So, Pelosi (and the lapdog press) make a big to do over the fact that she didn’t get a “robust” public option because the House bill “allows” doctors and hospitals to negotiate their rate instead of it being fixed by the government. I’m not surprised that liberals are willing to support the bill, they got what they wanted and will get even more in future bills:
For the past few days, the story line on the House health care bill has been simple: Nancy Pelosi couldn’t deliver for the liberals. Not enough votes for the “robust” public option.
That’s true — as far as the public option goes. But in reality, the bill she unveiled Thursday includes big pieces of what the most liberal members of her party wanted — most likely setting up a serious battle when negotiators try to merge it with the far more moderate Senate legislation.
The public option stays, even if it’s not the same one the House speaker preferred. So, too, does the so-called millionaire’s tax to help offset the $894 billion price tag. Individuals will be required to own insurance. Most employers will be legally mandated to offer it.
And in return, the House speaker won assent — if not complete agreement — from the liberals in her caucus, as well as a surprising amount of support from Democratic moderates who have long railed against some of these provisions.
Liberals expressed frustration that the speaker bowed to political reality by allowing doctors and hospitals participating in the public option to negotiate payments directly with the Department of Health and Human Services, and some promised to request an amendment that would allow them to scrap the current plan for one tied to Medicare. But few pledged to vote against the bill.
Evidently, the cost isn’t $894 billion, it’s closer to $1.3 trillion (according to former Congressional Budget Office acting director Donald Marron)
Here are some of the new taxes which you can discover for yourself by reading the bill.
Meanwhile in the Senate, opt-out is out and opt-in is in:
The Senate health bill is drifting toward ending up with an “opt-in” provision versus an “opt-out,” one Democratic senator said Friday.
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) predicted that healthcare reform in the upper chamber would shift from its current construction, which allows states to opt out of a public option, to a version that forces states to opt into such a plan.
Well, that would take the fight to the local government which might be easier to win.
posted October 30, 2009 at 1:41 pm
Well, that would take the fight to the local government which might be easier to win.
Is this what the whole debate has been reduced to — winning or not winning? Very sad. Whatever happened to the goal of providing affordable healthcare for all?
posted October 30, 2009 at 2:03 pm
I agree with John. If 53 million Americans remain uninsured, and you want to keep it that way, how is that winning?
And, once again, since apart from that, you don’t do much editorializing in this post, where is the promised “Reformed perspective” on keeping so many Americans uninsured? I sure don’t see it.
posted October 30, 2009 at 6:10 pm
What is your evidence that local governments would be less susceptible to incompetence and corruption than the federal government in regulating health care? That has not been the case so far.