The point that some miss: ANY KIND of government offered plan is a WIN.

[phleshdef]

Yes, even if its complete garbage coming out the door, the fact that it exists is a huge victory and the Republicans' worse nightmare.

I brought this point up in a few other threads, but I decided to make a thread about it because I think its something that people need to sit and ponder for a bit.

Look at the history of social security and medicare. Neither program was what it is today when the programs were first created and both programs STILL need constant improvments and changes in order to meet the needs of modern America.

I think that our society has just became way too "instant gratification" oriented to realize that progress is, well a work in progress. Always has been and always will be.

But if we can just open the door to a government offered healthcare plan, it can go a thousand different ways from there. Its hard enough to get such a thing passed and established. The Republicans know this which is why you don't even see them supporting a watered down, crummily constructed public option, let alone a strong and robust public option.

So, I kindly ask that everyone take a step back and realize what just the creation of a public option program means and then consider the possibilities for the future. Sure, its a hard lesson in patience, but if we all had a lot more of that, we would probably fight a lot less amongst ourselves and accomplish a lot more together.

[TheKentuckian]

1. Lots see progress as a complete paradigm shift rather than movement towards one (nt)

[Ineeda]

2. Agree 100% It's got to start somewhere. n/t

[babylonsister]

3. Exactly, and this recent post goes along with that...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6699217

Government programs that are successful tend to grow and are hard to get rid of

Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Head Start, AmeriCorps, SCHIP, the list goes on. All these programs started out as programs with a limited reach. They had their skeptics and opponents. People who said they would fail, but they were proven wrong. Instead, such programs endured for decades, and survived opponents' efforts to swing the budget ax at them. They were popular programs and more Americans wanted in. These programs grew, and legislators opened the doors for more and more Americans to participate (sometimes with Republican support too).

So think about this when we start hashing out a public option in Congress. It will likely be a more limited PO than any of us want. That's unfortunate, but I will predict right here that if it is administered well, it will grow and more Americans will be made eligible to participate.

[phleshdef]

40. Yea, thats probably verbatim what will actually happen. It heartens me to see others get that.

[hughee99]

4. I disagree. A shitty plan can poison the waters for real reform.

I'm not saying the plan has to be perfect, but if the plan is bad enough, opponents will use it as an example of why government shouldn't be doing this at all.

If the government offers a plan that is very expensive and difficult for it's users, in a few years, the plan will be scrapped, the users will be moved to some sort of private plan, and this will set the single-payer plans back for a generation.

[phleshdef]

6. Then why didn't the shitty social security plan poison the waters for the decent one we have today?

Show me one government plan like this that has been "scrapped". Learn the history behind the other good government programs we have today before you form an opinion. Thats what my post is asking that people do. Please do so before responding.

[hughee99]

34. Good point...

clearly even a shitty plan would establish this as government policy, and even if the plan is so awful that it makes private insurance companies look good (and make no mistake, that's a possibility given some of the hands that might be involved in creating this compromise), it still gives us a platform to make changes down the road. I'll grant you that the government has not made a habit of scrapping bad programs. Look at the Patriot Act.

I guess my fear is that when it comes time to reform a shitty plan, there will be those who argue that the private sector can do this better (and/or cheaper), and depending on how bad the plan is, that argument may have some validity to it. Another concern is that having "a plan" will relieve the pressure on lawmakers to actually fix the problem (at least for a few years). This is something that you can see pretty often from the government.

All this is assuming the plan is so bad that it's doomed to fail (and assuming the insurance companies are writing it, that's what we'd get). I don't think that it's going to be the case, but given the OP, that's the assumption I'm making for my argument.

[phleshdef]

38. Thats fine but did you just try to compare health reform to the patriot act.?

???

[hughee99]

42. I did...

regardless of the policy or program, the politics used to get things enacted and reformed are often the same. Repukes will argue for privatization and use the flaws of an existing government program as support for their argument. The more flaws, the easier their argument is to make. Whether it's a good or bad argument is irrelevant, it just matters how many people they're able to convince with it. They're already doing exactly this with social security, and I'd be surprised if, in the next 30 years, there's not some sort of partial privatization that goes on there.

[eridani]

49. Please specify how Social Security was "shitty." n/t

[lumberjack_jeff]

5. I agree, and I think that we're actually going to get a pretty good plan. n/t

[Honeycombe8]

23. I agree with the OP, too. But unlike you, I don't see evidence we're going to get a good plan.

What have you seen that leads you to think that?

[lumberjack_jeff]

39. How many democrats have you seen on TV praising the Baucus plan? n/t

[Honeycombe8]

56. That's it? That's your evidence of a 'good plan" passing? It'll take a lot more

than the lack of support for a specific bad plan to mean a good plan will pass.

[Cleita]

7. I disagree about Medicare.

When it first came out my father, who was over sixty-five, went on it. I found that it paid a lot better than it does today and he was able to get excellent medical care in the twilight of his life. I'm on Medicare today and although I wouldn't trade it for any other plan, it's not paying care givers a reasonable fee anymore and if they don't update the fee schedule doctors will start refusing to take it. Also, privatizing part of it with the Republican sponsored Medicare Advantage programs and prescription drug benefit is draining the fund dry. We need to fix that.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

8. I disagree.

Yes, there is a thousand ways the healthcare could sprout... and not all of them are as good as they need to be.
Losing democratic seats leaves the republicans open to mold the shitty legislation how they wish.

A VERY large congressional majority and power in the white house? Obama already beginning to appoint judges here and there? There is NO way passing poor reform won't be pinned solely on the democrats and Obama administration. Voters (the Poeple) are collectively stupid. All they see is a D or R next to the names on the ballot. Do not let the R's say "We told you so" and the media blame the D's for garbage health care. Given life's predicaments, there's the easy way or the right way. Nine times out of ten, the easy way is harder/costlier in the end.

[thereismore]

9. I disagree. If the bill out the door is garbage, it's a short-term win, long-term loss. nt

[phleshdef]

Then why wasn't that the case with social security?

[phleshdef]

12. I'll keep saying it. Why is that untrue for social security. You can't get around that.

[jacksonian]

13. because

all Social Security does is send checks to people. Health care is a more complicated issue by a factor of about 1000, with vastly more potential disruption to people's lives.

Just because there was something, doesn't make all other things like that thing.

[phleshdef]

14. LOL, all social security has to do is send checks to people huh? Sorry, thats a lazy, BS answer.

[rudy23]

19. It's a lazier analogy, IMO.

Why do I feel like we're being talked into giving up the farm here?

[phleshdef]

25. Thats a pretty lazy opinion. The analogy is 100% dead on, whether you like it or not.

[IndianaGreen]

10. BULLSHIT!

Tying the public option to triggers means we only get the public option in name only.

[phleshdef]

11. Irrelevant. I said "government offfered plan". It doesn't meet that criteria until its being offered

Try reading, then respond. Thats the best way for this conversation thing to work effectively.

[alc]

15. a bad plan can do irreversible damage

A plan with mandates next year, no public option until 2013, protection for pharma & private insurance for 5-10 years and some other things being talked about now would be a complete disaster. Everyone would hate it (except pharam & private insurers) and it would be revoked before 2013 and nobody would want to touch reform again for a very long time. I'm not expecting the final bill to have all of the worst ideas and none of the good ones, but "any plan" is not a win.

[phleshdef]

16. You need to READ posts before you respond to them.

Look at the subject, what does it say? Does it say any reform bill? Nope didn't think so.

Read, then post. Its not hard.

[Clio the Leo]

17. Yeppers. NT

[quantass]

18. Was going to debate you on this but ended up K&R .. you're right.

Pains me to think that a shitty bill passes like a PO with a stupid trigger but if it gets America on the road to real change then i will bite my tongue. If it ends up as a trigger i pray it is not as useless as Medicare Part-D's trigger and it takes affect within 4 years.

[phleshdef]

26. Well, to be clear, a trigger doesn't fit the bill when I use the word "offered".

It ain't offered until its actually available. An unpulled trigger is worthless.

[truedelphi]

20. You are missing the point. Back in the days that Social Sec and MediCare

Were created, the lobbyists did not have that kind of control over the discussion.

The newspapers and radio supported FDR. Everyone listened to his weekly radio chats. He could clearly lay out what we needed. Even in LBJ's day, there was much more influence that mere voters had over any political situation.

Now everything is controlled by the lobbyists. So if we give the Insurance "Providers" a bill which requires mandatory insurance, for essentially the same shitty product, then we are just giving the Forces of Evil the money to buy the rope to hang us.

Mark my words, if we get this crappola legislation, we will be stuck with it for along time.

Our leader has already said that he wants to be the last president to deal with this issue. The deal will be a done deal, and we of the middle incomed class (and less incomed class) will be the ones that are done for.

[Honeycombe8]

22. The OP was about a govt plan. Not giving the mandatory requirement without something

in return. ????

[truedelphi]

27. How is the pain and suffering of every middle incomed family going to be offset

By some government plan that offers enrollment to only 5% of the uninsured?

And none of this will take effect for three or four years anyway.

While I imagine the mandates start as of January 1st 2010.

[phleshdef]

28. It won't be. Its not a perfect world. I want progress, you want a miracle.

[truedelphi]

30. All I want is what I was promised

And whether that is a miracle or not, it was described to me as "Change I can believe in"

Not the currently pervasive "Shit that might turn into soemthing edible at some other point in time, if the lobbyists will let us do it."

How soon we forget.

[phleshdef]

36. Yea how soon we forget, we use to have GWB as President. Regardless, change IS incremental.

[eridani]

50. You are describing garbage, not progress

A plan postponed until 2013 is a disaster, and a completely unnecessary one. All we have to do is open Medicare to voluntary buy-in. That isn't perfect, or a miracle, but it benefits people right away.

[phleshdef]

24. As I've said to others, actually READ what I said, then respond.

I said a government offered healthcare plan, if that isn't in the legislation then this post is irrelevant.

[Honeycombe8]

21. I agree. (Hold onto your hat, though. The flames will be strong.) nt

[rudy23]

29. Even if it's a win against what we have now, it's not a win given the expectations when we voted

for Obama and a largely Democratic Congress.

eta- it's really not a win given the advantage we should have had, if lobbyist money were not completely tainting this process from Congress through Obama and beyond.

[Orsino]

31. Yes. Some healthcare is infinitely better than none.

Anything affordable for those without coverage is some kind of win...for some Americans, at least.

If you want to oppose whatever plan's coming down the line, well, just don't do it without considering those who need something now.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

32. I agree

There will time to continue improving whatever comes out of the current HCR effort and President Obama has stated that he does not intend for the bill he signs (hopefully soon) to be the end but rather the end of the beginning. I have seen comments here and elsewhere make the argument that there will be no pressure/incentive to go back and help fix what comes out of the current progress but history, at least in regards to programs like Social Security and Medicare, seem to contradict that assertion as both of those programs were fairly "conservative" when they were first introduced and have only expanded years and decades since their inception. Passage of HCR, particularly one with a PO will be a MAJOR victory for President Obama and the Democrats and will help make future reform efforts progressively easier to accomplish since people will actually be able to experience the benefits of the legislation and should be much less uneasy and/or anxious about further reforms (and hopefully make Blue Dogs less anxious about voting for them).

[phleshdef]

37. Thank you, you articulate my exact feelings. Some of us always knew the winning battle just began...

...and we need to keep on and cut out our desire for instant gratification intiaitives. If we really want change, then we need to change the level of realism in our expectations and start working with the hand we are dealt in a manner that actually serves our desires. Its cool to be "right", but its much better to do something about it in a way that is actually effective.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

58. Thanks for your compliment

I proudly supported President Obama for POTUS and was ecstatic when he won but I was under NO illusion that things would dramatically change, at least not initially and definitely not all at once. Having read (or rather, listened to) his book, "The Audacity of Hope", I gained a much better understanding of President Obama and the kind of President he was likely to be and, frankly, so far, he is very much the realist/pragmatist that he seemed to be in his book and I knew that he wouldn't be coming in and, as some people have suggested he do, completely upend our existing economy, healthcare system, etc. I had President Obama pegged as somebody who would offer us "determined action over time" and I believe that that's essentially what we're getting- on a wide variety of fronts. Some people, however, want radical (large-scale) social, legal, and economic changes and they want them NOW and, while such arguments/desires are not without merit and justification, they're, unfortunately, a bit unrealistic when it comes to what can be instantly changed, how much of it can be changed, and how soon it can be changed in a system such as ours. "The Audacity of Hope" should be required reading when it comes to understanding how President Obama thinks and operates.


"The only problem with instant gratification is that it takes too long!"
-Carrie Fisher

[opihimoimoi]

33. The Pub Spoilers will pan it no matter what is passed..they are nasty pessimists.Never Happy, always

Snappy

[kiranon]

35. Trojan horse has been and will be uncontrolled prescription costs.

Bill needs to provide for negotiations over the price of prescription drugs or the cost cannot be contained.

[rug]

41. You just moved the goalposts to the one inch line.

[Grandrose]

43. Absolutely ON point!!!!

The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step! Just saying!:thumbsup: :)

[slipslidingaway]

44. I disagree, if the PO is weak and Obama quoted the CBO estimate...

in the Congressional speech then it will not provide the needed competition and will funnel government money to private companies.

Obama said under 5% in the PO by 2019, the actual CBO estimate is just over 3%.

Would he quote a number in the Congressional speech that his team felt was so off the mark or will the three percent provide real competition and lower costs.

And I do not see how we are going to pay for this???

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6704866&mesg_id=6705166

http://ssaonline.us/OACT/TRSUM/index.html

"...In 2017 and later for HI, and in 2037 and later for OASDI, there is no provision in current law that would enable full payment of benefits, once the trust funds are exhausted. If asset exhaustion actually occurred, benefits could be paid only up to the amount of ongoing dedicated revenues. Further general fund transfers could not be made to finance the deficits..."

And this comes at a time when Social Security will need to draw on the SS Trust fund, which was borrowed by the general budget.

[grantcart]

45. Well ANY may be overstating it a bit

but a reasonable public option will be a wedge.

It also establishes the point that the health care system is under Federal Government supervision.



After passed we agitate to increase and expand it.


It also becomes a competitor with the DOD for discretionary spending.

[eridani]

52. Bullshit. We don't need a public option as a wedge. We HAVE a wedge already

It is called Medicare. Just let people buy into it voluntarily.

[grantcart]

55. We also have the US Senate that requires a super majority comprising

yes votes of 90% of the population.


Once you deal with that reality then you have to start dealing with all kinds of bullshit.


So I will up your bullshit and say bullshit bullshit just have universal single payer like the UK and outlaw all private plans.


Now having typed bullshit and opt for a plan that will never get through the US Senate may make you feel better but it doesn't actually get anything done.

[grahamhgreen]

46. Almost. But a good team of corporate lawyers could craft a "gov." plan that is a lose lose.

[jeanpalmer]

47. It could morph into something worse

like the Pentagon. I'm not sure your assumption is correct.

[quakerboy]

48. Key there: Government offered

I don't know too many people irl who believe we will see a "robust public option". More and more seem to be doubtful that we will get any public option at all.

[backscatter712]

51. I agree with the sentiment. Make sure there are no triggers or co-ops.

We have to have a real public option, even if it's a weak public option.

Once one's in place, we can start fixing the weaknesses, and that task will be a lot easier with the public option in place.

If it's just in with a trigger, the trigger will be engineered to never be triggered, and we'll be SOL.

Same with co-ops - those are designed to fail, and it'll take a hell of a lot of fucking with them before they even start doing something slightly useful.

[eridani]

53. Jesus fucking KEERIST!! We already HAVE a government health care plan!

It is called Medicare. It is a wedge right now, and could be much larger if only people could voluntarily buy into it. That would hardly be ideal, as the people most motivated to do so would be the sickest, but it would have the effect of increasing the demand for more Medicare access.

[eridani]

54. Current mandatory insurance is the biggest assault possible on economic recovery

It witll eliminate huge swathes of discretionary consumer income for NOTHING--other that enriching the shitstains who are responsible for screwing up the system so badly in the first place.

10-12% of income is an absolute outrage. And that is for garbage plans that only cover 70% of expenses. The other 30% is piled on top of your diminished income. The Netherlands has mandatory private insurance for 100 euros/month/adult, with NO copays or deductibles. That is only slightly more expensive for individuals than single payer would be here, proving that there is more than one way to skin a cat.

And that is before the extra fucking over that people 55-64 are going to get, since age remains a perfectly legal pre-existing condition that justifies doubling to quintupling premiums for people in that group.

[depakid]

57. A plan destined and designed to fail is EXACTLY what Republicans dream of

and even odds say that's exactly what Americans will get- probably some time in 2013 (insulting and dysfunctional as that is given the nature and severity of the problem).

If that's the best that Democrats can muster- this nation's in a bigger worlds of hurt than even I imagined.