Ouch.
Carla Axtman
Wyden isn't talking to the people, he's talking to David Broder and the rest of the village punditocrisy and it's insulting to the intelligence of anyone who isn't one of them. It's enough to set your teeth on edge to hear this crap again.
and
Someday, in my dreams, Democrats will run as progressives in the same way that Republicans proudly ran as conservatives both when they were ascendant and holding the reins of power over the past 30 years. They won't apologize for their ideas or pretend that the most important thing in the word is for Republicans to approve of what they are doing. They will recognize that while compromise is a necessary element of politics, progress and systemic change requires a fight which usually results in the losing side being unhappy. That day is not here yet.
Discuss.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
Jul 10, '09
This is really starting to get embarrassing.
What the hell is he doing? Incredibly disappointed by Senator Wyden's attitude towards healthcare reform. Is he taking this personally that his bill isn't going to be "the one?"
Looks like Ron and Josh have lost it. Or are in the process of losing it.
1:24 p.m.
Jul 10, '09
Silly, of course Wyden talks to people.
I like Wyden's bill and his approach, as I see it, blending the Democrat's goal of universal coverage with market incentives to reduce costs. I'd like to see a national public option as part of it. I like that it is nearly public cost neutral, unlike most of the other Democratic proposal out there. I do not want to see the deficits growing forever. I also like the severing of health coverage from employment. We need to do that for economic growth.
Like Obama, I, too, would like to see a bipartisan bill. I hope that possibility remains open as the politics of this bill play out.
1:35 p.m.
Jul 10, '09
Is the problem with Wyden's plan that it isn't a stalking horse for a single payer plan?
Jul 10, '09
I guess I fail to see what you're so upset about.
This represents how a true political leader should act: always looking for compromise and the best solution for all, rather than just his own party.
I think Wyden is smart enough to realize that if democrats ramrod too many initiatives down the throats of republicans without any sort of support, dems will lose their stronghold sooner than later.
I don't vote based on party line; I vote based on believing a candidate has the best interest of the people in mind. While I disgree with Wyden on many fronts, I've always appreciated his willingness to find common ground.
More progressives should learn from him.
Jul 10, '09
"Is the problem with Wyden's plan that it isn't a stalking horse for a single payer plan?"
Or that Wyden's plan, and bills like it, ARE stalking horses to deny Americans the benefit of using our combined purchasing power to achieve cost efficiencies, just like any well-run business would do?
2:01 p.m.
Jul 10, '09
Perhaps "medical" should read Wyden's bill. Combining purchasing power is EXACTLY what his bill does.
2:11 p.m.
Jul 10, '09
Is the problem with Wyden's plan that it isn't a stalking horse for a single payer plan?
If the public option run by our incompetent and wasteful government ends up being so efficient and successful that the private companies can't compete, why shouldn't it become the default basic care provider (with a market remaining for private supplemental insurance)?
2:20 p.m.
Jul 10, '09
Centerist Democratic reasoning, oh no!
Jul 10, '09
Is there some reason to believe that Wyden's bill, if it ends up with a "public" option, will prevent the private insurance companies from cherry-picking the most profitable customers and leaving the worst for the "public" option? If this happens, then the public option will fail. And the road to quality health care will be dealt a rough blow.
Also, to Dave Porter, you mention that "it is nearly public cost neutral". Why do you say that? I recently read (but did not verify) that new cost estimates had come out and were quite expensive.
2:52 p.m.
Jul 10, '09
Carla, people should definitely follow your link and read what Digby was saying. In the second quote, he was citing the example of Senator David Boren (D-Okla) who complained about the Clinton budget plan that it wasn't "bipartisan." That plan ended up passing by a single vote in the House, and by Gore's tie-breaking vote in th Senate, without a single Republican vote.
What Digby doesn't point out is that Republicans then captured both houses of Congress the next election and held them through the balance of the decade. Digby seems to be suggesting that Republicans succeeded because they were unapologetically conservative. I would argue we succeeded because Democrats were not able to forge bipartisan leadership. The swing voters seemed to like it better when Clinton had to work with a Republican Congress than when the Democrats governed alone.
By contrast, remember that during the early Bush years he got Democratic votes for his tax cuts, his pharmaceutical drug plan and the War in Iraq. Whether you like any of those things or not, Republicans did not push forward on them alone.
I think Obama and Wyden get that and are trying to learn from experience. From a strictly partisan standpoint, Republicans hope Digby's view prevails.
2:57 p.m.
Jul 10, '09
let's remember: Wyden's plan dates back from the Bush era. it was his attempt to find a way towards universal health care with a Republican Congress & President. under those circumstances, it was a great plan.
then we had an election in 2008.
today, we have options not even conceivable when Wyden drafted his plan. we can have an option that has nothing to do with either the for-profit corporations or the entrenched non-profits. Wyden, for whatever reason, seems not to have gotten the message on this: 75% of the American people want a public option. we know that Medicare works, and we believe that anything has to be better than the status quo. nothing in Wyden's plan circumvents (undercuts) the for-profits. public option does.
is it a "stalking horse" for single payer? no, but only if the existing providers of health care get their acts together and find a way to provide quality, affordable health care -- something they are currently failing to do in a manner that is crushing this nation. if it turns out that health care is something, like the roads and national defense, that govt can do better than anyone else (as we see to be true in most industrialized, "advanced" nations), then the market of "what the American people want" will deep-six them.
Jul 10, '09
Nate Currie: If the public option run by our incompetent and wasteful government ends up being so efficient and successful that the private companies can't compete, why shouldn't it become the default basic care provider (with a market remaining for private supplemental insurance)?
As with Medicare and Medicaid, Gov't creates the illusion of efficiency by employing tactics illegal for private enterprise to transfer the real cost of health care to the private sector (read: price fixing). A medical practice/hospital treating Medicare/Medicaid patients at a loss can only keep from going broke if it also treats patients covered under private sector health plans.
excerpt: Every time government has gotten involved in health care, competition has been suppressed by practices that would be prosecutable if carried out by private companies. Far from promoting competition, a government plan will eventually eliminate private health care, thereby eliminating all competition (and patient choice).
3:21 p.m.
Jul 10, '09
I'm with T.A. on this one. Ron worked for several years putting together a coalition that made progress on a healthcare bill. However, it was put together prior to the election. Now he seems to have a not-invented-here reaction to any of the new proposals by Obama and others including a national public option.Its understandable from the perspective that he has so much of himself invested in his plan. Its not understandable from the perspective that Ron's supporters want him to now support Obama.
I also agree with Jack Roberts that Dems need to be careful that they are not needlessly partisan. That does not mean we should accept a lousy plan just to get Republican votes. The stimulous bill is an example of what doesn't work. The bill was weakened and billions wasted trying to please three Republicans. Obama is now paying for the fact that the bill does not have the economic punch it should have thanks to the compromise with the Republicans.
Jul 10, '09
"That plan ended up passing by a single vote in the House, and by Gore's tie-breaking vote in th Senate, without a single Republican vote.
What Digby doesn't point out is that Republicans then captured both houses of Congress the next election and held them through the balance of the decade. "
The Newtist Congressional victory happened after Clinton's budget plan passed (the one that erased the Reagan debts and would have given us a budget surplus by now had Gore and Not Bush Jr become President), therefore it was caused by the budget plan, eh?
Except I seem to recall a few other things that may have influenced the Newtist win...like, oh, the failure of Democrats to pass meaningful health care reform maybe? Outside the South, the Newtists didn't win in 1994 due to any more people voting Republican than voted Republican in 1992. They won due to Democrats staying home in droves after watching the Democratic majority pee on their legs and tell them it was raining.
Do you think our new Democratic majority has learned from that? From Wyden's behavior, it doesn't seem like much of a safe bet.
3:43 p.m.
Jul 10, '09
I'll leave the fist-fighting to others, but here's some hard answers for William - who asked some reasonable questions.
Is there some reason to believe that Wyden's bill, if it ends up with a "public" option, will prevent the private insurance companies from cherry-picking the most profitable customers and leaving the worst for the "public" option?
Yes. Wyden's bill specifically forbids the use of "pre-existing conditions" or any other reason to either deny coverage or have discriminatory rates. In his bill, any insurance company that wants to offer a plan in a particular region must accept all customers and give them all the same price in that region.
Also, to Dave Porter, you mention that "it is nearly public cost neutral". Why do you say that? I recently read (but did not verify) that new cost estimates had come out and were quite expensive.
You're confusing Wyden's bill with some of the others that have been more recently scored. According to the CBO, Wyden's bill is cost-neutral after ten years. There are some startup costs, but because of the strong cost controls, focus on prevention, and robust competition between insurance companies, it "bends the curve" back to zero at the end of a decade.
3:46 p.m.
Jul 10, '09
As with Medicare and Medicaid, Gov't creates the illusion of efficiency by employing tactics illegal for private enterprise to transfer the real cost of health care to the private sector (read: price fixing).
Epic Fail on that one. Read up on McCarran Ferguson. Passed in 1945, this bill effectively exempted the insurance industry from anti-trust and price fixing regulation at the federal level.
So it is precisely the need to counteract the widespread collusion in the industry that has created so many advocates for a public option. When you have multiple states with one or two providers state wide, that might offer a clue regarding wind direction.
Granted, a public option would need to be created with a tender regard for the punks that have been taking physicians, businesses, and patients to the cleaners for the last few decades. I understand Wyden's reasoning here, but am unable to muster much sympathy for the Poor Dears.
<hr/>If you dig in to the money side of this thing, you can find hard evidence that there is zero correlation between insurance company profits and rate increases. The only trend lines that make sense over time, are those showing insurance company profits realized from their secondary investment decisions.
3:47 p.m.
Jul 10, '09
"Is there some reason to believe that Wyden's bill, if it ends up with a "public" option, will prevent the private insurance companies from cherry-picking the most profitable customers and leaving the worst for the "public" option? "
Yes--with the most robust option, the choice isn't for insurers to make, but for you and I. The public option stands to offer equivalent care for less money, relying on bargaining power of scale, and efficiencies by virtue of not having a profit motive.
4:13 p.m.
Jul 10, '09
My general thinking on the Democrat versus bipartisan approach is this: There could be good health care bills of either type (and bad of both, too). Most of the good bills (like single payor or Wyden's), make lots of needed changes. Those needed changes are going initially to upset a lot of the public. People happy with their current health care will be forced into some new systems that they are uncertain of. Then they become unhappy and look to punish those responsible. It better if the source of their unhappiness is bipartisan.
For example, I think Obama is reluctant (calling it "radical") to go with Wyden's break with employer-based health care for this reason. It will upset people currently happy with their health care. But I think we need to make that break, and its better if the responsibility is bipartisan.
Those who favor a more "Democratic" approach, IMHO, ignore the downside of needed changes.
Jul 10, '09
Pat Ryan: Read up on McCarran Ferguson. Passed in 1945, this bill effectively exempted the insurance industry from anti-trust and price fixing regulation at the federal level.
Per the link you provided, you're only partially correct. Under McCarran-Ferguson "..federal anti-trust laws will not apply to the 'business of insurance' as long as the state regulates in that area..."
So, either the state regulates price fixing on private insurance companies or federal anti-trust law still applies. The same can't be said for Medicare/Medicaid where price fixing squeezes doctors for zero profit.
5:20 p.m.
Jul 10, '09
Sorry, forgot to proffer my usual disclosure: My firm manages Wyden's campaign website, but I speak only for myself.
Jul 10, '09
"Wyden isn't talking to the people, he's talking to David Broder and the rest of the village punditocrisy (sic) and it's insulting to the intelligence of anyone who isn't one of them."
And Wyden's defense of the latest Israeli Defense(?) Force'a massacre in Gaza was also an insult to the intelligence of people thinking independently.
As for a health plan, given the way Congress is stacked with politicians on the take with the medical-insurance-pharmaceutical complex we don't want a partisan bill, neither do we want a bi-partisan bill. We need a non-partisan bill created by a commission composed of independent people with the public interest in mind.
As for David Broder he is to the Washington Post what David Reinhart was to the Oregonian. A mouthpiece for the establishment.
Jul 10, '09
Reminder: Bill Moyers' Journal on OPB at 9:00 pm: "With almost 20 years inside the health insurance industry, Wendell Potter saw for-profit insurers hijack our health care system and put profits before patients."
Jul 10, '09
This reminds me of the graffiti from Les Evenements, Paris 1968: Bourgeois, vous n'avez rien compris!
Really, you are still having a discussion in 2009 that the Democrats should move FURTHER to the right . . . on health care of all issues? That exasperated thumping sound is the sound of 70 something percent of the American people walking away from you.
How many tens of millions of dollars in bribes (aka "lobbying") does it take to not give them what they have been promised since the Truman administration?
Senator Wyden's specific program divorces health care from employment - a step in the right direction - but then relies on a completely naive set of assumptions for its inner workings and cost savings. Health care now becomes a personal responsibility, like auto insurance. How does that work out? Price competition between health plans and undefined administrative efficiencies are supposed to drive down costs. Really. When we have heard this same tune from Republicans (remember the huge savings that were supposed to be uncovered strictly from "waste, fraud, and abuse?") we have rightly hooted it down. If employers have been incapable of forcing these costs down, a fortiori individuals will have no shot at all.
No, the Wyden plan would lead us into a new era of blaming the victim. And I'm not even talking about penalizing public service unions who have forgone pay increases in order to get better health plans; those will now be taxed and penalized.
As Physicians for National Health Care summarizes:
"The point is that costs will continue to increase and wage earners will have to face those costs alone. Employers will have divorced themselves from the problem and will not make an exception for health care anymore than they already do for food, housing and transportation.
Wyden’s plan falls apart since it depends on price competition of health plans, which in turn depends on shifting more unaffordable costs directly to those who need care."
Jul 10, '09
"Wyden isn't talking to the people, he's talking to David Broder and the rest of the village punditocrisy (sic) and it's insulting to the intelligence of anyone who isn't one of them."
Oh, so he isn't doing town hall meetings this year as he has since being elected?
Or is he exchanging give and take discussion with people who show up at the town halls, regardless of whether those folks fit someone's definition of "the people"?
Public Option poorly implemented won't be the salvation of all Americans. A hybrid plan which, for instance, provides the quality of care veterans get when they finally get treated, without the waits and red tape, would be good for all Americans regardless of whose ideas were in the final bill.
I've been skeptical for all my adult life of "we have a great idea, therefore it will work as long as no one asks implementation questions". There were all kinds of Great Society programs 4 decades ago, but Head Start and a few others are all that is left. Why? Not just the attack of the right wingers, but also programs not well thought out which collapsed of their own weight logistically, lost funding battles, etc.
Wyden's plan may not be perfect, but he does do one town hall every year in each county, and I have seen him discuss his health care plan with those at the town hall. Has Digby gone to one of those town halls? Or is this all about DC centric action?
I happen to think Dean has good ideas, so does Kitzhaber, so does Wyden, so do others.
I had a discussion with someone a few months ago in St. Sen. J. Atkinson's office about health care coverage.
"Sen. Atkinson obviously had good care after a life threatening injury. But what if a part time worker at McDonalds had a serious injury on the way home from work? Would that person have the same quality of health care as Sen. Atkinson without going deeply into debt?
If Sen. Atkinson can find a way to answer that question publicly, Atkinson might have the makings of a serious campaign for Gov. But if he can't give a straight answer, he is not yet ready to be a serious Gov. candidate".
The staffer did not argue with me.
Kitzhaber talks about the screwy way that the system now works. It is much less expensive to give a medically fragile person a room air conditioner so that 95 degree days don't send that person to the ER, but under the current system ER visits are paid for, and simple lifestyle changes like a room air conditioner are not. Is there a guarantee that a public option bill would fix that? Or are such details being neglected because all that really matters is that we must have public option?
Sometimes slogans like "single payer" or "public option" almost sound like a magic wand. No need to think about the details, just the slogan.
Someone was on Charlie Rose the other night--rich and famous man who told of being scheduled for heart surgery. He was stunned to find out that his cardiologist and his heart surgeon had not spoken to each other. Apparently the Mayo Clinic avoids such problems with a team approach. How much are such concerns being discussed in DC?
Bottom line: is this about winning political battles or providing quality care?
Jul 10, '09
Address on Digby's website
Digby's Hullabaloo 2801 Ocean Park Blvd. Box 157 Santa Monica, Ca 90405
Does Digby think Boxer and Feinstein are on the right side on this issue? Or isn't that relevant when he can pick on a Senator from another state?
9:55 p.m.
Jul 10, '09
Digby's a woman, LT.
Jul 10, '09
In his long career in Congress has Ron Wyden ever voted against a free-trade agreement? I don't think so.
GOP, according to their 1972 platform, were more labor-friendly as regards trade.
Jul 10, '09
Mr. Bodden
Thanks for the tip on Bill Moyers tonight. It was a fascinating, and saddening, piece.
Jul 11, '09
Does Digby think Boxer and Feinstein are on the right side on this issue?
Boxer is OK, as far as I know. Feinstein is, as always, a problem. There is a national expectation that Wyden is one of the "good guys" so it is notable and distressing when he plays games, particularly on an issue as important as health care reform.
Jul 11, '09
"Thanks for the tip on Bill Moyers tonight. It was a fascinating, and saddening, piece. "
There's more at Bill Moyers Journal at http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/index-flash.html
Jul 11, '09
"Outside the South, the Newtists didn't win in 1994 due to any more people voting Republican than voted Republican in 1992."
I second that. The GOP did capture some seats outside the south but dems won most back by 1996 or 98 (eg Darlene Hooley's old seat). By and large the GOP revolution in the House (1994-06)rested on taking dixie.
As for the Broder types that argue for mealy-mouthed bipartisanship from the comfort of their georgetown homes and million-dollar book contracts, the real issue isn't that the pubic is tired of one party running things. They are tired of things being done wrong & for the interests of the few not the many.
Let's focus on substance, not form please.....
And yes I agree we need to focus on implementation (ie the diff between the ayo clinic and others or the issue with the A/C in a patient's room)
Jul 11, '09
"GOP, according to their 1972 platform, were more labor-friendly as regards trade."
Sorry Stephen we haven't yet developed time travel yet.
Jul 11, '09
From Bill Moyer's ending commentary last night:
Jul 11, '09
Mike: Carla Axtman's post is about whether Dems should run as progressives or, rather, seek common ground with GOP.
My entry is to illustrate that the whole climate has shifted so far to the right that progressives are now marginalized, wherein a couple generations ago many progressive positions would have been mainstream in the Democratic Party.
So, if the question is asked as to whether Dems should run as progressives, of course it's proper to put their current positions in perspective.
Jul 12, '09
"My entry is to illustrate that the whole climate has shifted so far to the right that progressives are now marginalized, wherein a couple generations ago many progressive positions would have been mainstream in the Democratic Party."
And Nelson Mandela, like many others before him and since, was marginalized by being locked up in prison. Still, he prevailed and became president of the Republic of South Africa and one of the most respected figures in the world. There were some things on which he just wouldn't compromise.
8:50 p.m.
Jul 13, '09
Bill,
Mandela didn't end up as president of South Africa because he refused to compromise. He ended up as president because a mass democratic movement led by militant trade unions forced the government to come to the negotiating table or look at grindingly expanding civil conflict that would have wrecked the country -- and Mandela & the ANC came to the table for the same reason, plus the fact that the USSR was going stop backing the ANC armed struggle financially.
And under Mandela and Mbeki, the ANC governments have compromised hugely even on the Reconstruction and Development Plan platform on which they ran in 1994, no particular sign that this will change with Zuma either.
<h2>My point isn't to dis Mandela as a man of principle who made tremendous sacrifices. It is to say that he is considerably more than that -- a man of iron-willed self-discipline for the sake of his struggle and a relentless movement organizer.</h2>