 40 years ago.

By: MarkH

MarkH — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 03:43:10 +0000

We don’t want to paint ourselves into a corner and it’s not just a matter of principle. It’s a question of finding solutions to the problem which can work and which don’t violate our principles. Find (and tell us) another solution to the problem of cost containment that’s good for the long run and we’ll listen.

By: MarkH

MarkH — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 03:40:49 +0000

End the begging, throw them back their crumbs and start demanding Medicare for All Americans / HR 676.

If Medicare pays 75% of a provider’s bills and everyone is on Medicare, then what’s to stop providers from simply increasing their prices by 100% or 300%?

Where’s the cost containment if you don’t have either competition (free choice of providers to restrain their own costs to avoid losing customers) OR price controls from government?

What else is there to control costs?

Medicare for all might be nice for simplicity sake, but it’s antithetical to the American way of freedom and limited government.

By: PaulaT

PaulaT — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 03:27:35 +0000

He’s safe even if his constituents end up with mandates for expensive insurance, no public option and rising subsidies? Wouldn’t that piss off everybody, especially the fiscal conservatives? I can’t think of any fiscal conservatives who don’t like federal budget increases but are perfectly fine with mandatory increases to their own personal budgets.

By: tk1200

tk1200 — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 01:37:42 +0000

The corollary being “My base is unprincipled. But if I’m wrong and they do have principles, then they are too lazy to fight for those principles and I can safely ignore them.”

This is the Corporate Democrat’s operating premises in a nutshell.

By: PJEvans

PJEvans — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 22:18:24 +0000

I thought these people were on our side.

They’re on someone’s side, for sure, but I think it’s their own.
I see a lot of very messy primaries next year.

By: LKN2

LKN2 — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 22:05:48 +0000

Great summary of the options, except the middle choice, the Baucus bill, also includes exploding health care costs because the insurance industry will have no competition, just a mandate to purchase whatever they decide to offer.

By: arcadesproject

arcadesproject — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 22:04:04 +0000

In response to Teddy Partridge @4

I think I’ve fallen down the rabbit hole. Doesn’t ‘target for Rahm’ mean ‘target for the Administration’? For Obama? I thought these people were on our side.

While I’m down here in the Rabbit Hole, is it my imagination or are parts of the blogosphere ‘turning’? So to speak? I’ve read some posts that seem to be saying, ‘We are good little doggies. We will sit up on our haunches and grab whatever kibbles Rahm throws to us. We will not rock the boat.’

I hope I’m a severely paranoid wrong-o about this.