Did it jump or was it pushed? The Times covers the near death of the public option. And David Leonhardt says that the Senate is getting serious about cost control, without mentioning tort reform.
« The NY Times Versus Paul Krugman | Main | For Whom?!? »
The comments to this entry are closed.
Really, I just read that the CEO of some major company (forget which but it must be in the healthcare biz) says Botox nd breast implants are essential and need to be covered by the mandatory insurance.
I won't be comfortable until the entire thing is shot down and a wooden stake driven thru its heart.
Posted by: clarice | December 09, 2009 at 11:21 AM
They'll probably just try inflicting the 2074 pages on us while claiming there's no public option because the exact phrase "public option" doesn't appear in the bill.
Posted by: Dave (in MA) | December 09, 2009 at 11:25 AM
Then they will put it back in committee.
Posted by: Jane | December 09, 2009 at 11:35 AM
So expanding a program that's already on death's door, while slashing the same or similar program, are they insane?
Posted by: narciso | December 09, 2009 at 12:18 PM
Guaran-Dam-Tee-You...Jane is right.
Sorry, Clarice. No wooden stake is in sight, and nobody with a hammer is looking for one.
Posted by: Old Lurker | December 09, 2009 at 12:20 PM
I said it on the other thread -- "public option" is a red herring. The bill's most important effect is to outlaw and destroy the system by which "health insurers" (really health care management companies) keep costs down. Followed by most of the health care management companies going out of business (since they no longer control costs, no one will be willing to pay them since they produce nothing of value). And the last step will be refashioning the few surviving companies into a new business of being just like the "public option" -- except that it won't be public (the profits will go into a few Dem contributors' pockets) and it won't be optional (since all of the competitors will be killed off.)
Posted by: cathyf | December 09, 2009 at 12:28 PM
I was gone for 36 hours and I see we are Anduril-Free!
Really?
Posted by: Old Lurker | December 09, 2009 at 12:30 PM
Apparently part of the non-public option is to use something akin to the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program (FEHBP), whose costs are rising faster than inflation. And for some 55 to 65 year old folks, there would be an extension of Medicare, which is slated to run out of money shortly.
Some how that doesn't give me any warm and fuzzy feeling.
Seems like they are rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
Posted by: Neo | December 09, 2009 at 12:35 PM
Turbo Timmy formally extends Zombietimes
Prolly cause the states are headed straight for bankruptcy.
I think Uncle Ben actually said "we're seeing some green sharts" last spring - he was just misquoted.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | December 09, 2009 at 12:36 PM
Besides tort reform, the one subject that seems to have fallen through the cracks is capacity of the system.
There is nothing here to add doctors at a rate that will cover demand .. and this is before many of the current doctors retire early when they are given the option of "slave labor" or retirement. Officially adding 20 to 30 million Americans, who previously only went to an emergency room in dire conditions, to the normal doctors' roles is going to make it bad for everyone.
Also missing is anything to cover the "dispalced" workers. Insurance and other medical workers will have to be displaced when the feds effectively cap the amount of money going into the system. Call them "waste, fraud and abuse" if it makes you feel better, but these folks are still displaced.
Posted by: Neo | December 09, 2009 at 12:42 PM
"The bill's most important effect is to outlaw and destroy the system by which "health insurers" (really health care management companies) keep costs down."
Cathy, are you joking or are you just delusional.This idea you keep talking about is loopy. The costs are NOT DOWN IN THE US! Please get that through your head. The costs are sky high already. They can't go much higher.
Anyway, according to recent polls, more than 50% of people support the public option. If you are in a Democractic seat, you would be safe to vote for it, since surely much more that 50% of Dems want it.
And only an idiot would oppose having more choices, it's defintiely a need for people in non-traditional jobs. And there is no other good solution. We can at least experiment with it and adjust as necessary.
Posted by: sylvia | December 09, 2009 at 01:10 PM
Blaming Bush may not be an option much longer ...
Posted by: Neo | December 09, 2009 at 01:14 PM
Neo,
What will happen, is docs will refuse Medicare patients and problem solved. WEll not really, but there is going to be a huge problem with not having enough docs.
Here's how it goes under Romney care:
I have private insurance. I called a refill for a script into Walmart on Monday. Walmart called and said the insurance company is refusing to fill it, as it must now be done by mail (no notice). So they told me to call my doc and get another prescription. (I asked how much it was to pay without my insurance and it was $230.00)
So I call my doc on Monday at 8:00 AM when they open. I was on hold for 32 minutes. I give the info and am told that I will get a call back by the end of the day.
No callback.
I called again this AM at 8:00AM - was only on hold for 5 minutes and was told I will get a call by the end of the day. Nothing yet.
Now I still have to somehow get and receive a prescription by mail which will take who knows how long, that I needed on Monday.
I expect it to get much worse.
Posted by: Jane | December 09, 2009 at 01:15 PM
Watch Ann Coulter eviscerate one of Wyoming's senators.
Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan | December 09, 2009 at 01:40 PM
"...are you just delusional."
"This idea you keep talking about is loopy."
"...only an idiot would..."
Pretty much sums up sylvia's debating skills.
Posted by: centralcal | December 09, 2009 at 01:40 PM
...are they insane?
Another rhetorical question?
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | December 09, 2009 at 01:46 PM
Heritage observes the House Bill would encourage states to drop out of Medicaid and foist the entire bill on the feds..substantially upping the federal cost.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YzBhZTA3NzRhYmUyMjExMDEzZWM0ZDQ4NTNlMTNiZTY=&w=MQ==
Posted by: clarice | December 09, 2009 at 01:46 PM
C'Cal, is Sylvia tag-teaming with Anduril?
Posted by: Old Lurker | December 09, 2009 at 01:47 PM
LUN
Posted by: clarice | December 09, 2009 at 01:47 PM
Dear Sylvia,
The honor of your presence is requested on The Snows of Kilimanjaro thread.
Best regards,
hit and run
Posted by: hit and run | December 09, 2009 at 01:51 PM
Mark Levin says (NRO) Reid is trying to create an atmosphere of inevitability and it's not flying--Lieberman's statement here:
"WASHINGTON, D.C. – Senator Joe Lieberman (ID-CT) issued the following statement regarding the latest in Senate health care reform negotiations:
“I am encouraged by the progress toward a consensus on proposals to send to the Congressional Budget Office to review. I believe that it is important to pass legislation that expands access to the millions who do not have coverage, improves quality and lowers costs while not impeding our economic recovery or increasing the debt.
“My opposition to a government-run insurance option, including any option with a trigger, has been clear for months and remains my position today.
“Regarding the ‘Medicare buy-in’ proposal that is being discussed, we must remain vigilant about protecting and extending the solvency of the program, which is now in a perilous financial condition.
“It is my understanding that at this point there is no legislative language so I look forward to analyzing the details of the plan and reviewing analysis from the Congressional Budget Office and the Office of the Actuary in the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid.”
Posted by: clarice | December 09, 2009 at 02:07 PM
Posted by: cathyf | December 09, 2009 at 02:12 PM
Frankly, sylvia has ticked me off more than anduril, which is not an easy thing to do. To suggest that Peter Bocking's passing was not
real despite the Manchester beat links, Elliot's pictures from the funeral.
So there is no legislative language, not that it seemed to matter with Waxman/Markey either
as one recalled back during the summer. Elmendorf has been bought off or intimidated, in a way that would have gotten Stockman, put in stocks, had it been discovered.
Posted by: narciso | December 09, 2009 at 02:18 PM
In related news, the President is expressing grave concern over deficits and the national debt... except as it relates to Social Security, health care, or stimulus spending.
Posted by: The Unbeliever | December 09, 2009 at 02:28 PM
Clarice,
Rush is saying the exact same thing. They are 4 votes off - no where near close. It is all smoke and mirrors.
Posted by: Jane | December 09, 2009 at 02:44 PM
His sources are better than mine. I hope they are right!
Posted by: clarice | December 09, 2009 at 02:54 PM
Jane:
Here's another one for your You Too campaign:
The worthlessness of Congressional ethics probes may be well known, but the contrast with legal remedies, seems potentially starker here, whether or not Niedermeir's allegations are true. In terms of grabbing attention, a salacious backdrop doesn't hurt either. :-)
Posted by: JM Hanes | December 09, 2009 at 03:38 PM
Reid has the four votes. They are Senators from two states that don't exist but are included in the numbers regarding jobs saved or created by the Stimulus Bill.
Posted by: Thomas Collins | December 09, 2009 at 03:40 PM
If anyone truly believes the public option, or whatever it will be called, will *not* wake up in the morgue, er, committee, he/she should go back to waiting for the unicorn to arrive.
Posted by: Frau Argwohn | December 09, 2009 at 03:45 PM
I think anduril brings some interesting arguments to the table, frankly. I enjoy the give and take.
TC; would those be two of Obama's 57 states?
Posted by: matt | December 09, 2009 at 03:45 PM
4 votes off is too close for me, with these wh*res.
Posted by: Dave (in MA) | December 09, 2009 at 04:01 PM
Anduril makes interesting points. He just seems to think that he needs to be a butt while doing it.
Posted by: Buford Gooch | December 09, 2009 at 04:24 PM
Ditto that, Dave.
Posted by: Old Lurker | December 09, 2009 at 04:45 PM
I just got a call from Planned Parenthood PAC asking me to call my Senators and thank them for supporting women's health care...sickening. I told them to never call my house again. I got on the phone to Webb and Warner and told them I would never vote Dem. ever again. It was very hard to get through.
Posted by: Janet | December 09, 2009 at 04:52 PM
Hey, gang, I've been working on collecting together some of the stuff I've posted about the "reform" plan and its attack upon health care agency, and trying to figure out how to get it published where it might get more notice. Chaco, do you think pjm might be interested? I tried the editor at AT and got no response. Does anyone else know of somewhere that might be interested?
Posted by: cathyf | December 09, 2009 at 04:56 PM
I can try to help you at AT..
send it to the editoratamericanthinkerdotcom and tell him I strongly recommended this for AT's consideration.
Posted by: clarice | December 09, 2009 at 05:03 PM
Send me a cc of the email and I'll write a separate note.
Posted by: clarice | December 09, 2009 at 05:03 PM
Why is it that a lot of people get how to make health care better, but nothing is getting better. If big wigs won't change it for us, then what are we left to do but try and change what we can ourselves.
There are great resources out there for this purpose. Bend the Health Care Trend is a great example.
This guide by Mark S. Gaunya and Jennifer A. Borislow, talks about CDHP's. The premise when consumers are engaged and empowered to make informed, responsible, and cost-conscious decisions about their lifestyle and healthcare spending, they will be healthier and happier which in turn will help drive down the rapid rise in health care spending.
Posted by: Melissa | December 09, 2009 at 05:21 PM
I can see some little minor tinkerings here and there that could make the system marginally better, but everything else I see is bound to make things worse. Or much much much worse.
Because the lot of people who think that they "get" how to make health care better are ignoramuses, charlatans, and/or willful idiots. The economics of health care is full of truly hard hard problems like adverse selection, multiple externalities, substitution effects, and informational asymmetries.Posted by: cathyf | December 09, 2009 at 06:04 PM
Clarice: I'm with you on the botox and breast implants, with one caveat, reconstruction surgery for those who have had to have mastectomies.
My cousin, who is more like my kid sister, was diagnosed with breast cancer last year. She had been laid off from her $100,000 plus a year job and lost her health insurance, and at the time of diagnosis was in the process of interviewing and resume sending for a new position and working 3 part time low paying jobs, with no health coverage, to make ends meet while she searched for a new job.
She was lucky in that her teenage daughter's best friend's father was the Chief of one of Pittsburgh's top medical facilities. He arranged for her to have the needed surgery through donated time and other private donations to a special fund. No gov't money involved.
After many months of recovery and chemo, during which she could not work, it came time to discuss reconstruction. She was contacted by a private breast cancer survivor organization where some very wealthy women were members. Through this organization's efforts, money was raised to pay for my cousin's reconstruction. All they asked is that she give back (pay it forward) with her time and if financial circumstances improved, by donation back to the organization so they can help someone else. She is still working part time jobs and trying to keep her home and support her daughter, but she also devotes many hours a week as a counselor and helper for those going through what she did last year.
I talked to her on Thanksgiving and she had just gotten the good news of her one year check up that she was cancer free. Her doctor told her she wasn't really out of the woods until the 5 year mark but that he was confident she would live to see her daughter graduate from college and see her wedding. Without her surgery, the prognosis was maybe 9 mo to a year left.
Breast reconstruction health coverage wouldn't have helped her since she'd lost her insurance, but there are some wonderful people out there who want to help, if you are lucky enough to know people who know people.
The other good news in this story is that through her contacts with the wealthy women of the organization, she has a job offer from one of their husband's companies. My cousin has a Masters in Marketing and 25 years experience with a Fortune 500 company and if all works out, she will have a new job after the first of the year.
As I've followed my cousin's saga, I've watched her move from being laser focused only on her own problems, and those of her daughter's, and become a dynamo bent on paying back in any way she can the goodness of others. She told me she believes in angels again.
Posted by: Sara (Pal2Pal) | December 09, 2009 at 06:05 PM
As I've followed my cousin's saga, I've watched her move from being laser focused only on her own problems, and those of her daughter's, and become a dynamo bent on paying back in any way she can the goodness of others. She told me she believes in angels again.
That's a great story particularly at this time of the year. Mrs Hate is a breast cancer survivor of 15 years; she detected it early and only had to have a lump removed but the radiation treatments and chemo were pretty grueling, with the radiation leaving her bones so brittle that once she broke a rib by coughing (at the time we were fearful the cancer had returned; I've never been so grateful to hear about a broken bone). Contrary to what the jackholes in the Administration and Congress say, cancer treatment has come a long way producing a much higher incidence of happy outcomes. The essential goodness of people helping with no government coercion is lost on them too.
Posted by: Captain Hate | December 09, 2009 at 06:25 PM
JMH -
Thanks. That is simply incredible.
Posted by: Jane | December 09, 2009 at 06:57 PM
Thanks sara, that was lovely.
Posted by: Melinda Romanoff | December 09, 2009 at 07:15 PM
Go, cathyf! I know I'm looking forward to it.
Posted by: Extraneus | December 09, 2009 at 07:42 PM
I agree -- do put it out, cathyf. I've followed your various posts, and understand your points, but it would be helpful to have them summarized in one place.
Posted by: DrJ | December 09, 2009 at 08:02 PM
--Dear Sylvia,
The honor of your presence is requested on The Snows of Kilimanjaro thread.
Best regards,
hit and run--
Shouldn't that be the "Our Crazies vs Your Crazies" thread, HR?
Question is, of course, is she one of ours or one of theirs.
Posted by: Ignatz | December 09, 2009 at 08:21 PM
Hey Ignatz, how goes the loggging?
Posted by: Pofarmer | December 09, 2009 at 08:22 PM
Sara,
What a wonderful story about your cousin. I'm wishing all the best for her in the coming year(s).
Captain Hate,
I love to hear about survivors like your wife. Isn't it amazing how the treatments have improved?
A very close friend of mine is a fourteen year survivor. Granted, she participated in a clinical trial for her treatment at the James Cancer Clinic in Columbus, Ohio, but my God! Every shot she had to kill the cancer involved multiple shots and IVs to maintain bone marrow and blood cell production - it was such an ordeal!
When I think about what our government is contemplating for health care I almost despair. On the one hand, I believe Americans will not tolerate such high-handed, ass-backwards, arrogant stupidity. On the other, I read something posted by she-who-will-not-be-named and I am back to despair.
My solution for this evening is some mulled wine and a book. Let's see what tomorrow brings.
Posted by: susanne | December 09, 2009 at 08:31 PM
Ignatz:
Shouldn't that be the "Our Crazies vs Your Crazies" thread, HR?
Nope. Apparently it should be "it cheapens PUK's memory to indluge Sylvia".
Posted by: hit and run | December 09, 2009 at 08:55 PM
Hit,
If she has the guts to answer you, she can do it in any thread. But I doubt she has the guts.
(actually I doubt she has a clue what she is talking about).
Posted by: Jane | December 09, 2009 at 09:02 PM
Susanne,
Thanks and yes the treatments have improved but there's still a lot of work to be done; I lost a good friend from work to it about 5 years ago which still gets me down when I think about it.
Posted by: Captain Hate | December 09, 2009 at 09:07 PM
Someone mentioned that the government could not increase the cost of healthcare much, because it was already too high.
It is my belief that our government can raise the cost of anything. Here's a story that our resident logger might give us some insight into.
"A four-year renewal of the law, passed last year, authorizes an additional $1.6 billion for the program through 2011 and shifts substantial sums to states where the spotted owl never flew.
LUN
Where do the people who vote to give this money away, think it comes from?
How do we expect to survive as a nation, throwing money away like this?
Posted by: pagar | December 09, 2009 at 09:43 PM
My solution for this evening is some mulled wine and a book
I'm doing Southern Comfort and Going Rogue myself.
Posted by: Pofarmer | December 09, 2009 at 09:47 PM
Po-
Any breezes your way? Not too much here, yet...
Posted by: Melinda Romanoff | December 09, 2009 at 10:04 PM
Jane:
If she has the guts to answer you
I don't know why it would takes guts to answer me now. What am I supposed to do if she does?
Indulge her?
Hell if I'm going to cheapen PUK's memory any more than I apparently have already.
Posted by: hit and run | December 09, 2009 at 10:09 PM
--Hey Ignatz, how goes the logging?--
Logging?
We just got ten inches of snow and have been without power, other than generator power, for 60 hours. I wrote that first post on the fly from my 20 degree office. And our water pump froze so we went without water for 36 hours. Logging season came and went this year and will not start again until April or May.
How goes the farming?
Posted by: Ignatz | December 09, 2009 at 10:11 PM
--Nope. Apparently it should be "it cheapens PUK's memory to indluge Sylvia".--
Guess I missed something in the power outage. Since it concerns sylvia, please, please, please, no one explain it to me.
Posted by: Ignatz | December 09, 2009 at 10:14 PM
Hit-
I don't think he'd be upset with the ample mocking you've been dropping.
It's just that your turn of a phrase is limited, just like mine, from not being a product of the English school system. I'm sure you come closer than most of us because of your familiarity of the King James version.
Posted by: Melinda Romanoff | December 09, 2009 at 10:17 PM
How goes the farming?
About like the logging. We got the crops out, and a very little amount of fall tillage done. We were on the generator for a few hours this morning. Managed to get my pickup hung feeding cattle and now it's pretty much a red/brown frozen up mess. Probably be a week before it gets warm enough to try to clean it up. 17degrees and 35 mph sustained winds ain't much fun.
Posted by: Pofarmer | December 09, 2009 at 10:17 PM
hit, no one was criticizing you by saying that. What they were referring to was treating those preposterous accusations as if they even warranted further response.
Posted by: clarice | December 09, 2009 at 10:19 PM
Hit: Dear friend, you were absolutely right to call sylvia out on her preposterous accusations. (twilight zone music in the background).
I am not surprised that she has disappeared (albeit temporarily, I am sure) when asked to clearly state her "theories."
As to PUK, I am sure he is reading over all of our shoulders and saying, "bring it on!" He was never one to cower from a good slap down, especially a well-deserved one.
I reiterate my "aye" vote.
The best memory of PeterUK is to always challenge nonsense the minute it steps across the threshold! No, we will not do it as amusingly or cuttingly as our lovely friend, but, hey - at least we step up.
Posted by: centralcal | December 09, 2009 at 10:35 PM
wsj editorial notes that in a Dem Ky distr where the Dems poured in $1 million and the Republican ran against the health care proposals the Rep won, suggesting this is a harbinger for those Dems who vote with Reid and Pelosi.
And here's something to warm your heart--
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2009/12/09/general-us-aclu-donor-lost_7198039.html>It's a ill wind that blows no good
Posted by: clarice | December 09, 2009 at 10:45 PM
Clarice
I read that yesterday. The NYT's version said he was also cutting off big donations to a ring of four or something including the Sierra Club.
Damn Capitalism!
Ironically, he's a big hedge fund investor.
Posted by: Topsecretk9 | December 09, 2009 at 10:54 PM
Hi Tops, long time no see! I miss you!
Posted by: centralcal | December 09, 2009 at 10:57 PM
Hi CentralCA
How you been? I've just been busy and I miss you too!
Posted by: Topsecretk9 | December 09, 2009 at 11:05 PM
Clarice
Maybe you'll find this as interesting as I did...
Al Gore is intimately involved in Foundation and Silver Springs Financial.
Posted by: Topsecretk9 | December 09, 2009 at 11:14 PM
Wow--Thanks, ts--I'm going to bed but I'll look into it in the morning..Could be interesting. C
Posted by: clarice | December 09, 2009 at 11:33 PM
Do you have a site for that?
Posted by: clarice | December 09, 2009 at 11:34 PM
*cite**
Posted by: clarice | December 09, 2009 at 11:38 PM
A:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/11/30/BUVN1APUHJ.DTL
B:
Canopy Financial files for bankruptcy. Still no answers on how this happened.
http://venturebeat.com/2009/12/01/canopy-financial-files-for-bankruptcy-still-no-answers-on-how-this-happened/
Apparently Fitz is going after the Chicago arm.
Posted by: Topsecretk9 | December 09, 2009 at 11:55 PM
it cheapens PUK's memory to indluge Sylvia
If you're speaking of the old Bavarian custom of das Indluge, the ceremonial throwing of the least tolerable person in the village down the luge track at the start of the season, I don't think he'd mind.
Posted by: bgates | December 10, 2009 at 12:47 AM
HEH--Sounds exactly like something PUK would want to endorse!
Posted by: clarice | December 10, 2009 at 08:29 AM