Watched Jon Stewart interview Marc Thiessen last night. It was a very frustrating interview. Jon did a pretty decent job, but I think let him off the hook in some key places. He did a good job pointing out that Thiessen and Bush believe waterboarding was legal because they gamed the legal definition. He also pointed out the incredibly selective nature of Thiessen's "evidence." But ultimately, I found Thiessen to be an incredible ass. And I am disturbed by the clear conclusion that many people will agree with him.
******
The healthcare debate continues to make me sad. So many people without good care, and yet so many people willing to flush this bill because it isn't perfect. And those are the Democrats. The Republicans, as we have discussed, have no interest in reform. Well, they do want to make it impossible for you to sue your doctor, though I have heard nothing that will suggest that they care whether you were the victim of malpractice. I think Fred nails it here at slacktivist: Democrats are working on something mostly fact based, and the Republicans simply change the language when it suits them. Just as Betsy McGaughey said that there were death panels in a bill that didn't include anything of the sort, Republicans have decided to say that the bill will force costs up even if the evidence is to the contrary. And, just as they did with torture, they simply rename stuff. If people object to torture, they change it to "enhanced interrogation" (which, sorry for the Godwin's law reference, so did the Nazis). Here, they call reconciliation--a tactic they used numerous times on very big legislation--the "nuclear option," and suggest that passing a bill by Senate rules and even a (gasp) majority vote is "ramming healthcare down our throats."
Incredibly hard to respect. But I was probably more disturbed by a friend of mine, a woman I do yoga with, who objected to my Facebook post on domestic violence as a pre-existing condition. She said she had experienced domestic abuse and didn't think that earned her any special treatment. Like not being excluded from healthcare, I guess.
I am not sure what to do in the face of that kind of approach. I also read that Republicans routinely refer to Obama as a "socialist" and his policies as "socialist," all while saying that his new "socialist" plan will end up cutting Medicare. Which, of course, is more "socialist" than anything in the President's plan.
It is enough to make you scream.
****
One bit of good news from here in Oklahoma. So little good ever comes from the mouths of Tom Coburn or his idiot partner Inhofe, but SOF just called to tell me that Coburn had agreed to release his hold on the Uganda assistance bill. You know, the one that would try to aid those threatened by the Lord's Resistance Army and its war criminal leader. The one that allowed more people to die needlessly so Coburn could make his claim as pork buster. Because, of course, nothing works like a budgetary example like holding up aid for people getting raped and murdered.
But I digress. The real good news here is that a very peaceful 11 day protest worked. As many as 75 people slept outside the Chase building, and this protest included people from other states.
Good for them. Makes me less likely to scream today.
8 comments:
I object to your claim that Republicans have no interest in health care reform, they simply want to go about it in a vastly different way than the Democrats.
If the Democrats were to call for income tax reform by raising taxes on the rich under the logic of making them pay a more proportionate share of taxes, I would strenously object to their proposal. I would not say they were uninterested in reform simply because my idea of tax reform is vastly different than theirs.
I really think you are being unfair to say Republicans do not want reform. Though their proposals are relatively unreported, because the media is mostly reporting on their efforts to say "no", it doesn't mean they don't exist.
For instance, with minimal research its clear that most (possibly all, but all is a strong word) Republicans in Congress want to allow health insurance companies to compete across state lines. I've yet to see anyone say why this is a bad idea, and yet its never really been even considered in the Democrats plans. Does that mean I should declare the Democrats are against reform?
Fair enough, LB, though I object to your suggestion that Republicans are getting aced out by the media. I don't think that is accurate at all.
One of the concerns about insurance across state lines (without federal oversight) is that it will result in one state determining insurance policy. Without a federal standard, then one state could lower the regulatory standards to attract insurance business and undermine the quality of care for all, or for most. I read this on Ezra Klein's blog, btw, and he points to a CBO study that looked at a similar proposal in 2005 and it would not reduce the number of uninsured nor improve healthcare for those with insurance. (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/02/selling_insurance_across_state.html)
I think our big divide here is that you believe (and please correct me if I am wrong--I don't mean this as hostile) that free market solutions are always better than government regulation. While I see that working in some areas, I don't see how it makes things better in providing health insurance. Private companies, acting out of self-interest will ban insuring just about anyone with a pre-existing condition, including, of course, domestic violence.
One other point. I agree that my post was probably too strident, but I am still not convinced that Republicans actually do want meaningful reform, and certainly believe that they believe, as a party, that healthcare is not something that everyone deserves. It is a privilege, not a right, I think is the sentiment.
I would also add that while the Republicans had control, they did nothing to actually reform healthcare, and the one thing they did related, Medicare part D, was done with pure deficit spending.
Very hard to accept those Republicans criticizing this bill.
I see free markets as superior to government actions, though I see a role for government in the free market following this principle:
The government should enforce contracts (either implied or written) between consumers and industry.
For instance, I believe there is an implied contract between consumers and beef producers that a consumer can purchase meat and reasonable expect to not get sick from it (assuming its cooked properly). Hence, I see the employment of government food safety inspectors as fitting in with my philosophy and a proper regulation of the industry.
With healthcare, I think there are some positive reforms in the Democrat bill that fit with my philosophy, such as not allowing insurance companies to drop people who are sick from coverage. People have paid into their insurance with the expectation that they should have their health costs paid by the insurance company, even if the insurance company takes a loss, that is after all the nature of insurance.
As for your specific question about prexisting conditions, I think, given sufficient competition there will be space created for people with preexisting conditions to find insurance. It will admittedly be more expensive and possibly more restrictive. That is basically how the concept of insurance works though, people who have had multiple speeding tickets and an accident on their record pay higher premiums for auto-insurance than "safe" drivers. People who are potentially going to use more medical resources should pay more.
I argue this space will be created because we live in a society where I'm sure so many people have prexisting conditions, that given a truly competitive environment where 300 million people are in the market, instead of few hundred thousand business, insurance companies will have to find a way to cater to the needs of the market. One insurance company will figure out a way to make a profit off of people with prexisting conditions and other companies will have to follow suit to remain competitive.
Supposing that my proposals given a real chance to work were found to have failed to allow people to get coverage for pre-existing conditions. Given the fact that I see health care as a right along the lines of our right to food and shelter (we should always be allowed to get it, but must be willing to pay for it), I am willing to make room for some form of government regulation that prevents insurance companies from denying coverage of pre-existing conditions so long as those persons pay higher premiums.
Ok. We agree on meat inspectors, but you have far more faith in that insurance industry than I do. And I am really not sure about your stance on pre-existing conditions, nor that the comparison to drivers is the same thing. Drivers can become better and safer and thereby lower their risk. Are you willing to tell the person born with diabetes that they will simply have to pay what ever rate that the insurance company charges for something God gave them? Or that abused wife who is now charged more because her ass of a husband beat her?
I understand charging the smoker and the sky diver more for health insurance (though I am not sure it is useful) but pre-existing conditions for random illnesses or ailments or conditions?
You make a fair moral point about diabetes, but I'm not sure what I'm proposing is all that radical. For instance, we ask people who have poor vision to pay for their own glasses and contacts, though I think we have a right to see. Granted glasses and contacts have become pretty affordable in a way that not all chronic illnesses have.
I see your point that its unfair to make people pay higher premiums for something God gave them, but if they don't pay it someone else will. Either other tax payers subsidize it (which also isn't fair) or doctors and drug companies provide their services at below market value rates (which also isn't fair). Whenever money is involved, something is ultimately not going to be fair.
Actually, I think the tax payers can and should subsidize this kind of thing. We can share the risk better together than apart. After all, we may not have been born with some genetic based illness, but we all will face illnesses of varying expenses. Some of those will be more expensive than the diabetic. Why not all of us share that risk together?
One more thing, LB--well, actually a few. First, I am not sure I understand your political philosophy completely if you really believe that people can only get healthcare if they can afford it. If an indigent person is hit by a bus, we don't deny them care because they are poor, and I don't think you would want that either.
As I keep saying, we already have universal care and even a public option. The public option is the emergency room, and universal care is Medicaid and bankruptcy court. In addition, we often don't provide good care for those who have insurance because their profit motive prefers to not pay for expensive care.
I think we already share the risk. Let's just do it more efficiently and actually improve care. More market forces, in my mind, won't accomplish that.
Post a Comment