Opt-Out Option In
Well, in policy terms, this isn't bad. Harry Reid has announced that the Senate health reform bill a public option that allows individual states to opt-out if they fear they're on the road to socialism. This may--emphasize, may--help control costs in some states, especially those where one or two insurers have virtual monopoly control.
But it's still a very small, and relatively peripheral, part of the plan. It will make a difference to less than 5% of the population. And, in political terms, if it costs the Democrats a 60-vote majority in the Senate, it will not have been worth the struggle.
But now, at least, some attention can be directed to several far more crucial important aspects of the plan. Here are a few:
1. the tax credits that are offered to working and middle-class families to help them pay for their newly mandated health insurance should be robust--that means families with incomes up to 400% of poverty have to be eligible for help on a sliding scale, according to their incomes. (I'd also include cheap insurance options for young people, focusing on preventive and catastrophic care.)
2. the health care exchanges where people buy their insurance have to be well-constructed and include large numbers of people. Regional exchanges would be best; state-run exchanges would be worst.
3. the plan has to go into effect as soon as possible. If we wait until mid-2013, as posited in the Senate Finance Committee billl, naysayers will have both the 2010 and 2012 elections to scare the hell out of people. It could cost Obama reelection. States like Massachusetts, which already have universal plans, should be able to join the federal plan as soon as possible. The insurance reform provisions--no denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions and so forth--should be realized by 2011, at the latest.
There are other concerns. But the above three are huge and need to be attended to now.
-
1
Excellent news. I agree with JK list of changes needed. Harry Reid has redeemed himself in my eyes.
-
2
sg, we're waiting...
-
2.1
You're welcome
-
-
3
This may--emphasize, may--help control costs in some states.
Whereas not putting it in place won't - emphasize won't - help control costs whatsoever.
It will make a difference to less than 5% of the population.
That's 15 million people in real-people terms.
And, in political terms, if it costs the Democrats a 60-vote majority in the Senate...
Why would this item - which you have identified as noncrucial - cost someone their seat? Chances are that a voter who would get into a tizzy over this isn't going to vote Democratic anyway.
Other items:
1. Agreed. We get the most coverage at the 400% mark.
2. Think national instead of regional, Joe.
3. Rolling this out in 2011 would be better, yes.
-
4
"It will make a difference to less than 5% of the population."
Actually, 21% of the population describe themselves as liberal and it makes a big difference to all of us. Don't you ever tire of being told what a stubborn fool you are (I assume that you're married ;^)?
-
5
Just as long as there are some very angry members of the centrist cult it will be well worth it. The greatest pleasure is in watching the mainstream media, who tried their hardest to kill it, stewing with rage over its survival.
-
6
"(I'd also include cheap insurance options for young people, focusing on preventive and catastrophic care.)"
.
Yes, PLEASE. I am young, healthy, make good decisions, and take care of myself. All I need is for catastrophic care, I don't need a gold-plated plan that includes therapeutic massage. -
7
"...if they fear they're on the road to socialism."
.
Whether or not you think the government is, this poll certainly shows that the general population isn't:
.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/123854/Conservatives-Maintain-Edge-Top-Ideological-Group.aspx
.
I know some Democrats like to constantly mention how they have a huge party-ID advantage over Republicans. Well, which one would you rather have- an advantage with party-ID, or an advantage with ideology? Think about that. -
8
naysayers will have both the 2010 and 2012 elections to scare the hell out of people.
-
But something like 60-80% of people support a public option, as do 65% of physicians. Only about 20% of the country identifies as Republicans.
-
So that kind of scare campaign could only work if the media is completely incapable of reporting the news, instead opting to merely transcribe the nonstop rantings of the nation's uninformed, paranoid whites. I'm rather surprised to see you was Greenwaldian like that, Joe.-
8.1
Here you go Elvis. Perhaps you can now get your facts straight.
.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/123854/Conservatives-Maintain-Edge-Top-Ideological-Group.aspx
.
The 20% figure you cite is merely how many people identify themselves as "Liberal". While conservatives are at 40% of the population.
.
If you can't get the figures to be in your favor, and you are a liberal. Simply LIE ABOUT IT -
8.2
Stop reading the left wing nut blog sites
Pollsters have long known that the way in which a question is worded can sometimes affect the results. In August, CBS News conducted a split-sample experiment, asking half the sample their views on a plan "similar to Medicare, that people age 65 and older receive," and the other half about a public option without the reference to Medicare.
Without the Medicare reference, fewer -- but still a 53 percent majority -- said they favored the government offering a health insurance plan, with 36 percent opposed. That finding is similar to the results from other polls that also omit the Medicare reference.
Ask the next question about having higher taxes, less services and that will drop to the amount of folks who will admit to being a liberal ---21%
-
8.3
In 8.2 the following should have been in quotes.
"Pollsters have long known that the way in which a question is worded can sometimes affect the results. In August, CBS News conducted a split-sample experiment, asking half the sample their views on a plan "similar to Medicare, that people age 65 and older receive," and the other half about a public option without the reference to Medicare.
Without the Medicare reference, fewer -- but still a 53 percent majority -- said they favored the government offering a health insurance plan, with 36 percent opposed. That finding is similar to the results from other polls that also omit the Medicare reference."
-
8.4
freeinpa:
.
I am sure if the polls asked these simple questions;
.
"Which would you prefer to have"?
.
1. A job?
.
2. Healthcare?
.
"Which is more important to you"?
.
1. A robust economy?
.
2. An economy that is full of Democrat Taxes to fund health care needs for those without insurance?
.
Perhaps Joe Klein and TIME can run a poll based on these two very basic questions.
.
But, you are absolutely correct that word-play by the liberal media and their "polling" arms are nothing than progressive spin. Liberals think that Americans are stupid, "if we just change the name of it, then they will think it is something different".
.
The word play that we have been seeing since Obama has taken office is un-precedented. You can no longer call them "enemy combatants" or "terrorists". Instead you need to call them "counter insurgents".
.
Even as we speak, Nancy Pelosi is now tossing out the new buzz word for "Public Option". She is now calling it "consumer option".
.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9BIUUF02&show_article=1
."Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way. That is, the person who uses them has his own private definition, but allows his hearer to think he means something quite different. -- George Orwell, Politics and the English Language
.
Even Michael Scherer attempted to call them out on their re-branding of "names" and "words".Read more: http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/03/25/obama-word-games-the-meaning-of-recovery/#ixzz0V8xb7MR1
.
Is this all that Obama is about with his "Change We Can Believe In" meme? Simply change the name? -
8.5
Thanks for the reply and the links, Rusty. The world's a better place when we're arguing facts.
-
20% of people identify as Republicans. That is an insanely low number historically. It's natural that fewer people identify as "conservative" than as "liberal"; the word "liberal" was been turned into a smear word over 20 years ago, and many people who once went as liberals now go as "progressives." Wouldn't be surprised to see the same thing happen to the word "conservative" in the coming decade, as the party that self-identifies as conservatives spirals downward in popularity:
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/political-media/the-incredible-shrinking-gop-only-one-in-five-self-identify-as-republican/
-
Here's a reference to the poll of physicians:
http://www.nhregister.com/articles/2009/10/08/opinion/doc4acd5d4254b5d612388803.txt
-
Here is a recent poll showing majority support for a public option:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/19/AR2009101902451.html
-
Freeinpa is of course correct that wording of questions affect poll results. That's why it would be dishonest to ask a question like, "Conservatives and Republicans claimed in 1960 that Medicare would lead to rationing of care and government ordering doctors. They were wrong about everything, and Medicare is now a successful program that today's Republicans have committed to defending. Would you therefore support expanding Medicare?"
-
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/03/raising-the-white-flag-of-surrender-to-medicare/ -
8.6
"It's natural that fewer people identify as "conservative" than as "liberal"; the word "liberal" was been turned into a smear word over 20 years ago"
.
Elvis, did you not read that poll that Rusty posted? Because midway down it at least partially shoots down this theory. Polling evidence on that page that Americans aren't just moving right in generally ideology ID, but on SPECIFIC issues. There's seven total, but I'll just post the first three and leave the rest for you to read on the previous link:
.
"Perceptions that there is too much government regulation of business and industry jumped from 38% in September 2008 to 45% in September 2009.
.
The percentage of Americans saying they would like to see labor unions have less influence in the country rose from 32% in August 2008 to a record-high 42% in August 2009.Public support for keeping the laws governing the sale of firearms the same or making them less strict rose from 49% in October 2008 to 55% in October 2009, also a record high. (The percentage saying the laws should become more strict -- the traditionally liberal position -- fell from 49% to 44%.)"
.
Also, don't you think maybe the reason why the word liberal was successfully smeared is because it's the minority view (and always has been) of the country? How likely do you think it is that the dominant (yes, dominant) political ideology would be successfully smeared?
.
When voters go to the polls, do you think that their ideology or party ID will weigh more heavily? How do you think Democrats took back the Congress in 2006? They ran as conservatives!
-
-
9
Joe, your asking us to believe that the insurance industry fought tooth and nail against the public option even though it is not that significant. Do you really believe that? The industry senses a threat to their monopolies, and that's precisely why the public option is so important. Agree completely about implementing HCR as soon as possible, and I think that this is a very encouraging day for people who support real reform.
-
10
All good ideas, Joe. But here's a better one: make the public option effective immediately and available to anyone who would prefer it to their current health plan. Give people a real choice -- pay premiums to a private insurer or to a public one.
-
11
Joke Line Joke Line Joke Line
.
I know its gotta be pissing you off that for all you and your fellow Villagers' concern trolling the Democrats on the hill actually listened to "lefty librul bloggers" rather than yall's dumb@sses. It is so wonderful to see you now have to eat the biggest plate of crow since....well since the last time you were completely wrong about some sh*t which is practically always. The funny thing is you always religiously quote Ezra Klein, and infinitely smarter journalist than you, about everything having to do with health care EXCEPT the public option.
.
Why?
.
Well its probably because your pompous @ss thought you and your bretheren were powerful to kill it just by announcing it was dead over and over again and proclaiming it was never more than bargaining chip. It was too much for such sh*tty opinonaters such as yourself to actually do some, ya know, research and realize that the public option is one of the only TRUE ways to control and or bring down costs. Nah, you are just so scared of your own d@mn shadow and any random Republican in the vicinity that you just peed your pants thinking of how the big bad GOP would derail health care reform if a "big gubmint option" was included.
.
In a just world this whole episode would relegate you to the only half way decent area that you report on, foreign affairs. But I doubt it. Journalists so often fail up nowadays so I wouldn't be surprised to see you as a managing editor pretty soon after this level of FAIL
.
I do know this, you were playing with people's lives when sh*tting on the public option because a lot of the uninsured in this country will never be able to pay for insurance if left at the mercy of the big companies who are beholden ONLY to their shareholders. At least you being deathly afraid of Republicans on the Hill and reporting as such didn't leave you with any blood on your hands.
.
this time................-
11.1
"...being deathly afraid of Republicans on the Hill and reporting as such didn't leave you with any blood on your hands."
.
Well, he is sharing a little self-satisfied smugness with that 5% remark, in case you missed it. Remember, "moderates" and "centrists" mau-maued the public option down to the much less available, much less effective, much less humane universal version it could have been. So "conservative" of him to point to the shortcomings he helped create as an example of progressive policy impotence. -
11.2
...much less humane than the universal version it could have been. Can't really say that enough.
-
-
12
I'm all for this. States rights and public option.
.
As a winning combo, this is the best of all possible worlds.
.
You see, no more FOXworld idiots presenting opinions as facts, no more push and pull across a heavily defended Maginot line of staked-out ideologies, just results.
.
Just what am I rambling about?
.
The one result that will stand above all others will be answer to this question:
.
"How is my state doing compared to the others?"
.
And all one will have to do is look over at his/her neighboring states' yard and see how well his grass is growing.
.
Then he or she can go to the ballot box and vote...-
12.1
Though I do have a problem with a state government, even if supported by the majority,denying a right to the minority.
-
12.2
You have a point, destor, but I look at it as the lesser of two evils (the entire country doing so), and given enough time, the proof will be in the pudding.
.
No args, no FOX, just votes...
-
-
13
And, in political terms, if it costs the Democrats a 60-vote majority in the Senate, it will not have been worth the struggle.
This is the stupidest sentence I have read today. How would a policy that is popular with 60-70% of the population lead to a loss of seats?
Democrats are going to lose seats. Blanche Lincoln will probably lose hers, but it ain't because of the public option--the PO is more popular in her state than people named Blanche Lincoln. It is because there is general dissatisfaction with the economy and she is not different in many regards from the teabagger looking to replace her.
Harry Reid was going to lose his seat and still may unless he gets some bold victories. The public option is more popular in his state than he is. He might is going to see his popularity rise if it passes. -
14
Let's remember that on matters of policy, Joe Klein simply doesn't have the time or legal expertise to judge anything on the merits. For f*cks sake, the 5% he dismisses are the key element - the raison d'etre of the whole shebang. And we might note here that some estimates suggest that 10% is a more plausible figure. But hey, they don't listen to Joe at cocktail parties, so they don't count, do they Joe? And by the way, how is aimai these days? Or have you banned her from your soirees?
-
15
Already Pelosi is looking to change the name of "public option". Just like liberals are now progressives, when an idea stinks put a new wrapper on it.
Now O. Snowe knows the meaning of the word bi-partisan. You are the first one under the bus. Blue dogs take note.
And since Reid has such a great plan why was Schumer on the MSNBC nut job show saying Dingy Harry does want them talking about details.
The smell is rising!
-
16
Joe Klein: Do yourself a favor and stop embarrassing yourself.
I understand why the insurance lobby is opposed to a public option. They don't want any competition with the nice little racket they have going on. I get that. This will cost them billions.
I also understand why the Morans oppose it. They are ignorant of history and politics and are generally too stupid to understand how they are being manipulated. I get that. If there was a buck to be made, the Morans could be whipped into a frenzy over "government-run" flu shots (talking point: "Hitler opposed the flu, too").
What I don't get is a reasonably intelligent person, who lacks a financial interest to do so, trying to defend opposition to the public option. There is no non-corrupt reason to oppose it.
It is a freaking option, people. Worst case scenario: It is uncompetitive, people don't choose it, and we shut it down.
-
17
I think we found out who Klein is getting his ideas (namely, that the public option is unpopular and will make Democrats lose their seats) from.
Mark Halperin. He was on Morning Jerk this AM saying the same unsupported and counter-intuitive thing.
http://www.openleft.com/diary/15705/mark-halperin-still-clueless-about-politics -
18
And, in political terms, if it costs the Democrats a 60-vote majority in the Senate, it will not have been worth the struggle.
I do love the classic Villager logic: The PO isn't worth supporting, but it is worth losing your seat for opposing it. Got it.
Also, Klein's math seems a little off. 60 votes are only useful if they actually vote with you. The only reason there is a "struggle" is because some DINOs are threatening to join a GOP filibuster. I couldn't care less if Dems lose a few seats if the losers are unreliable Blue Dogs. In fact, I will likely celebrate their departure.
-
19
The Village decided there would be no public option. The Tea Party gang gave vent to that viewpoint. Baucus & Co did not bother with it. The WH had a snowejob done on them. So the great and the good did not give a fig for what people wanted. After all they are only people; they count for little until election time.
So the Village could be "forgiven" for reacting with squeals when they receive a hefty collective kick in the butt.
The public option is just that: an "option". Inventive and devious minds in the insurance industry will do their best to make it tough to get going. But like Medicare it will grow slowly at first. We simply need to keep pressing those who want us to help get out the votes from time to time.
-
20
Allowing the states to opt-out is fine, but the sate opting out should be required to provide some sort of relief for people that do not have health insurance. I live in Texas, and unfortunately I'm confident that my state will be one to opt out. As a person who currently would have little chance of getting health insurance I currently have less help from my state that persons in other states in similar circumstances. This should be a no-brainer! Heath is a right - so shouldn't healthcare be as well?
-
20.1
Why not move somewhere close like New Mexico that will get the public option and move back to Texas after they figure out how good it is and decide to opt in?.
-
-
21
Hunh. I agree with Joe on all recommendations. Although "costing the 60 vote majority..." Um, what is the value of something that can never be spent?
-
22
Actually, I would prefer a strong public plan, broadly available, with an opt out.
Let the southern states opt out. For 300 years, from being pro-slave to being anti-union, the southern states have made a fetish of being pro wealth and anti working human beings.
For 50 years, they have undermined our nation's ability to establish national standards in worker treatment, public health, universal public education, and higher education. Now they can explicitly, at the state level, take a principled stand against doing the best for their population in gaining inexpensive, unbreakable health insurance.
I look forward to one of two things: 50% of the southern statehouses turning democratic by 2016, or 2) a new northward migration. Either one could usher in a new age of higher living standards throughout our country.
- TIME The scoop on Google Buzz from @techland | http://su.pr/1zDlZ6 - 5 hours ago
- TIME Are the bible stories true? Evidence from archaeology | http://su.pr/2ekoPX - 6 hours ago
- TIME Why is NBC pretending Conan never existed? | http://su.pr/4Pbjbh - 7 hours ago
Most Popular »
- NBC: There Was Never a Conan O'Brien
- Undercover Boss Is Phony and Manipulative. But Don't Hold That Against It.
- NH Poll: Dems Face A Thumpin'
- Gibbs Mocks Palin, Tea Party Convention
- Barack Obama: Then vs. Now
- Irony of the Day
- Paul Ryan Won't Run For Prez In 2012
- Today's Health Care Checkup - GOP Plans Under the Spotlight
- Do You Spend Less than $2,000 Annually on Internet, TV, Cell Phone Service, and Video Games?
- CO Gov Poll: Hickenlooper +4
- Asian Carp Battle: Foreign Fish Threaten Great Lakes
- Is the Bible Fact or Fiction? Archaeology's Discoveries
- Spain's Troubled Economy: Fears Over Euro Zone Outlook
- Kennewick Man, Archaeology Find: Who Discovered America?
- Al-Qaeda, Yemen, Wedding: Unlucky Name, Celebration
- Tea-Party Convention: Lessons on Palin and the Movement
- Venezuela: Chavez Protests at Ball Game Over Electricity
- Jim Frederick, Black Hearts in Iraq's Triangle of Death
- Marja: Operation Moshtarak Tests Obama's Afghan War Plan
- Why China Needs The U.S. -- And Vice Versa
Quotes of the Day »
RSS