Obamacare Begins to Take Shape
Aides to President Barack Obama are putting the final touches on a new strategy to help Democrats recover from a brutal August recess by specifying what Obama wants to see in a compromise health care deal and directly confronting other trouble spots, West Wing officials tell POLITICO.
Obama is considering detailing his health-care demands in a major speech as soon as next week, when Congress returns from the August recess. And although House leaders have said their members will demand the inclusion of a public insurance option, Obama has no plans to insist on it himself, the officials said.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Can't they just extend the August recess for say, another year?
I think the whole health care thing is a case of perception bias on the democrats part. They see polls with big support for "Everyone should have quality health care" and think that means they have broad support for reform.
It's like balancing the budget. Everyone is for that--- just as long as there are no tax hikes or cuts to medicare, social security, or the military. Once people realize that healthcare reform will be expensive and might impact their sweet situation (if 45 million are uninsured, that means 255 million ARE insured), you see support wilt. Because there was no real support in the first place.
People are all for health care reform, fiscal responsibility, and ending world hunger, as long as the solution costs nothing and doesn't impact them negatively in any way.
Great news! Fill the limber chests with new ordnance. Finally, a stationary target at which to aim our cannons. No more shooting down trial balloons through the fog of 1,000+ bills that, to believe some pro-reform proponents, contained nothing at all.
...the fact that liberal reforms will require lots of people-including many of the young voters who supported Obama-to shell out for potentially expensive insurance they wouldn't otherwise buy.
Mandatory health insurance coverage is the same sort of scam that was pulled with Social Security. SS was predicated on the idea that most people would pay into it but not live long enough to collect it. Health insurance will largely be paid for by those who will seldom use it until they are old, and in the case of the younger population, who knows what will happen by then. One thing is nearly certain: if it's passed, it'll never be gotten rid of - just like Social Security. It will become the fourth rail of politics.
Finally, Obama gets flushed out of the weeds on this one. I will be very interested to see what he actually puts on the table. Seeing as I believe he has no principled commitment to anything other than the advancement and glorification of Obama and the political advantage of the Democratic Party, it could be damn near anything.
They are so boxed in on this.
If they don't increase coverage, the left will kill it.
If they try to cut payments to providers, the doctors will kill it.
If they try to cut benefits, the old people will kill it.
If they try to increase coverage and maintain benefits and coverage, the deficit will skyrocket and/or a massive new tax will be needed. Electoral poison!
Not a lot left, is there?
I think it's ironic that with all the complaining that America spends 14% of GDP or so on health care, the Democratic reforms will make sure that number stays high and gets higher. I'm guessing 25% of GDP is not unlikely if they pass Obamacare.
Effectively dumping the government-run insurance option is a good thing, but I suspect it will clear way for greater opposition to what's really at the heart of reform: the insurance mandate.
Because nothing is better for individuals and businesses than having your negotiating position destroyed by a government mandate saying you can't walk away from the bargaining table and say, "Fuck you, it's too expensive, I'm not buying."
As a former health insurance underwriter, I find it ironic that the same Democrats who revile insurance companies are willing to consider granting them what amounts to the wet dream of insurance company CEOs: a sucker who can't legally refuse to buy their product.
"what I'm going to call The Bob Dole Strategy"
Why not just call it what it is the inapt, floundering, feckless Obama strategy? Oh that's right, if you did that, you couldn't take a cheap shot at a great Republican like Bob Dole, who wouldn't let you stop the bleeding of his hemorrhoids with direct pressure from your tongue.
It will become the fourth rail of politics.
Never happen. There are seventy-three thousand six hundred and twenty-two fourth rails. So it can't be "the."
Just to add to the deliciousness:
The prolonged, bloody struggle over health reform, soon to be re-energized by the appearance of new, slow-moving target, virtually guarantees that cap and trade will not pass.
RC Dean has pretty much got it. The biggest problem with health care is the cost. There are lots of savings to be had, but obtaining savings will likely piss off some consituency who will fight tooth and nail to protect thier preferred situation.
If Obama continues to pursue this it will be very expensive for him.
Mandatory health insurance coverage is the same sort of scam that was pulled with Social Security. SS was predicated on the idea that most people would pay into it but not live long enough to collect it. Health insurance will largely be paid for by those who will seldom use it until they are old, and in the case of the younger population, who knows what will happen by then.
I agree with you, but IF (and this IF wont happen) the plan pushes us away from employer based health care and strongly encourages HSA type plans, manditory insurance wouldnt be the worst thing in the world. [sprinkle standard libertarian disclaimers all over this post, please] A catastrophic insurance plan that allowed the young 'uns to save tax free towards future health care spending wouldnt be the worst thing ever. But, of course, that isnt what is coming.
BTW, back in my 20s I had a catastrophic insurance plan (it wasnt part of an HSA, I was just responsible for a very high deductible). I was young, healthy and that was the cheapest plan I could find in case something VERY bad happened. Then KY outlawed the plan. Fuckers.
As an aside, looking back on it, the day my cheap ass insurance plan was declared illegal was when I went from a general libertarian to a shoot-ever-one-of-those-fuckers-in-the-head-and-burn-their-buildings-to-the-ground libertarian.
I went without health insurance for a few years in my 20's--was still in school, in perfect health, and on no medications. Just paid for a few checkups out of my own pocket and in retrospect I saved money by not having to pay the premiums for insurance. Just who does Obama think he is that he can tell young people (or anyone else for that matter) they will be forced to buy insurance? If "community rating" is part of the insurance mandate (and you can bet it will be because they need all the healthy people to subsidize the chronically sick) then this will be yet another transfer of wealth from lower paid younger workers to the relatively affluent elderly. Sort of a reverse Robin Hood. And as prolefeed noted, you can't just say fuck you and walk away.
I agree completely with Joe M, they need to extend their recess...although I'd suggest adding a couple more months to the year, until next election.
Oh how I lament the loss of a constitutionally limited federal government. Why is it that all these douches trying to ram their do-gooder programs down our throats can't stick to local and state governments. Most of them live in NY and Cali anyway. Have your damn universal health care, and your cake too. Just don't ask the rest of us to bail you out when you can't figure out how to pay for it.
You know, I'm starting to agree about the cheap shots and the non sequiturs.
As as if Barack Obama (or anyone else for that matter) really cares one iota about what Bob Dole has to say about health care. Give me a break.
Oooh, another major speech on health care. That should do the trick. Perhaps ABC can crank out another infomercial.
"You know, I'm starting to agree about the cheap shots and the non sequiturs."
Those who can, write well.
Those who can't, spew cheap shots and non sequiturs.
Will using the handle, Peter "I suck" Suderman, bring down the banhammer?
Perhaps ABC can crank out another infomercial.
Ever since the digital switchover I've been unable to pull in any ABC affiliates. Guess I haven't missed much. 😉
From the perspective of politics alone, this would be a clever strategy for Obama. How could Republicans oppose a mandate when their likely standard-bearer in 2012, Mitt Romney, was the one who first implemented such an idea?
You know what they could do to fix the dreaded "bankruptcy due to medical costs" quickly and easily? Federal loan guarantees. Shouldn't cost more than a few billion. You're welcome, President Obama.
I wonder what one can spell using the letters in Peter Suderman? Neuters mad rep?
who wouldn't let you stop the bleeding of his hemorrhoids with direct pressure from your tongue.
I do not share your opinion of Bob Dole, but this is an awesome line.
"I do not share your opinion of Bob Dole"
I base it soley on his military service.
"but this is an awesome line."
You are my inspiration, Suge. Suderman, my bloody stools.
But I'm a Republican! It's okay if my team does it.
(Fuck Mitt Romney!)
No, it's ok if his state does it, not the feds. The Constitution does not allow for federally managed health care. If a states constitution does, and it's people want it, than as I said earlier, just don't come crying to the rest of us when you can't pay your bills.
Mandatory health insurance coverage is the same sort of scam that was pulled with Social Security. SS was predicated on the idea that most people would pay into it but not live long enough to collect it. Health insurance will largely be paid for by those who will seldom use it until they are old, and in the case of the younger population, who knows what will happen by then. One thing is nearly certain: if it's passed, it'll never be gotten rid of - just like Social Security. It will become the fourth rail of politics.
The government needs new debts to repudiate.
If they don't increase coverage, the left will kill it.
If they try to cut payments to providers, the doctors will kill it.
If they try to cut benefits, the old people will kill it.
If they try to increase coverage and maintain benefits and coverage, the deficit will skyrocket and/or a massive new tax will be needed. Electoral poison!
Not a lot left, is there?
LOL!
Obama's health care "reform" is going the way of Bush's Social Security "reform".
Isn't this Ron Bailey's plan? (That most of us called "bullshit" on.)
I find it ironic that the same Democrats who revile insurance companies are willing to consider granting them what amounts to the wet dream of insurance company CEOs: a sucker who can't legally refuse to buy their product.
And just who are these democrats who hold this position? It isn't the democrats who "revile the insurance companies" -- it's the Democrats who are getting the most money from the Insurance (See Kent Conrad and Max Baucus as examples)
The liberals are against a mandate without the public plan because they understand that without the public plan the mandate is basically a windfall for insurance companies. Liberal sites have been against the mandate without a public option for quite some time.
But I suspect that, with the public plan out of the picture, a lot more discussion will key in on the fact that liberal reforms will require lots of people-including many of the young voters who supported Obama-to shell out for potentially expensive insurance they wouldn't otherwise buy.
Greg Gutfeld kinda covered this on The Daily Gut:
http://www.dailygut.com/index.php?i=4266
The current plan met with furious opposition not because of astroturfing, but because it made old people nervous about their Medicare.
Young people won't respond in such overwhelming numbers. Years after the mandate is put in place, a lot of them will still be saying, "Mandate? There's a mandate? When did this happen?"
Can't they just extend the August recess for say, another year?
The great thing about that is that my local Congressperson is afraid to show up in person to talk about health care reform. She did a "telephone town hall", instead. And this is in a uber-liberal California district.
She wouldn't be stirring up trouble here at home, and she wouldn't be stirring up trouble in D.C. It would be like a dream.
The liberals are against a mandate without the public plan because they understand that without the public plan the mandate is basically a windfall for insurance companies. Liberal sites have been against the mandate without a public option for quite some time.
Just to be clear, either way it's a windfall for doctors and hospitals, who don't have to clean up their act at all.
And a mandate without a public option does not have to be an insurance company windfall per se; their profits are more related to competition, which is not affected one way or the other by a mandate.
Finally, Obama gets flushed out of the weeds on this one. I will be very interested to see what he actually puts on the table. Seeing as I believe he has no principled commitment to anything other than the advancement and glorification of Obama and the political advantage of the Democratic Party, it could be damn near anything.
My dream would be that he ends up being backed into a corner nad has to propose exactly what John Mackey proposed in his Wall Street Journal editorial. I know it won't happen, but it would be so fun to watch all the backpedaling.
In fact I'd expect that a mandate (which is always tied to an insurance company mandate to take all applicants) would improve competition by making it easier for customers to jump over to a competing plan. Again, public option utterly unnecessary, unless you love government gettin' involved and "solving" "problems".
Obama gets flushed out of the weeds on this one.
Comparing Obama to a pheasant is racist. Everyone knows that pheasant caricatures are a codeword for black.
The biggest problem with Obamacare as channeled by Pelosi wasn't the public option nor was it the mandates.
It was and still is the minimums of the mandates.
It is those minimums that make the public option a Trojan horse. It is those minimums that make the mandates very expensive for individuals and employers, requiring high subsidies for the poor and delighting the AMA.
Of course the fact that the actually positive reforms of employer-provided portable insurance vouchers and interstate insurance are not on the table doesn't help any.
My dream would be that he ends up being backed into a corner nad has to propose exactly what John Mackey proposed in his Wall Street Journal editorial. I know it won't happen, but it would be so fun to watch all the backpedaling.
This is what I pray for before bed.
Something tells me, however, that if Republicans couldn't get a meaningful HSA reform after a decade of controlling Congress, it has a lot more opposition than you'd think, probably from unions and insurance companies alike.
You might look at the Coburn/Ryan plan as a disingenuous attempt to show what meaningful reform would look like without the pesky matter of actually having to pass it.
I wonder what one can spell using the letters in Peter Suderman? Neuters mad rep?
You are not worthy of logging on to me.
Peter Suderman = Reamed Punster
Also "Rapers Need Smut"
"You are not worthy of logging on to me."
WTF?
"Reamed Punster"
Half right. Half wrong.
"As an aside, looking back on it, the day my cheap ass insurance plan was declared illegal was when I went from a general libertarian to a shoot-ever-one-of-those-fuckers-in-the-head-and-burn-their-buildings-to-the-ground libertarian."
Huh. I called it college. All the little wannabe totalitarians running around, and running it.
"Down with the establishment? You are the establishment, assholes."
WTF?
Anybody who is sitting there on me, the Internets, wondering what anagrams can be made out of a name, and can't figure out how to do that in about 15 seconds max is not worthy of me.
I blame fucking AOL. I've never been the same since they let all those assholes on me.
As many readers here already know, the individual mandate has already been tried and failed in Massachusetts. The result has been more special interest political interference in the insurance market, skyrocketing costs, and longer waits for patients.
Imposing this plan at the national level would merely multiply the MA problem x 50.
For more information, see:
"Mandatory Health Insurance: Wrong for Massachusetts, Wrong for America" (The Objective Standard, Fall 2008)
http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2008-fall/mandatory-health-insurance.asp
Paul Hsieh, MD
Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine (FIRM)
http://www.WeStandFIRM.org
Interesting talk with Dr. Kevorkian kind of about health care on Cavuto today.
Part I
Part II
It's not all there. The next segment had Dave Ramsey and his inability to understand what Kevorkian just said. Confusing a statement about the understanding of natural law and inherent rights and the possible relation to instincts in animals to Kevorkian saying humans are like animals.
"As an aside, looking back on it, the day my cheap ass insurance plan was declared illegal was when I went from a general libertarian to a shoot-ever-one-of-those-fuckers-in-the-head-and-burn-their-buildings-to-the-ground libertarian."
Presumably you're actually one of those hyperbole-abusing "I sure hope someone else gets mad enough to shoot every one of those fuckers in the head and burn their buildings to the ground because I've personally got too much to live for even as ticked off as I am" libertarians.
Or else I've really fallen behind in reading the news. Anyone: Is Kentucky now some sort of anarchic region full of vacant government buildings and mass graves?
Wow! I just read an article on myself that says I'm 40 years old today! I had no idea.
And I don't have an 's' on the end of my name! Apparently, that was just a joke that was going around me.
dear internet,
that's an awfully big joke.
Wow! I Love the sentiments for freedom and a healthy America here.
If there are only 15 million legit uninsured then there are 300,000,000 with coverage.
I am more getting prouder of my country with each passing day.
Is Kentucky now some sort of anarchic region full of vacant government buildings and mass graves?
Now?
duelles
?