Change We Can Believe In

Posted on 12/19/2009 at 4:54 pm by Bob Cesca

Paul Krugman relates the ideological triumph of healthcare reform:

…it represents a rejection of the view that the solution for all problems is to cut some taxes and remove some regulations. In that sense, what’s happening now, for all the disappointment it represents for progressives, is a historic moment.

And let’s also not fail to take note of those who had a chance to join in this historic moment, and punted.

Whether its the massive expansion of federal assistance to lower and middle income Americans or the strict regulations on how a major American corporate sector does business, this is the antithesis of the kind of politics you hear recommended by the cable villagers and Halperins of the world. A rejection of the Reaganomics model of government intervention. And if it can be improved and shepherded to practical success, it will build the progressive movement for many years to come.

This entry was posted in Healthcare and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • http://www.osborneink.com Matt Osborne

    Why is Paul Krugman selling out??!!! [/snark]In all seriousness, Bob, correct me if I’m wrong but NONE of this could be passed through reconciliation and the public option would not work without the stuff in this bill. Am I off-base?

  • Hielo

    Krugman does put a feel good spin on the bill. That is good. I am waiting for the final version before I spend many agonizing hours reading it.Matt: I think the “Public Option” term should be dropped at this point. Incremental expansion of Medicare (lowering buy-in age) should be the goal as we continue to reverse the Republican disaster.Expanding Medicare sounds to me like a budget item. Reconciliation?

  • Mocasdad

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH…I’m sorry, it was that thing about “strict regulations” that had me going.I’m 59, and I have a recent high blood pressure situation that has kept me OUT of the doctor’s office for the past year, precisely because I don’t want my insurance company dumping my wife off the plan along with me. Funny story, it was discovered at my dentist’s office, and confirmed by about a million checks at that stupid gizmo in the supermarket. Oops, will that be construed as “fraud and abuse.” Forget I said anything.Strict regulations on insurance companies…man, that’s funny.This is PERSONAL. Get it, all you people who think absolutely godawful to the nth degree is better than nothing? I’m one medical event away from bankruptcy. I have to hope I can make it six more years without a stroke or heart attack because I effing KNOW that, even with this magnanimous gift from Reid, Nelson, Landrieu, Lincoln and Lieberman, I’ll be dumped in a heartbeat by the CPA trolls in charge of our health insurance.And by the way…lawyers aren’t the problem. It’s accountants. And the jagoffs who run America’s graduate business schools. Remember when those kids at Wharton pledged not to be scumbags? That was soooooooooooooo cute.

  • Hielo

    MocasdadAt the risk of sounding like an FAE, high blood pressure can be effectively reduced without paying tribute to big pharma.Go to the health food store and buy Red Yeast Rice. It has the same chemical as the high dollar shit and it is natural. Obviously, “ask your doctor” is the advice that must proceed any post like this.It really does work.

  • eljefejeff

    Mocasdad, I have to say this is not just nth degree better than godawful. It will bring down the deficit although not by a whole lot but it’s fiscally sound. Of course, this will be funded through the mandate which kind of sucks but now people will actually have health insurance if something bad hits and it will be through the federal nonprofit exchange.I’m actually surprised Krugman glossed over this. It feels more like a defeat, but really we lost a long time ago when the public option kept getting watered down to basically nothing. He’s right that it is technically a progressive triumph but the republicans can be happy that they obstructed and made the democrats look like buffoons in the process. Plus, obviously many on the left are very unhappy with this and it could hurt democrats at the polls.But it’s not a bad bill, it’s just kind of blah….however, there’s nothing to say we can’t build on it.

  • IntoxiNation

    Expanding Medicare is very much an item that can be done through reconciliation. Creating a “public option”, no. The Byrd amendment prevents that.Funny thing – I read a blog post (or it could have even been a tweet from a blogger, my brain is fried after this week of HCR nightmares) that the Democrats should push the public option through reconciliation and just suspend the Byrd amendment. One major problem that person didn’t mention though. To suspend it would require……yup 60 votes. So that takes us back to square one.What would work good is to put the Medicare for 55+ back in through reconciliation with a stipulation to lower the age dependent upon what the premiums being charged are. That way there is a level of protection in there to stop the insurance companies from using loopholes (and yes there are plenty) to jack up costs. Honestly something like that would apply close to the same pressure on private insurance as the public option would.

  • http://broadwaycarl.blogspot.com Broadway Carl

    Mocasdad – I see. Well, I suppose you’re happy to pay for insurance that you’re afraid to use? It’s a shame that it’s come to that, isn’t it? You don’t suppose you’ll benefit from outlawing rescission, do you? Or do you think it’s just a big joke?I know this sounds snarky, but I’m trying to understand. You sound like my uncle who cackles with cynicism at everything, from sports teams he roots for during pathetic seasons, to well, your example is pretty good, laughing at trying health care reform while petrified of losing your insurance you’re paying for but afraid to use for fear of losing it.I hope you decide to go to a doctor. Six years is a long time to wait with high blood pressure.

  • Hielo

    IntoxiNationI don’t get the concept of lowering the age. Sounds good though. Can you clarify this a bit? . . .”What would work good is to put the Medicare for 55+ back in through reconciliation with a stipulation to lower the age dependent upon what the premiums being charged are.”(I wish I knew how to do block quotes. I work on a Mac and refuse anything Microsoft)

  • Bull Schmitt

    I don’t get the concept of lowering the age. Sounds good though. Can you clarify this a bit?…

    “What would work good is to put the Medicare for 55+ back in through reconciliation with a stipulation to lower the age dependent upon what the premiums being charged are.”

    The more you reduce the age for the Medicare buy-in, the closer you get to “Medicare for All”, which would effectively be single-payer.In effect, Insurance companies and their wasteful overhead would have to keep premiums low enough for people to afford, with a threat that if they didn’t, they would have to compete with Medicare for each and every customer.