Not surprising to any of us paying attention… but, ummm, did I miss something? What’s the question?

Oh and by the way Jane, you are teh awesome : ) Keep holding their feet to the fire, heaven knows no one else is…

I believe she’s referring to the Senate Dems and their spasmodic attempts at healthcare kabuki.

not words I would choose to describe the Jane’s hard driving intellect mixed with grace. Somebody must be trying hard to get under Jane’s skin.

Jane read in the article I believe it was at politico or somewhere like that that you and Andy Stern were an item. Could not think of a more dynamic duo. Hope you are still friends.

Really appreciate his work and intentions…and always yours. Thank you dear lady

Then the question would be: Who compared her to them?

Maybe a reference to an obscure tweet somewhere? :)

Hi Leen-

I may have inadvertently elicited this from Jane. I asked her in another venue, if we get a decent age 55 Medicare buy in, an expansion of Medicaid and some sort of reasonable OPM thing–to be defined–would this be considered a good day?

I guess I got my answer.

Heh. I actually wrote that before you said that Eve, but it’s not the first time somebody asked “so what do you think about this?”

It’s impossible to offer up any kind of realistic assessment — you’re responding to your own fantasies of what such a bill would be like. What’s known is way, way to vague.

And remember… these “offers” are from the same individuals who have been literally drooling over the prospect of gutting what’s left of the social safety net.

I have been hearing quite a few of our seniors (since I have been spending a great deal of time in nursing homes and assisted living facilities that last few years) about how confused they are about this. The insurance companies efforts to confuse our seniors has been somewhat successful although with a little help from friends they know “the system is rigged” heard that from so many of them that I would often go from there and apply that confirmed belief to insurance companies.

But this constant spinning wears them down

I wouldn’t either; I’m not holding my breath on Medicare expansion. Wonder how Dems think they’re going to do in 2010 with the lack of support from progressives….

I think the Villagers have had it to themselves for so long, they forgot that there are other Pros out there besides the usual set of lobbyists. Go Jane!

Oh good gravy…only for Jane would I click on a link about health care which leads to Murdoch’s Wall Street Rag.

Could be askin’ Sen Nelson…could you refrain from whipping your women and po people long enough to vote them in some public option sos they can heal their wounds?

I’m sure those that think about this are scared to death. Unfortunately, there are a number who either plan on doing something else for a lot more money or too stupid to realize what is happening. If we can’t get decent health care reform with majorities in the House and Senate, why bother voting for a Dem at all.

It is minus 7 degrees F at my house in the Inland Northwest. A bit nippy.

Exactly. We know what’s in the House and Senate bills as they currently stand. This is just a way to make the progs, both on and off Capitol Hill, swallow a non-reconciled bill with no PO.

And how many times now have they declared the PO dead? And how many times have we showed them they’re wrong?

No public option, no deal. It really is that simple.

Well now, this is interesting. I know “no comment” usually means just that, but… as someone who’s been a lawyer for a while and done some negotiation, it’s interesting she’s unwilling to dismiss the proposed deal out of hand.

To my thinking this deal looks too much like the Dems are trying to buy off the liberals with a little bit of money targeted at favored groups (I.e. the poor and uninsurable middle aged Americans). It in no way reforms the health insurance system or provides a Medicare for all backstop if the group insurance market continues to unwravel.

But the 50-65 crowd has sounded very enthusiastic about this deal, for obvious reasons. For my vote this is an unacceptable compromise without a triggered public option if the OPM fails to negotiate a plan with serious cost containment. Some have talked about a trigger if they just don’t get any plans bidding, but that’s silly and useless (someone will bid, but at what price?). If the Dems want any campaign donations from small businesspeople like me, they’ll have to do better than this.

But Jane’s keeping her options open to negotiate, which tells me a serious deal is going to happen (if even the critics sound interested).

there is the answer to my question

I have been assuming a “medicare buy in” IS a public option and you are the only one to point out, “we don’t know what it is because nobody has proposed it”

ok, I get it;

After 30 years in the movie business, I don’t dance around like somebody’s pet monkey and respond to offers nobody has made

i c said the bling man

Jane, how do I love thee? You’re so damn perceptive. Yes, this is totally correct, I’m responding to my own fantasies and I suppose my feeling of what is just and right.

keep the faith, y’all. harry reid took some heat for his analogy on the floor yesterday, but it is just about that important, and i don’t mind at all treating obstructionists like we might, in hindsight, view anti-abolishionists many years ago. keep the faith.

I know everyone is saying “deal” today but I’m just not picking up all that pre-deal chatter, that attempt to spin proactively as the i’s are dotted and the t’s are crossed to influence the final product. Especially if something this sweeping is being seriously contemplated. Much of the spin is usually generated/promoted by lobbyists, who should have quite a bit of interest in something in this, and they’re almost silent.

Maybe my spidey sense is off, or maybe this is a completely unique moment in the history of Congressional deal cutting. But this doesn’t feel very real.

Leen- all the Medicare cuts, as far as I understand (certainly the lions share), will come from Medicare Advantage–privatized Medicare, not FFS Medicare. This is where the confusion is coming from.

Jane, if what we’re hearing is reasonably accurate, would this be considered as you just wrote “sweeping” change? Historic change?

I know hundreds of uninsured self employed plumbers, real estate brokers, shop owners, carpenters etc etc who make 25,000- 35,000 who are unable to access reasonable health insurance so they go without. What category would you put them in. Thinking that everyone without health care either has a pre-existing condition, are poor etc etc is naive as hell

You need to mix it up a bit. Mingle with the working class more

My parents wouldn’t let me order one of those monkeys despite my intense pleading.

I have the advantage of sitting next to Jon Walker all day long as the Senate bloviates, so all I have to do is say “hey Jon, what do you think about…?”

But the thing people seem to be imagining this to be does’t have a chance in hell of meeting the standard the President has set (deficit neutral, with a final pricetag of under $900 billion for the next 10 years). So to the extent we know anything, all we know is that it has no chance of what people are thinking might be great.

So getting into the “do we like this or do we not” can only be interpreted as insight into what some might or might not be willing to accept as an opening to torpedo the position we’ve carefully constructed and stuck to relentlessly, which has made it so tough to penetrate.

Be deeply suspicious of anyone doing the monkey dance in a way that might help that effort.

For awhile, the only reason my contractor stayed married is that his wife is a teacher and has good family medical coverage. (I think the marriage has improved from those dark days.)

As well-anticipated as this may have been, it’s still sickening to watch. This may be the lynch-pin that finishes off the middle class, what?

No, I’d say it lines up well in the fine tradition of football kicking that progressives are always expected to do on command.

Do not kickee the football.

Perhaps I was unclear: I didn’t mean to suggest that only the poor or those with preexisting health conditions are uninsured: just the opposite in fact. My point is that the main problems are in the small business and group health insurance markets. Expanding Medicaid and allowing only those 55+ who don’t have health insurance to buy into Medicare won’t achieve any of the goals the public option was designed to achieve: particularly competitive pressure and government leverage on providers to lower costs.

Those making 25,000 a year are relatively poor, since that’s less than 150% of poverty. I think they’d be better off getting subsidies to buy into a universal public option than being thrown on an underfunded Medicaid, though.

Thanks Jane.
This whole health care reform thing is a confusing fucking mess.
I’m glad to see I’m not the only one who feels this way

cue the chorus of Fierce Pragmatists™ !

Milbank is reporting the monkey wont return Van Hollen’s calls

I sit here watching these arguments being passed around like a basketball at a Globetrotters warmup. For christs sakes, will somebody with some guts grab the ball and take it to the basket and get this game over with.
I thought I was a fairly paitent person. Even I have to draw the line somewhere. I’m going to watch the cartoon channel for a few days to get more perspective on what the hell is going on. Will be back later.

Is this pretend deal really a trial balloon if it polls well it passes? Or is it a fake trial balloon and some fake polls will be released to the press to make it seem like this idea is popular?
Time is running out Congress needs a deal before the end of the year.

huh?

well, I was feeling a tiny bit buoyant, and optimistic, but no longer. So we wait, then we fight.

I was referring to the crowd out there that would have us all believe this deal is ‘the good’ and we shouldn’t wait for the ‘perfect’ and why don’t we all just get out of the way and let the grown ups blah blah blah

the monkey thing was just snark

The medicare/medicaid backstop described is a whole lotta nuffin wrapped in an enigma.

I have been tangling with United Health/ “Un” Secure Horizons for two years in regard to my WWII Veteran, retired Teamster father who had a serious fall several years ago. This was the third time in his life that he had ever needed to be in a hospital. A hard core pull yourself up by your bootstraps, pay your bills on time, few transactions via credit cards, loan money to your friends when they are in trouble kind of guy.

“Un” Secure horizons fought us all the way after he had spent his 90 days in a Rehabilitation/nursing home facility. Fought us every step of the way. While going through this I have literally talked with hundreds of our seniors some acutally many who have been royally fucked after paying into often extra private coverage. Now I have not heard GM workers (most of the places I have been in are around the Dayton Ohio region) complain they seem to be satisfied with their coverage when they end up in these places. But plenty of others have been fucked by these private insurers.

I have fought tooth and nail for my fathers coverage and have been successful at least most of the time. But if you do not all ready know this the minute one of these darling old folks do not measure up to what they are supposed to be doing in physical therapy they quickly cut their shrunken asses off their coverage. I heard the word “plateau” so often that I started documenting how often I heard it used in regard to not only cutting off my dad from his physical therapy but how often I heard the seniors that I have talked with say that they had hit a “plateau” and this was the reason they were cut off. I would have to get into the details of how they measure our seniors improvements but is is shaky and up to individuals takes on their improvements.

What I can tell you easily is that I have met a retired Catholic nun who is 79 who was cut off her therapy because it was determined that she had hit a “plateau” by private insurers. Met a senior being sent home with one leg because he was on the “plateau”, a seriously mentally handicapped senior cut off of therapy…many more stories.

How about this one a couple in their mid 80′s who divorced after 60 some years of marriage so she could stay in the home and he could get the nursing care home care that was necessary.

I sure wish Micheal Moore would do his next documentary on our seniors situations. The stories are endless. We think the health care system is confusing many of our seniors are being driven crazy by the details and spin. If they do not have an advocate they are basically fucked.

By the way during this holiday season there are thousands of very lonely seniors in nursing homes assisted living places, some of them abandoned by their families, some of them do not have families who need visitors, someone to talk to.

Howard Dean is pushing it.

Wonder how Dems think they’re going to do in 2010 with the lack of support from progressives….

I suspect the Republicans are thinking much the same thing.

Again: When the legislation or the policy revolves around something as money intensive as healthcare, bank regulation, energy policy, the military industrial complex etc. Congress is comprised of one or another shade of Republicrat.

The solution however is not to abandon the Democratic Party. Why? Because while that makes you feel good in the short run, in the long run it only means more Republicans in office. And Republicans today are particularly vicious.

Remember: with respect to social policies [and Supreme Court nominees] most Democrats are more progressive than virtually all Republicans.

You can throw the baby out with the bathwater, in other words.

Progressives need to focus increasingly more attention on the primary elections. The Blue Dog, crony capitalist “democrats” have to be replaced with genuine progressives. And the Democratic leadership in Congress and the White House have to be opening their morning papers to the sort of headlines they once used to in the 60s and 70s.

Without a new mass movement we are going no where fast.

I didn’t see a link to this upthread; might as well post it.

http://apnews.myway.com//article/20091208/D9CF54HO0.html

It’s fatcat manna; they get the illusion of reform, but still stay in the driver’s seat.

Prof Jacob Hacker on this ‘deal’ on last night’s Ed Show:

Professor Hacker, good to have you with us tonight.

This plan that I just described that‘s going to be administered and is part of the congressional plan, that‘s a great selling point. But correct me if I‘m wrong—the private industry is still who you‘re going to be negotiating with, correct?

JACOB HACKER, YALE UNIVERSITY: Yes, you‘re not wrong there. I‘m afraid that this compromise/proposal that‘s being put out right now is really just a continuation of the current structure that we have. It is the case that having a national nonprofit plan would allow a little bit more portability across state lines, but we‘re basically talking about having the same kinds of private insurance, nonprofit plans that are available already, offered through the Office of Personnel Management.

SCHULTZ: So where is the reform, Professor? In your professional opinion—and you‘ve studied this inside and out and been around it a long time—where is the reform?

HACKER: Well, there‘s a lot of reforms in the bill. Let‘s not forget that there‘s going to be serious regulation of the insurance companies. There‘s a new exchange that‘s offering coverage to people who don‘t have it today. There‘s new money available for that.

So we don‘t want to downplay that. But I think you‘re absolutely right that this is really not a middle ground. This is really a retreat from having some kind of public health insurance option that‘s available to people through the exchange, if they don‘t have coverage already, that will pose a real competitive threat to private health insurance.

There‘s got to be a better compromise than this. In my view, if those who support the public option stand firm and demand more, they can get more than this.

SCHULTZ: Professor Hacker, good to have you with us tonight. I appreciate your time. You‘ve been terrific on this issue.

Thank you.

HACKER: Thank you so much, Ed.

SethCohen @ 9:

We’re still 11 months from the mid-term election. Can Obama get off his bi-partisan ass and gin up a real salvage operation for the 8 years of GOP fuckery?

Debatable.

WILL he?

The odds “for” are rapidly getting into the single-digit range.

Speaking of dancing around like little monkeys, check out “The Senate’s Great Health Care Reform Kabuki Dance”

I tell you — I have had it. We worked our tails off to get filibuster-proof 60 senators, and what good did it do? And there’s nothing much I can do about it — my Senator up for reelection is Barbara Boxer, one of the good ones.

All I have left is to stop voting. Which I am going to do. Until I have the prospect of a good candidate, I stay home. “Oh!” you say, “but then the Republicans will win!” So F-ing what? The Democrats haven’t done me any good. They had a golden opportunity and ruined it. If my reaction is what they wanted, well, they got it.

LOL. I always wanted one too.

The Supreme Court is worth voting for, IMO. We are on the edge, and we are losing. There’s more, but I think we have to vote to protect ourselves at the Court.

See….What I’d REALLY be interested in would be the responses of the various Right Wingding leadership to the question “What do you think of expanding Medicare coverage [to younger folk]?” BEFORE the Right’s Propaganda Machine developes an coherent response that all conservatives start regurgitating in unison. I always love to hear the idiocy that comes out of their mouths before they have their talking points.

The rest is just rhetorical football….“No kickee the football” ;-)

Be deeply suspicious of anyone doing the monkey dance in a way that might help that effort.

Well I hope you didn’t catch KO last night. Seemed like an awful lot of “monkey dancing” to me.

Slightly OT: as Faithful Readers probably know, I comment frequently on my difficulties, as a “newly eligible” Medicare participant, in finding doctors who will accept new Medicare patients. According to my similarly-aged friends, particularly those in sparsely populated areas like Alaska, this is a wide-spread problem. Many of us also encounter MDs who “fire” folks who’ve been their patients for decades but who reach the magic 65.

I just raise this as a caution to those who think “lowering the Medicare buy-in to 50″ will solve lots of problems. If there are no doctors willing to treat existing Medicare patients, where will they and the new ones go?

It always helps to look behind every curtain before doing any monkey dance.

Thanks, Jane, for all you do.

Jane, you have a mind like a steel trap. How clearly you see through the efforts to trip us up with our own hopes. Thank goodness you’re on the right side!

Eve & Jane, I’ve given up on HealthCare AND the Dems. the issue is too clear cut and much too important to be treated so shamelessly. But, I applaud you two (& the amazing Jon) for fighting this battle as well as it could be fought, you deserve all the support concerned adults can muster. You deserve it because you’ve earned it. Thanks.

So, we change the debate from class warfare to age warfare.

Tbanks

Jane is correct, including about the eery silence coming from K Street. But you are seeing some concerning rumors, and the question is, should you respond to those rumors, or risk having any compromise defined by others. For example, from the WSJ article Jane linked to:

“Negotiators Monday were considering a proposal that would open Medicare to people ages 55 to 64 if they couldn’t find coverage elsewhere”

That comes back to the definition of affordability under the law and could limit eligibility to a maximimum of a couple million people. And if the buy-in is costly, it would probably only attract a few hundred thousand. This would not be worth giving up the public option.

Yeah when are we going to find out what they have for those not on parents insurance plans, those self employed folks or others working between the ages of 18-55

Would extending medicare to the 55-65 age range just dump all of the pre-elderly onto the government and give the insurance companies more profit?
I am not against the gov. doing it job but wasn’t medicare really just to get rid of the elderly so that insurance death panels didn’t have to deal with them. It worked out for our seniors but won’t the “government doesn’t work mime” create the expected outcome. Crappy care for anyone on the government plan?

There are so many ways these immoral bastards can screw the citizens.

Oh!” you say, “but then the Republicans will win!” So F-ing what?

Well, that depends on whether someone, personally, can afford another 8 years of BushWorld [now BeckWorld].

So fucking what?

I have four words to dredge up here:

Samuel Alito
John Roberts

Try wherever possible to replace reationary democrats with more progressive folks, sure. But to pretend the Republicans, with respect to all issues, are interchangable with Democrats is just plain dangerous.

At the very least channel your anger into bringing into existence a new mass movement from below.

We need to contantly remind ourselves of this. I fully agree.

What reason do they give for not taking Medicare patients? Or do they just say no? I had heard that some doctors were doing that but when I went on Medicare I just continued to go to my same doctor. Turning away Medicare people should not be allowed.

the search for HCR is like Tiger looking for a new woman………..nothing exemplary sticks out

There is a difference…in that we get to talk about different issues. We get to talk about healthcare, for example, but where’s the action? Not saying I’d rather have Republicans.

Anyway, who needs another rightwing justice when we’ve got a 60 vote majority and still get a carbon copy of the Stupak Amendment in the Senate?

and all the people who need it NOW,are still getting sick and dying!while “WELL HEALED” congresscritters debate

We need to send the ashes of the dead to the people responsible.

I’m thinking this is the money quote from that article.

‘I have no idea how this increases any competition in the exchange beyond what it would be anyway,’ said Robert Laszewski, a health-policy consultant. ‘This is about getting the term public option on something, but it’s the equivalent of putting the term Ferrari on a motor scooter.’

I am trying to recall where I read the number of people covered under the various offerings through Federal plans. Anyone have a link or a number?

read that at Digbys………..so many docs in this country are terribly spoiled imo

I’d much rather they take the words Public Option out and give me the real thing. Lieberman, Landrieu, Lincoln and Nelson could vote for that just as easily as any “progressive” could vote for a crap bill called a PO.

Except that comprise is just for progressives.

great meme
WELL HEALED CONGRESS PERSONS

They are. An internist makes around $250,000 a year. A cardiolist makes around $500,000 a year. Surgeons can make millions. They justify it by the cost of their education. Another reason to join the rest of civilization and give people free college and graduate educations.

You don’t have to stop voting… vote left of the Dems. I do, when no progressive is on the ballot! They will call you silly things like a Naderite, but in fact most of us are anti-centrist Demites. *s*

One word.

Stupak.

Had a friend that was working at the Cleveland Clinic when a group of Austrian physicians were visiting. They said from their perspective it seemed as if American physicians were in it for the money. When they were asked what their motivation was they said it was to serve the needs of their fellow citizens.

George Carlin’s rant about “stuff” comes to mind. :)

Durbin might just make number 4 of senators that get it and are not fighting to kill us with their every word behind their hand to their handler or their buddy in the Senate.

We have, Bernie Sanders, Jeff Merkley and Al Franken. Durbin may be worth adding to the list if it is more than talk he espouses. No other senator has held up to the pressure of the bribe that I can tell. I would love to be wrong and not think that 96% of the senate has been bought, but there is little to show for that hope.
On the other hand, we can look at those that have been bought, and prove bribery, but we can’t even try them for the crime. They have voted themselves immune from prosecution.
Democracy this is not. Representative government, this is not. Let the students of history debate upon what this kind of representation actually represents. I am a student of history, I know the answer.

Doctors may whine about medicare payments, but I can’t see Doctors as a group turning away a new 10-15 (50-65 year olds) year age group of patients that account for a huge portion of their practices. If they start limiting their patient criteria to only those people between 20 and 50, that doesn’t seem to be a very good business model. Also, younger people account for the biggest percentage of uninsured, so that group has it own limitations. Doctors are into volume. It makes no sense that they would refuse a new medicare group of people even if they are unhappy.

The proffered early buy-in to Medicare is too simplistic (and ‘apparently’ elegant) as a segment of reform to be showing up so late, don’t you think? So it looks cynical and probably is. I mean, it had to occur to many, as long ago as when they lowered taking Social Security benefits to 62 (something like 40 years ago) at a 20% reduction of benefits. Or, more recently but still long ago, when the SS full-benefits age was raised from 65.

I mentioned in a thread the other day that I pay the full cost when I go to the doctor and am then reimbursed by Medicare. That way the doctor doesn’t have to wait a long time to be paid. It works well.

Have folks seen this….Priceless
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/12/04/health-care-bill-harry-potter/

Whitehouse on whether health care bill is too long: ‘It has fewer words than a Harry Potter novel!’

They are. An internist makes around $250,000 a year. A cardiolist makes around $500,000 a year. Surgeons can make millions. They justify it by the cost of their education. Another reason to join the rest of civilization and give people free college and graduate educations.

A bit of an exaggeration. See:

http://www.payscale.com/research/US/People_with_Doctor_of_Medicine_(MD)_Degrees/Salary

In fact incomes have gone down significantly in the past several years. Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement for physicians’ services hardly covers cost.

Yet according to the most recent polls some 65% of physicians favor single payer/Medicare style coverage for all.

That is not to say there aren’t the usual snake oil scoundrels practicing medicine but I promise you there are a hell of a lot of other places that much education will bring more than that by hundreds of thousands if not millions.

One reason that makes it hard to believe that a proposal to enhance the scope of Medicare to a younger population is in the offing, is that such a proposal goes against the interests of private plans. Andi if there is one thing we can be sure of it’s that Oabama and most of Congress will do nothing to go against those interests, we don’t need to be further deluded about that.

Incorporating more people into Medicare, especially if they pay premiums for the priviledge, is a boon to them and to Medicare and a loss to private plans.

The newly incorporated Medicare enrollees will benefit from enhaced coverage at lower premium rates than from private plans, while Medicare will benefit from a greater number of paying customers with greater overall leverage. The only ones that would suffer from this arrangement is private insurers which would see their profits dwindle as a result of fewer enrollees.

This is because private insurers do not assume the cost of care, that cost is borne by the person insured. The private insurer only assumes the profit. For private insurers, their profits are in direct proportion exclusively to the number of people they insure.

That is the rationale for mandates. That is also why the PO has been whittled down to nothing. These measures are meant to direct as many people into the clutching grasp of private insurers.

All this makes it unlikely that at this late date Obama or Congress will decide to backtrack and undo their handy work done at the behest of private insurers. Let’s not be fooled again.

This brand new, never-before-discussed “plan” is a shameful example of how our legislative process is corrupted and absurdly weighted against citizen participation. Who heard anything about this lowering of Medicare eligibility, at least since it disappeared after Baucus’s White Paper last fall?

Was this part of any House committee discussions? Did either Senate committee consider it? Has there been any public airing of this idea at all, and has there been any independent analysis and discussion of how this huge new moving part fits into the rest of the “reform” proposed?

That something entirely new could be proposed seriously this late in the process is ridiculous. That we are expected to line up in favor of it without seeing — at the least — the vaunted CBO score, is just trash.

When elected officials wonder why people are tuned out of electoral politics, and why even the most committed activists are mystified by their “process” — this is why.

I will have to find my source. The specialties are the most ill paid. But you are right it is much less than my figures.

And there are many degrees that cost just as much but people make less. My daughter is getting her masters in Chinese Medicine and owes $140,000.

Most doctors are employees. The decision as to who they see and what they bill is in other peoples hands.

Doctors for the most part are compensated very well.
Here in Iowa, which is a low medicare reimbursement state, GPs are starting at 275K plus good benefits.

“Under Mr. Reid’s bill, as under a bill passed last month by the House, the public option would be created by the secretary of health and human services. By contrast, under the proposed compromise, health plans would be run, under contract with the government, by private insurers like Blue Cross and Blue Shield, Aetna, Humana and UnitedHealth.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/08/health/policy/08health.html

Medicare-for-the-masses run by the insurance companies?

Total bullshit!

This is the way they eventually kill Medicare.

Here is another link to physician salaries.

Here’s my question Jane–where was the bridge where you filmed Micky and Mallory getting married? Was that
the Grand Canyon & the Colorado River?

If it’s true and accurate that 65% of physicians in the US favor SP and something like the Medicare model; and if physicians, as a group, are among the most highly-educated; it should follow that we ought to use megaphones to repeat the message of that super majority.

Amen, sister, re being careful what you ask for (of that for which you ask).

Not necessarily mutually exclusive.

It wasn’t so long ago that a lot of (silly) sympathy was being given to the failing auto manufacturers because our society’s economic health depended on them – never minding that the auto industry had a far worse reputation than insurance companies until recently. Insurance companies, and health-insurance companies in particular, have become crucial to our society’s economic well being also. It’s impractical and irrational to try to eliminate them from being significant players in the debate, or to regard their interests with only contempt.

Many in the Congress have never been poor but they surely will get old. What am I saying! A lot of them are really really old now. I assume that the old ones are afflicted with the same health problems that come with age and yet they don’t care about us. The most selfish people in the world.

The article Jane cites is in the WSJ. It is about expanding a program the haves have hated for forty-five years.

It was normal, even before Rupert Murdoch bought the Journal, for it to hype a story for a course of action it does not like in order to rally opposition to it, and to instill irrational fear of it in those who want it. Creating inertia (euphemistically, caution”), slowing momentum, spiking it outright, all are helpful in causing its defeat. The article’s facts may be correct; its prominence and utility are different matters altogether.

As Jane has documented, Democrats are exceptional at crafting defeat out of the jaws of victory, at taking the low road when they already command the high road, at appearing to advocate for the middle or progressive cause when they are as conservative and obstructionist as their nominal opponents.

Mr. Obama, in particular, has used the tactic of appearing to negotiate with himself in order to give ground on a course of action he does not want to pursue, but can’t be seen to jettison too quickly, lest he lose a vote from the hungry, the desperate or the hopeful. He is, after all, a Chicago pol.

Thanks yes it is better and I think a bit more recent.

If it’s true and accurate that 65% of physicians in the US favor SP and something like the Medicare model; and if physicians, as a group, are among the most highly-educated; it should follow that we ought to use megaphones to repeat the message of that super majority.

I can’t lay my hands on the Annals survey but here is the NEJ summary of various surveys http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/361/14/e24

I meant Milbank/VanHollen.

No they are not.

But it looks like (to me anyway) they are trying to drive a wedge into the opposition by playing the age card.

Not ambitious enough

But if it were, if we were talking about making Medicare available as insurance for all ages, then even just talking about it would be a good thing. The point would not be negotiating with ourselves, the point would be that, wow, look here, Medicare for Anyone Who Wants It meets all of the other side’s rhetorical objections, would be an easy sell to the public, so that if the other side wants to torpedo a public option, fine, we’ll be happy to be thrown into the briar patch of what would, within a year or two, as people desert private plans for Medicare, become single payer.

Talking about expanding Medicare is moving the Overton Window back the right way down the field. Our side should have gone with single payer from the outset, not least because it is simpler to understand and rally true populist support for. The other side’s opposition to the comparativley weak tea of a public option has created a logjam that lets us go back to the position our side has, that we unwisely failed to use initially, but is still available for use now that we find we need a popular outcry and populist movement to get reform done.

Thanks for that link, the summary is very well-written. Two primary things occur to me: what the summary calls a “modest” response number (43%+ of physicians responding to the surveys), I take as a high-response number, given how little time physicians have for such things as surveys; also, the responses would all have been good-faith responses based on a now-obvious bogus promise of a generous ‘public option’.

The New England Journal of Medicine and The AMA journals eg Annals of Internal Medicine are pretty much the gold standard for good studies. I wish I could find the one in Annals which is not quite as ambiguous as the NEJ

I think…they may have blinked. No, the offer has not been made. But I think the Senate is going to find it hard to take Medicare for 55-65 off the table regardless, now that it’s been publicly mooted.

Hey, let’s go for Medicare expansion and a public option.

Oh, I’d love to see that! But for now we’ll resist kicking at the Bright Shiny Football and go for what we know we can get.

Smart move, Jane, because the new plan’s already dead.

Hey, let’s go for Medicare expansion and a public option.

I would feel a little better with just early access to Medicare. Those in that age group who are not employed by large businesses are really in need. That tends to be a pretty healthy age group and I would think help with the financing. also.

I know the puggies will not miss it but it also could be such a smooth ramp into encompassing more in government single payer as time goes on.

I also agree, stand back and see what they actually enact. I am worn out with being suckered.

I think we have to prepared for all the possiblities when it comes to health care. For example, we must remove four DEMS and some REP from office period. We know who those DEMS are Lincoln, Lierberman,Nelson,Landreiu they have to go and make sure they are defeated when they come up for reelection. The next is climate changes and those regressive deniers who say it is a hoax they LIE. So we must use all the tools we have and make sure we are organized. In other words JANE talk is fine,but talk is not enough you are going to have to become the woman MOSES OR JOAN OF ARC. Which when you say it over for some DEMS and REP it going to be a truthful fact. By the way we have show or tell Obama that our support is contingent on he getting it right on the issues facing the country and stop listening to REP and DEMS BS. It a short term long term plan all hands on deck cause it going to be tough and not pretty.

“I also agree, stand back and see what they actually enact.”

Yes–and then vote them out of office either way, just for jerking us around for so long.

I don’t see that anything coming out of this process has a chance of being an improvement at this point. But even if something better than nothing miraculously appears at the eleventh hour, it won’t be enough. Scraps are not enough after all this rigamarole and after all the effort that went into the Democratic victory. We need to hurt all of them in 2010. Then start over with single-payer–assuming of course, that the public at large isn’t demanding bank nationalizations and show trials by then.