As you'll see if you read the Official Ezra Klein Analysis of the Obama health care plan, he's managed to transcend the division between those who favor the release of specific health care plans during the campaign and those who oppose it. The plan has tons of details, but on the two most important points -- how does the National Health Insurance Exchange (like Edwards' "Health Markets") work, and what is the scale of the new public option -- he's pleasingly vague.
« Secular Parties in the Arab World | Main | Internal Critique »
Bringing People Together
29 May 2007 01:05 pm
Comments (17)
If I may ask a meta-question here: Who cares about Obama's health care proposal when the most important immigration legislation in more than two decades is pending in the Senate?
I know Ezra's too young to remember the 1986 version of this legislative turd, but maybe he could read up on it.
To Fred's point, there's another way to look at this. I think that by the time a bill comes to Congress, the outcome is nearly predetermined. In other words, once something is up for a vote, the interested parties have already done a lot of hammering and shaping and fighting behind the scenes, to the point where what they will display for public consumption is not likely to be subject to change. So if you don't like the current immigration bill, the time to change it was last year, or sometime before that.
So, if you want to make sure that the healthcare reform legislation that comes to a vote in 2-3 years is not something you'll complain about right before the vote, the time to weigh in on it and try to change it is NOW.
Your spin on the proposal seems decidedly more positive than Ezra's. He seems to suggests that it is unpleasingly vague in that it raises as many political questions as it answers, to say nothing of the policy questions.
Of course, you could just ask him across the couch if that's acurate.
Yeah, it seems like "lots of specific details on relatively unimportant parts, vague on the central bit" is calculated to leave everybody mad.
As a Blue Dog Democrat, I could never vote for Obama. He supports third-world immigration, which is driving down American wages.
http://www.bluedogdemocrats.us/
I'd vote Republican, Constitution Party, or America First Party before I'd vote for Obama.
Gads, another employer-based proposal. This is just as bad as Edwards' plan.
First of all, the last thing you need when you lose your job is to lose your health insurance. Under Obama's plan, looks like what would happen is you'll be faced with a premium increase. Even if it's not a huge increase, it'll be coming at a time when your income just left town. Oh, and you get to, at that enormously stressful time in your life, divide your attention between looking for a new job, jumping through the unemployment insurance hoops, and now deal with all the rigamarole that will be associated with qualifying for the "sliding scale" premiums. This might be a slight improvement on COBRA, but not much.
Second, the impact on small business will be horrible. Do these people understand just how tenuous is the existance of the average small business?
Third, another lost opportunity cost. We have the potential of huge Democratic re-alignment, and bringing alot of the more progressively-minded business community along for the ride. At the very least, we could harness the power of business by promising a huge increase in global productivity by ridding them of health care responsibility.
For these and a thousand other reasons, we really need to sever the relationship between health care and employment. I was hoping Obama would move in that direction.
Sigh.
JMS:
"So if you don't like the current immigration bill, the time to change it was last year..."
There was plenty of uproar about the 'comprehensive' immigration bill last year, and the GOP-majority House of Reps listened and quashed it. Then that GOP majority was tossed out last November, because of Iraq.
So you have an atypical situation with respect to immigration, and -- since it will be easier to stop the bill in the Senate than the House -- now is the crucial time for public debate on the current bill.
The plan has tons of details, but on the two most important points -- how does the National Health Insurance Exchange (like Edwards' "Health Markets") work, and what is the scale of the new public option -- he's pleasingly vague.
Ezra doesn't seem to think this is pleasing at all. Obama's plan doesn't include a mandate, and so isn't a plan for universal coverage. Where's the supposed political advantage in this?
Ezra doesn't seem to think this is pleasing at all. Obama's plan doesn't include a mandate, and so isn't a plan for universal coverage. Where's the supposed political advantage in this?
Matt's joking. I thought it was pretty funny. He's framing the Obama plan in terms of how it bridges the divide in the Schmitt/Klein debate.
The political advantage in this, to answer the question seriously, is that the plan doesn't contain any of the provisions that scare upscale centrists who work for major media corporations. It expresses a feeling - "I like helping people get healthcare" - without tying Obama to any specific plans that could be demagogued as radical or whatever.
For me, this is just another reason to support Edwards. As Ezra and others have pointed out, there's no realistic chance of shutting down private insurance in one day - that will only happen through a combination of competition with public insurance and major regulatory overhaul that forces private insurers to actually offer insurance to sick people. Edwards' plan does just that. He remains by far the best candidate in the race on domestic issues.
The idea then always is to pretend to say something, while saying nothing. I am not impressed, and becoming ever more impatient with Obama.
For those that haven't seen the plan yet, here it is
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/HealthPlanFull.pdf
"...that will only happen through a combination of competition with public insurance and major regulatory overhaul that forces private insurers to actually offer insurance to sick people."
DivGuy - did you read Obama's plan? This is the centerpiece of the whole thing.
DivGuy - did you read Obama's plan? This is the centerpiece of the whole thing.
I see (b) but not (a). The public option is not universally available, so there's no avenue toward complete single-payer as we see in the Edwards plan.
You know, Matthew, this is an important discussion, but putting out a healthcare plan is fairly easy, considering we all understand what needs to be included. That Obama didn't do it before now is just lazy, if you ask me. The really tough discussion is being overlooked. Now think about the questions that will likely flow once "Sicko" is released.
Aother problem with private insurance companies they often fail to pay for care when you really need it even if you do have a policy.
It is obviously feasible to provide universal coverage - every other industrialized country does so. It simply is that our political system is too corrupt to do so.
pbtrkyxol pljwyqo lgmp jafc heyqrfws jwctboyua xesl
Comments closed June 12, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Are talking about Ezra or Obama as the person transcending the division between those who favor details in a campaign and those who don't?
Posted by Clark | May 29, 2007 1:14 PM