Actually, the easy choice... (4.00 / 1)

... is for Obama to appear to be fighting the insurance companies, while locking for-profit health care into the system for the next generation. That is exactly what "public option" does. The inane talking point of "keeping the insurance companies honest" shows that clearly, as soon as you think: Since it's always going to be more profitable to collect premiums and deny care, it's not possible to keep the insurance companies honest.

The real solution is to take the insurance companies out of the system entirely, which is what single payer would do. It is exactly for that reason that Obama and the Democrats have taken it off the table, since while (a) single payer is proven to save lives and would save $350 billion a year in adminstrative costs, it has the defect that (b) campaign contributions from the insurance industry would no longer exist. QED.

One way, of course, to begin to escape from this dilemma would have been for "progressives" to have supported single payer from the beginning, instead of negotiating with themselves on ill-defined and Rube Goldberg-esque "compromises." Oh well. At some point, a political party whose ideology boils down to supporting the insurance companies business model -- not to mention the bankster's business model -- is going to wither and die. One can only hope this happens sooner rather than later.

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  

---

by: lambert @ Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 10:05:42 AM CDT

Agree with Lambert... (4.00 / 1)

Mike, let's be honest, the choice is not nearly as clear as you make it out to be.  

The health insurers have won a magnificent victory by limiting debate--even on OpenLeft?!?!--to the so-called public option, which may well come with their dream of an individual mandate, which will lock them into the market forever.  Health insurers are already happy!  

Each of the options will allow the health insurance corporations to continue their strangle-hold on our healthcare system, and continue taking (what?) a couple hundred billion dollars out of the healthcare system in overhead, etc.  

Posts such as these are insufficient without both acknowledging this dynamic, and taking the opportunity of this debate to further educate the public and increase the political viability of single-payer.

I'm not sure how long it will take to sink in, but after the healthcare reform bill passes, we will continue to have a healthcare crisis in this country and will need to have a public movement demanding healthcare reform.  Let's get ready.

National Nurses United (AFL-CIO) is America's RN union, representing 150,000+ nurses from all 50 states.

---

by: National Nurses Movement @ Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 14:09:31 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The health insurance industry (4.00 / 1)

hates the idea of a strong public option, because they know they can't compete with it and still screw people over.
I agree that single payer is the best option, but I'd like to get some form of decent health care reform in my lifetime, and as long there is a good public option, I can get a plan I like, and it forces the insurance industry to treat people better. It may also lead to single payer in the long run, which another flaming defeat for reform will not do- the last fight set us back a generation.

---

by: Mike Lux @ Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 22:05:19 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

silver lining? (4.00 / 1)

If the Democrats twist up this bill to make insurance companies and their Republican allies happy, it is end of story for this generation of Democrats - our party will not recover from screwing up health care.

That would be a great time for progressives to split and form their own third party.  Frankly I've been feeling lately that I'd rather support a long-shot ineffective third party that fights for its ideals than an entrenched major party with clout that refuses to use it.

---

by: BigTuna @ Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 11:48:15 AM CDT

yes (0.00 / 0)

The first thing to understand in all this is the consequences for the Democrats for the next generation and probably longer if they pass some convoluted, complicated, unworkable compromise that doesn't change the abusive patterns in the insurance and pharmaceutical industries and doesn't begin to control health care costs. If they pass a compromise that doesn't meet regular people's needs, folks will figure it out very quickly, as most people deal with the health care system all the time. If the Democrats twist up this bill to make insurance companies and their Republican allies happy, it is end of story for this generation of Democrats - our party will not recover from screwing up health care.

very well said mike

---

by: The Big Hurt @ Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 13:11:10 PM CDT

and about the finance committee health-care bill (0.00 / 0)

as I said yesterday, we know the proposal of the finance committee is weaker that that of the HELP committee. I was thinking, isn't there a good democrat in the finance committee that could vote 'no' on baucus' bill and thus ensure that the bill doesn't make it out of the committee? kerry? shumer? rockefeller? bingaman? wyden? stabenow, cantwell, nelson-fl? menendez?

won't that be more effective in stopping baucus from bastardizing the bill trying to woo republicans?

---

by: The Big Hurt @ Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 13:21:19 PM CDT

ps (0.00 / 0)

because if baucus doesn't have to fear losing D votes by bastardizing the bill, he will bastardize the bill

---

by: The Big Hurt @ Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 14:03:56 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It depends (0.00 / 0)

If Baucus picks up Grasseley and 3 or 4 other GOP votes on the committee, he doesn't need all the Dems.

---

by: Mike Lux @ Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 22:00:09 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

can he pick up 3-4? (0.00 / 0)

look at the GOP members:

   * Chuck Grassley, Ranking Member, Iowa
   * Orrin Hatch, Utah
   * Olympia Snowe, Maine
   * Jon Kyl, Arizona
   * Jim Bunning, Kentucky
   * Mike Crapo, Idaho
   * Pat Roberts, Kansas
   * John Ensign, Nevada
   * Mike Enzi, Wyoming
   * John Cornyn, Texas

I can see him picking Grassley and Snowe, then?

---

by: The Big Hurt @ Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 22:19:36 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Health care is a moral issue like slavery was (0.00 / 0)

I agree with Glen Smith at FDL:

The gravity of America's health care crisis is the moral equivalent of the 19th Century's bloody conflict over slavery. This is not hyperbole, though the truth of it is often lost in abstract talk of insurance company profits, treatment costs, and other cold, inhuman analyses.

Today's health system condemns 50 million Americans to ill health and death while guaranteeing health care to the economic privileged. It cannot stand.

About 18,000 Americans die each year because they lack health insurance.  That's more than a third the number of lives lost in battle during each year of the four-year Civil War.

It really couldn't be more clear. At this point, I don't care what the insiders or the wannabe insiders or the career liberals want -- they're as out of touch with the country as Versailles ever was. And in my book, the "public option" (or "plan" -- they don't seem able to settle on terminology*) advocates fall firmly into the wannabe insider bucket. Too bad, but there it is.

NOTE The other thing public option advocates can't settle on is what "robust"  -- the new fancy buzzword -- means. Contrast single payer, which is proven to work, will save lives, and is already embodied in legislation.  

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  

---

by: lambert @ Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 14:16:34 PM CDT