Friday, December 11, 2009

Pelosi Backs Off Public Option


Says Leo Mauler "From the start I expected a public option to be "expansion of Medicaid and Medicare to cover the uninsured", not the joke sold to us as a "public option" in the health care reform bill.
I was a little confused about the plan being sold to us as a "public" option, since it appeared to be *identical* to the private insurance plans, only more expensive than the private insurance plans. Then they stripped it down even more, making it even worse than private insurance.
Personally I think it might have been a stroke of genius on the part of the Democrats to fight for a "public option" which had no resemblance to what was actually needed (expansion of Medicaid and Medicare), then admit "defeat" on their pseudo "public option" so that the Republicans wouldn't be able to see, under their puffed out chests and upturned noses, the Democrats expand Medicaid and Medicare to cover the uninsured.
Invent a strawman that Republicans opposed, convince the Republicans that what they really didn't want was the strawman, and then bail on the strawman to get the real program which was needed in the first place. Its really all you can do to defeat a political party which puts "winning over the Democrats" well above "the best interests of the country."

I think you make a really - good - point. I like your game plan and subterfuge!
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

2 comments:

  1. If the expansion of Medicare & Medicaid are coupled with those programs being fully funded, then I believe this is a good way to cover the uninsured. I'm concerned about the plans to cut Medicare. I don't think the elimination of fraud will be enough to balance the Medicare budget--besides, we ought to be striving to root out fraud all the time. I've been thinking about the health insurance woes I dealt with on a daily basis. I do not want "reform" which leaves America in the same situation. There isn't any way we can cover millions more people in Medicare while cutting its funding. That means we will continue to have the same types of restrictions on coverage which exist now, only with a higher price tag.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I agree about the cuts in medicare and fraud. I also don't want reform without it moving us forward to covering all, less restrictive, and fiscally responsible. I did write a post called further thoughts on medicare here: http://genmanager-dablog.blogspot.com/2009/11/further-thoughts-on-medicare.html
    In it I point out the difficulty congress has historically had in making any changes, even ones that everybody agrees are good.

    I think health care reform is more than a single bill that nobody is going to love. I think it's a process to take us from the dark ages in providing health care and it's costs, into the 50's. It's not about our doctors and hospitals being the best in the world, no one can deny that. It's just about how the system will bankrupt many people and the government in the next 20 years if nothing is done.

    So, it has to be evolving. If we get a bill this year, maybe next year we tweek it in some way. Add a provision where it is needed, remove a regulation where it is not. Kind of like "Best Practices" so that maybe in 10 years our system will at least be in the here and now and not the dark ages.

    ReplyDelete