Conrad (D-ND) Declaring Obamacare DOA.
A little good news coming out of Washington this AM. It sounds as if a huge part of the Socialized Medicine part of Obamacare is being declared DOA by one of it’s lead Senate negotiator, since the country has risen up in rage over the proposal:
Momentum behind a new government-run health care plan appeared to slow considerably Sunday, as a lead Democratic negotiator called the option a “wasted effort” and President Obama’s health secretary suggested the White House is ready to accept a health care reform package without it.
Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., one of six negotiators trying to hammer out a bipartisan compromise measure on the Senate Finance Committee, told “FOX News Sunday” that the so-called public option simply does not have the votes to pass.
“The fact of the matter is there are not the votes in the United States Senate for the public option. There never have been,” he said. “So to continue to chase that rabbit I think is just a wasted effort.”
Conrad and other negotiators on the finance committee are instead pushing a system of nonprofit insurance cooperatives, as an alternative to the public plan.
“Co-ops are very prevalent in our society,” Conrad said. “They’ve been a very successful business model.”
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
Another example of Democrats expecting that voting like a Republican will ensure their career continues…
Any bill that has yet to be signed by Barack Obama does not warrant the title “ObamaCare.” You’ll know it when he signs it folks, but as of right now, it ain’t been written yet.
obamacare is more of an idea than a piece of legislation. obamacare — i.e., his ideas about health care reform, such as single-payer and public option — is losing momentum.
Obamacare is nothing more than a euphemism coined by Republicans – who have yet to come up with a better idea.
A dozen cranks hollering at town hall meetings hardly equals the country rising up in rage.
I think the care I receive from my doctors and hospital is fantastic. I think the oligarchy that is the current health insurance industry sucks.
Too bad we couldn’t have an actual dialogue about this rather than watch some Cindy Sheehan-wannabe Republicans make fools of themselves.
Of course, a big barrier to constructive debate on this issue is Obama’s dishonesty in promoting his nonplan-plan.
Anonymous 1:43 – “Obamacare is nothing more than a euphemism coined by Republicans – who have yet to come up with a better idea.”
I think you meant “any.”
It should have read “Republicans – who have yet to come up with ANY idea.”
And it’s not a euphemism, in fact it’s just the opposite of a euphemism. Its intended use is as a pejorative.
eu?phe?mism??
–noun
1. the substitution of a mild, indirect, or vague expression for one thought to be offensive, harsh, or blunt.
2. the expression so substituted: “To pass away” is a euphemism for “to die.”
pe?jo?ra?tive
–adjective
1. having a disparaging, derogatory, or belittling effect or force: the pejorative affix -ling in princeling.
–noun
2. a pejorative form or word, as poetaster.
Fleming’s right. Given Obama’s failure to even describe his plan in any cogent manner and Obama’s inability to open his mouth without telling a lie, affixing Obama’s name to anything works as a pejorative.
What would be wrong with calling it the “US HealthCare Plan,” since, when it passes, that’s what it’s going to be?
you’re not thinking with your marketing mind, bf. obamacare just sounds better. besides, it was his idea. he campaigned on it. just like the tax cuts in recent years were dubbed the “bush tax cuts.”
besides, what’s the big deal? i believe the massachusetts’ health care reform was short-handed “romneycare.” did any republicans whine about that? i don’t think so.
i just hope they don’t go for the co-ops plan, a la freddie mac and fannie mae. big mistake; almost as bad as a public option.
Yeah, you may be right, lr. I’ll let go of my peeve on that. ObamaCare it is.
Lex, you don’t even want co-ops? That’s supposed to be the bipartisan compromise to a public option. That just prooves that the Dems need to ignore the Republicans and just pass the health care reform they want to pass. Republicans probably won’t vote for it no matter how much you compromise.
Bipartisan bishmartisan.
Let’s develop a system that works better than the system we have.
Let’s throw out distractions like Obama’s dishonest notion that we can insure another 30 or 40 million people for less money than we spend now not insuring those people.
Let’s start with a clean slate and fix what’s broken.
I pay inflated premiums today to cover inflated costs hospitals charge to pay for nonreimbursed care provided to indigent patients. That’s stupid. That’s inefficient. Let’s work on fixing that. But, lets see if we can address that without getting stuck with the rationed care that Daschle promotes nor with having to pay to kill the unborn as we can expect our pro-abortion President to promote.
Rather, let’s figure out simply how to put the uninsured in an insurance pool rather than have those folks be a hidden driver of the $10 aspirin pill at hospitals.
There’s nothing wrong with health care reform. What’s wrong is a dishonest President and a rudderless Congress so fearful of the electorate that a handfull of shouters have scared them all under their desks.
John,
Political compromise is not the goal. Developing solutions is the goal. I don’t know enough about coops to pass judgment either way. Do you? I don’t know how they will contribute to solutions and the unintended consequences. Do you?
My first blush is that coops might not do much as primary providers of insurance but do have promise in the reinsurance realm to deal with portability. I can’t yet imagine what they do to improve affordability or access that can’t be accomplished more directly and more effectively.
I think we should start over and attack this using good problem solving techniques. Identify the problems one by one. See which problems can be addressed in a macro solution, which problems need their own particular solution, and which problems either are relatively less significant or otherwise a require a solution is excessively costly relative to the benefit.
For instance, is the primary issue affordability/cost containment or is it access or is it portability? I think that this got off track for three reasons:
1) The proponents never identified their primary issue and worked first for that solution and built around it. They looked for a silver bullet global solution that had significant unintended consequences.
2) The proponents ruled out of hand certain solutions advocated by Republicans because it diminished the rationale for the public option. To much authority early in the process was given to proponents whose only goal was ultimately a single payer leading to a rejection of enhancing the current structure as a solution.
3) Direct new cost of a solution was given little consideration relative to the value of the solution. This then to make the numbers add up, the proponents had to impose/propose the imposition of draconian cost containment solutions that are unacceptable to the public.
Troy, I’ve seen two proposed solutions lately that both seem worthy of discussion. What do you think of them?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204251404574342170072865070.html
The “Whole Foods” alternative Fleming notes is more like junk food – empty calories.
And Goldhill would replace the cumbersome, complicated system about which he complains with a system even more cumbersome and complicated. Dumb.
Ghost. Show us how. Or are you still stuck on the same old neocon “no, no, no” program? If so, don’t bother.
I like the “Whole Food” reforms as it is empowering to individuals both within and outside a traditional employer plan, it will ultimately encourage small businesses to provide affordable health insurance options for their employees, and it actually engages the right person for cost containment (the user). It doesn’t address portability directly but it opens the door for some solutions that I like.
I agree with Ghost. The guy identifies the problem well- impersonalization that has bad results. However, his solution is counter-productive. Centralization leads to impersonalization and relies on expensive “incentives” to break it down. This is inefficient as we all know is endemic of government and big business.
In the end, there are a myriad of options with differing advantages/disadvantages, strengths/weaknesses and cost/benefit considerations. We seem to have consensus as a country to examine these options and do something. What we have to do is step back, start over, and examine them with due diligence and patience. Our economy is in shambles, our national financial health is on life support (the upcoming Treasury auctions to finance this exploding national debt are critical both long-term and short-term). To do something haphazard and with insufficient thought and deliberation on 14% of our nations economy would be most devastating to our nation’s poor and vulnerable. The stakes are high.
So Troy, can we at least agree that advocating for the status quo is the most irresponsible of all possible solutions?
And also that to intentionally generate fear and confusion and to demonize the opposition is patently immoral given the critical nature of the problem at hand?
I’m not arrogant enough to think I know how.
I don’t think we have a health care crisis. I do think we have a deeply flawed insurance system.
Fundamentally I think we’re best served by a system of pure insurance – shared risk. A system where, one way or another, we’re all in for an equal or roughly equal share of the risk – similar to how we fund police or milatary needs. The challenge is doing that in a way that keeps costs low and services high quality.
“. . . to intentionally generate fear and confusion and to demonize the opposition is patently immoral given the critical nature of the problem at hand . . .”
Fleming finally gets one right.
Obama has been shameless in his aggressive efforts to do exactly that – generate fear and confusion and to demonize the opposition.
Witness Obama’s recent dishonest, senseless, fear-mongering, comments about doctors taking tonsils out because it’s more lucrative than not (it’s not) and amputating feet for a $30,000 fee (the actual fee is $750 – $1,500) rather than providing adequate ongoing care to diabetics. Awful stuff from this guy.
Obama is a huge obstcle to a constructive debate about health care reform.
We have a deeply flawed Health Care delivery system that includes hospitals, docs, pharmaceutical companies, and insurance companies with patients’ well being almost as an afterthought — one in which the people holding the insurance policies are not the real customers of the hospitals and doctors, and pharmaceutical companies. Note: This is not how it would be with a government mandated single-pay system, it is the way it is now.
i’m with the whole foods guy. many of his ideas are very good, especially on insurance portability and being able to buy plans from outside of your own state. that would have some immediate effect.
i know someone — he’s self-employed — who is planning on moving his family to another state, but is scared about having to reapply for new insurance. he knows he’s going to have a rider or two, when he does. but he needs coverage for those two conditions.
so stressful that he’s at the point of possibly not moving, at all.
Yup, portability has always been a key component in an effective solution, lr. I agree. Also the pre-existing thing. It’s gotta go.
I’m actually good with a co-op, so long as it is truly independent. It’s a good compromise.
Conrad & JeffJ: want milk toast – in 2000 a General Accounting Office study showed they won’t save money and won’t lower administrative costs.
I don’t think we can add 30 to 40 million people to the health insurance rolls and expect to save money. But, I don’t know if saving money should be the only test.
Would it really mean the end of civilization as we know it if we treated protection from illness and injury like we treat protection from crime, fire, or war?
That is, one way or another, put everyone in a single or group of policies and share the risk (and expense) of the entire population’s coverage across the entire population as we currently share the risk (and expense) of protection from crime, fire, or war across the entire population?
I understand people wanting to preserve the medical care they receive today. Most people I know are happy with their doctors, are happy with their hospital care. But, why all this affection for insurance companies? What’s that about?
And, not short term, but, long term, it should be more efficient to cover everyone with health insurance rather than leaving such a large group to be cared for in ERs when their illnesses become critical rather than be cared for in clinics more cheaply at the first sign of illness or to prevent illness.
Fleming,
Not really interested in your opinion of my comments. Fact is, all of my comments here have been top-notch.
8/16 4:35 p.m.: i wasn’t aware you were appointed the grammar police and i needed your permission to use a word as I see fit.
6:26 It’s not grammar, its usage.
And you of course you don’t need my permission to look stupid.
You seem to be able to handle that all on your own.
And Ghost, it’s not sad, it’s funny.
What’s maybe sad is that you think it’s sad.
But then, regardless of your name du jour, you always overdramatize.
My name this jour is the same as my name every jour. Judging people he doesn’t know. Telling commenters they look stupid – always a joy to have Fleming troll a blog and harrass the rest of us. Nothing funny about it.
Back on track -
What would the coops look like? In a news story, not an editorial, the NY Times reports that the coop concept is: “so ill defined that no one knows exactly what it would look like or how effectively it would compete with commercial insurers.” Super.
And,is the public plan option really dead? The same story also reports:
“Aides to Mr. Obama tried to tamp down concern on the left by emphasizing Monday that the president still supported the idea of a public plan and had not decided whether to drop it.
Some lawmakers said the White House had sent mixed signals, confusing friend and foe alike on Capitol Hill.” Wonderful.
Obama’s not only dishonest, he’s wishy-washy. He’s like Dick Nixon meets Charley Brown.
Fleming,
If you’re so sure who I am, give me a call. My number’s in the book. I’ll be around later today. I’d be happy to talk to you.
Seems like talking beats threats and “outing”.
Thanks.
Well, that’s the thing. I’d like to post as I do. If I call you it blows that.
I’d simply like the right to decide how I post and leave you to do the same for yourself. Isn’t that a decision we should each be free to make for ourselves? Seems consistent with your principals.
I get nuts too often but didn’t mean to accuse you of no principles. Anyway, I’d appreciate your consideration in letting me use a pseudonym.
Tell you what. How about we let the Forum readers decide. Take a vote on it. See how your loyal readers on all the various blogs feel. You know, the democratic way, and all that. What do think? They’re the ones you’re really dealing with, you know. Not me.
Actually, I’d just really appreciate it if you would respect a simple request – let me post using the pseudonym I choose.
You’re comfortable posting under your name. I’d rather post with a pseudonym. How is it one person’s right to make that decision for another?
Please let me deal with blog readers as I choose. Just as you get to. And just like everyone else who uses a pseudonym and everyone who doesn’t gets to.
Thanks.
pseudonym
Let me put it another way. Or, an additional way. I’m asking you to focus on what I’m saying rather than who I am.
That would be dandy except for your ad hominem outbreaks. You can’t insult people under multiple pseudonyms and expect anyone to grant you any intellectual integrity or moral authority.
When you do so, you create the impression that there are more people than yourself who feel as you do. I think that’s manipulative and that the readers of these blogs deserve better than to have you intentionally mislead them.
In other words, your comments are not of a nature to be considered on their merits at least half the time. They are simply mean spirited jabs.
And that’s fine, but if you want to trash somebody, especially me, put your name behind it like I am about to do with you when I bring you out.
BTW, I notice you can’t even come clean about the specifics of your behavior even as you are asking for consideration.
That’s why I’m not especially inclined to grant it, since my doing so would carry with it my tacit approval of your actions. And that would be a misrepresentation of my true feelings in the matter.
It’s one thing to have you pretending to be 5 or 6 people, telling people how I think, and quite another for me to maintain silence, all the while knowing who you are, and watching you do it. I’ve indulged you thus far because you are friends of some friends of mine. But even that gets old after a while.
I don’t know that any of us are so without sin that we are in a position to appoint ourselves judge and jury of other commenters, threaten those commenters, then punish them. But, consider there are other, better ways to effect change than threats.
I’m not asking you to condone any of my posts. I’m not suggesting I’m without many flaws and many errors. I’m a person just like you – no better, no worse.
You make valid points about my treatment of you. But, it’s also valid that, if you do know me, you have an avenue out of the spotlight to contact me to talk or trade emails about my treatment of you. You have no obligation to do that. But, it’s an avenue that falls short of threats or “outing” me that could achieve the same or a better result.
Again I’m simply asking you to respect a simple request – let me post using the pseudonym I choose. I commit to stop the ad hominem attacks and the unwarranted comments about you or any commenter and keep my guns aimed at issues and not people. You’ve aired some specific and reasonable grievances. I’ll commit to addressing those and ask that you hold off on the outing.
Thanks
Alright. Good.
Let’s see if you can do it.
I’ll cancel the squirrel hunt for now.
Thanks for the conversation and the commitment.
Now let’s let PP have his blog back.
If republican snators think health care is so bad why don’t they opt out for private health care.What you say to that John Tune.Do as I say not as I do.