The issue with Public Option compromise

[Zyphlin]

Alright, let me first say that I'm hoping to have a legitimate conversation and debate here. If you want to use things like Obots, Dear Leader, Party of No, Crazies, Libruls, Conservatards, please move on to another thread or. If you want to use gross over generalizations of individual parties and their views based on nothing but the extreme's of said party, please move along. If you don't want to have a discussion but just shout rhetoric the entire time, please move along.

Naturally, none of the above can be forced, but if someone ignores it I would urge all those that actually DO want to have a discussion to completely and utterly ignore those people and not give them a response.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

There's been a lot of talk about the fact that Republicans have been steadfastedly standing against this plan. Republicans point out they came into power talking of compromise but aren't, while Democrats point out they're been trying to but Republicans refuse.

Neither is exactly true.

Democrats are trying to compromise, and Republicans will compromise....the issue is finding the common ground to compromise on.

That common ground however can not be the public option, not in the mind of Republicans. The reason for this is because its a false compromise. Let me try to explain why.

Let us go with two general thesis at first. That the Republican "perfect option" would be absolutely 0 public option and the Democrat "perfect option" would be a wide ranging government option (for sake of not over generalizing I won't say complete natioanlized, but simply a large robust public option).

Here's the issue with "Compromise" in this case, and why its a false compromise.

Republicans want nothing, Democrats want robust. Compromise is had and in the end we get a light, small, public option for the lowest of low class.

Here's where the issue sets in. The issue does not end, as neither side really got what they want, and eventually its pushed again and eventually, again, "compromise" would be pushed. The problem however is that there is a new baseline. It is no longer "no public option" but "Light, limited public option". Which means, any compromise the Republicans do still pushes it farther away from their goal.

Each and every time a "compromise" is had on something like this it is always away from what Republicans want and towards what Democrats want, and a new artificial base is set.

Now you say "But, couldn't, when Republicans are in power, it could be compromised backwards"? Possibly, but its notoriously unlikely and uncommon in this country due to the nature of what it would be, an entitlement program. Entitlement programs create extremely tricky situations in legislation for ever revoking because its not some existential thing like military spending or educational grants or other sorts of things, but a tangable one to many voters. As such, its a mine field politically...just look at Social Security and how tentive anyone is of trying to actually "Fix" it, since Fix generally is going to mean "You're not going to get as much of it". This is the reason I say that whatever the compromise is becomes the new baseline.

The problem's that comes with this compromise situation is the fact that the same issue is the most important to both sides. The Public Option is key for many on the left, where the lack of it is key for many on the right. Due to the stubborness on BOTH sides imho we can't get down to other issues.

Most people on BOTH sides acknowledge there are numerous problems with our health care system. I believe its foolish, and somewhat ignorant of the situation, to state that the ONLY way it can be fixed is if we do "X", where "X" is a singular thing...and to state that without "X" its poitnless.

So we've come to the place where both sides have dug in their heels, and both sides have to know what is the sticking point for the other. There are lesser principles both would compromise on, but when it comes to this principle its too important in its extreme for either. To me, I see a few options.

1. Democrats garner enough votes from their ranks and go it alone
2. Democrats can't get conservative Democrats on board and it fails
3. Democrats put aside the public option and get the republicans to compromise on other portions of reform

Now, the Democrats are in the majority, and I have no issue really theoritically with them doing any of the above. While I believe option 1 is breaking a campaign promise for many of them, so to would not be getting a public option, creating a "lose/lose" situation I can't fully hold against them.

My issue would come into play if number 2 happens and Democrats legitimately attempt to blame it on "stubborn republicans" who "don't want reform". This would be purely dishonest and unquestionable spin to me for one simple reason...

The Democrats would've been JUST as stubborn.

You can not blame the other side for doing something that you yourself are doing directly back. Yes, Republicans are going "NO" when it comes to the Public Option, but simultaneously Democrats are going "NO" to the notion of reform WITHOUT the public option. Both are being incredibly stubborn and if zero reform happens BOTH share equal blame, because they knew there was one particular issue that was not going to allow it to go forward and rather than set that aside for now and get to real reform the choice was to instead attempt wedge politics.

Now, I know the natural reaction for some people is to instantly state that the Public Option is the only logical, and good, choice and anyone not doing it is not wanting what's best for the country and is only being greedy, or something of the sort. I'm asking you to possibly step back and not come at this with the notion that one side or the other hates America, hates poor people, are just greedy SOB's or communist hippies, and to acknowledge that both sides simply DISAGREE on how to best help this country.

So here'd be my questions....

1. Those on the left, can you understand the republican issue with compromise on the issue of a Public Option, even if you think they should still compromise

2. Those on the right, would you be willing to compromise on your principles in regards to regulation of insurance companies and other such things in exchange for the public option not being included?

3. To the left, would you be willing to let the public option lie and discuss it at a lesser date if it meant you could get many of your regulatory and other forms of reform that you wish passed?

4. To both sides, do you agree or disagree with me on the notion of both sides stubborness, and fault? Has this entire thing been about health care REFORM, or has it been simply about public or private health care?

If you've got other directions you want to go off it, be my guest, those were just some of the thoughts I came up with. Again, I'll ask if we can try to keep this not just civil, but adult and polite, with people entering this with open minds and attempting to remove at least a BIT (no one can remove all) of their bias to try and give both sides a fair look.

 

[Redress]

Alright, let me first say that I'm hoping to have a legitimate conversation and debate here. If you want to use things like Obots, Dear Leader, Party of No, Crazies, Libruls, Conservatards, please move on to another thread or. If you want to use gross over generalizations of individual parties and their views based on nothing but the extreme's of said party, please move along. If you don't want to have a discussion but just shout rhetoric the entire time, please move along.

Damn, but you are one crazy wordy righty anti-democrat fascist party-of-no'er.

1. Those on the left, can you understand the republican issue with compromise on the issue of a Public Option, even if you think they should still compromise

I understand that you believe this, but I disagree with your premise. It's a slippery slope argument, and I hate those. Opposing a compromise with a public option because it might, some day, in the future, maybe, possibly be expanded seems to be a weak argument.

3. To the left, would you be willing to let the public option lie and discuss it at a lesser date if it meant you could get many of your regulatory and other forms of reform that you wish passed?

I personally think now is the wrong time to include a public option. It might be worth looking at down the road, when we see what effects the other changes we pass have, and when we are not bleeding money so badly.

4. To both sides, do you agree or disagree with me on the notion of both sides stubborness, and fault? Has this entire thing been about health care REFORM, or has it been simply about public or private health care?

Yes and no. Both sides are being stubborn, but since democrats can conceivably pass this without republicans, we have a stronger hand to play. The simple truth is is that the party in power has more control and power over what gets passed. Republicans can either work with us, or get left behind. It's not nice, but there it is.

 

[Zyphlin]

I understand that you believe this, but I disagree with your premise. It's a slippery slope argument, and I hate those. Opposing a compromise with a public option because it might, some day, in the future, maybe, possibly be expanded seems to be a weak argument.

Here's the thing though. The Slippery Slope argument is not end all, be all, a fallacy. It CAN be when taken to an extreme. However, we have actual historical reasons to believe this. If you want something outside of the scope of health care look at the minimum wage which was another thing that started with a "one side wants nothing, one side wants somewhat expansive", and has continually moved in one, solitary, singular direction. If you want something in the realm of Health Care look at the entire SCHIP thing, where ever since its inception there has been nothing but a push to expand, expand, and expand it while rarely any legitimate attempt to push it back.

I understand the slippery slope argument is foolish at times. Going from say "we'll allow a government subside to help the poor get insurance" to "the government is going to execute anyone over 55 because the health costs are too high" would be a foolish over the top illogical slippery slope argument. However stating that creating a form of a public option will mean that the next time this comes up that the baseline for any compromise will be the public option that's already available is not illogical, no out of the question. Nor is the notion that it will come up again, as has been seen with other things both in health care and outside.

I personally think now is the wrong time to include a public option. It might be worth looking at down the road, when we see what effects the other changes we pass have, and when we are not bleeding money so badly.

I actually agree with this. While I am opposed to the public option I have no issue with it being discussed, nor even with people pushing it. I understand why people want it, even if I don't. However, if both sides are honest in their statement that the system is broken lets focus on what changes we CAN make instead of letting them all go to the way side while focusing on the most controversial.

Yes and no. Both sides are being stubborn, but since democrats can conceivably pass this without republicans, we have a stronger hand to play. The simple truth is is that the party in power has more control and power over what gets passed. Republicans can either work with us, or get left behind. It's not nice, but there it is.

Indeed. As I said, if instance 1 happens...that its passed without Republicans...I can't begrudge Democrats. However if it fails because they can't secure enough votes from Blue Dogs, or they have to do the unprecedented act of using reconsiliation for something like this, THEN I would have issue when/if they started trying to blame "No reform" on the Republicans. There is definitively a way they could have the votes, without question, to do "reform", it just depends on teh type of reform. If they don't want to do that because that means no Public Option then they are being no more principally stubborn than republicans.

But I do agree, they are in power, and if they have the votes to pass everything they want legitimately more power to them. I won't like it, but I can't begrudge them of it. I will say however it will be fair game come election season for Republicans to say they refused to compromise or be bipartisan as many promised (Granted, dem's can say the Republicans refused either, but they could counter stating they'd happily have compromised on anything as long as the public option wasn't there).

 

[Redress]

Here's the thing though. The Slippery Slope argument is not end all, be all, a fallacy. It CAN be when taken to an extreme. However, we have actual historical reasons to believe this. If you want something outside of the scope of health care look at the minimum wage which was another thing that started with a "one side wants nothing, one side wants somewhat expansive", and has continually moved in one, solitary, singular direction. If you want something in the realm of Health Care look at the entire SCHIP thing, where ever since its inception there has been nothing but a push to expand, expand, and expand it while rarely any legitimate attempt to push it back.

I understand the slippery slope argument is foolish at times. Going from say "we'll allow a government subside to help the poor get insurance" to "the government is going to execute anyone over 55 because the health costs are too high" would be a foolish over the top illogical slippery slope argument. However stating that creating a form of a public option will mean that the next time this comes up that the baseline for any compromise will be the public option that's already available is not illogical, no out of the question. Nor is the notion that it will come up again, as has been seen with other things both in health care and outside.

Cutting out the stuff we agree on, though depending on my motivation level, I may talk about some of it. I just want to avoid a TheProf post which people have to scroll for 5 minutes to get past....

The minimum wage is not a bad example, but for me. While yes, the minimum wage has gone up, it is still a small thing. Very few people actually make the minimum wage, and when you look at the cost of living, it really has not expanded by any large amount.

I also want to add that the only time a small public option would likely get expanded would be when you have both a democratic/liberal executive and legislative branch. While I hope we keep control of these things forever, I doubt that is likely, and I don't honestly believe we are going to have many windows like what we have now. I suspect that by the time a public option took effect, and we had the power again, the situation in this country is going to have changed in ways we can't even begin to predict. At that time, the debate will center on the situations current then.

On what reforms should pass now: I think Obama should take a meeting with Pelosi, Reed, and the blue dogs, find out what the most we can get full democratic support for, and pass that. The public option is popular with democrats, but let's not kill the bill, nor kill the blue dogs over this.

 

[liblady]

Alright, let me first say that I'm hoping to have a legitimate conversation and debate here. If you want to use things like Obots, Dear Leader, Party of No, Crazies, Libruls, Conservatards, please move on to another thread or. If you want to use gross over generalizations of individual parties and their views based on nothing but the extreme's of said party, please move along. If you don't want to have a discussion but just shout rhetoric the entire time, please move along.

Naturally, none of the above can be forced, but if someone ignores it I would urge all those that actually DO want to have a discussion to completely and utterly ignore those people and not give them a response.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

There's been a lot of talk about the fact that Republicans have been steadfastedly standing against this plan. Republicans point out they came into power talking of compromise but aren't, while Democrats point out they're been trying to but Republicans refuse.

Neither is exactly true.

Democrats are trying to compromise, and Republicans will compromise....the issue is finding the common ground to compromise on.

That common ground however can not be the public option, not in the mind of Republicans. The reason for this is because its a false compromise. Let me try to explain why.

Let us go with two general thesis at first. That the Republican "perfect option" would be absolutely 0 public option and the Democrat "perfect option" would be a wide ranging government option (for sake of not over generalizing I won't say complete natioanlized, but simply a large robust public option).

Here's the issue with "Compromise" in this case, and why its a false compromise.

Republicans want nothing, Democrats want robust. Compromise is had and in the end we get a light, small, public option for the lowest of low class.

Here's where the issue sets in. The issue does not end, as neither side really got what they want, and eventually its pushed again and eventually, again, "compromise" would be pushed. The problem however is that there is a new baseline. It is no longer "no public option" but "Light, limited public option". Which means, any compromise the Republicans do still pushes it farther away from their goal.

Each and every time a "compromise" is had on something like this it is always away from what Republicans want and towards what Democrats want, and a new artificial base is set.

Now you say "But, couldn't, when Republicans are in power, it could be compromised backwards"? Possibly, but its notoriously unlikely and uncommon in this country due to the nature of what it would be, an entitlement program. Entitlement programs create extremely tricky situations in legislation for ever revoking because its not some existential thing like military spending or educational grants or other sorts of things, but a tangable one to many voters. As such, its a mine field politically...just look at Social Security and how tentive anyone is of trying to actually "Fix" it, since Fix generally is going to mean "You're not going to get as much of it". This is the reason I say that whatever the compromise is becomes the new baseline.

The problem's that comes with this compromise situation is the fact that the same issue is the most important to both sides. The Public Option is key for many on the left, where the lack of it is key for many on the right. Due to the stubborness on BOTH sides imho we can't get down to other issues.

Most people on BOTH sides acknowledge there are numerous problems with our health care system. I believe its foolish, and somewhat ignorant of the situation, to state that the ONLY way it can be fixed is if we do "X", where "X" is a singular thing...and to state that without "X" its poitnless.

So we've come to the place where both sides have dug in their heels, and both sides have to know what is the sticking point for the other. There are lesser principles both would compromise on, but when it comes to this principle its too important in its extreme for either. To me, I see a few options.

1. Democrats garner enough votes from their ranks and go it alone
2. Democrats can't get conservative Democrats on board and it fails
3. Democrats put aside the public option and get the republicans to compromise on other portions of reform

Now, the Democrats are in the majority, and I have no issue really theoritically with them doing any of the above. While I believe option 1 is breaking a campaign promise for many of them, so to would not be getting a public option, creating a "lose/lose" situation I can't fully hold against them.

My issue would come into play if number 2 happens and Democrats legitimately attempt to blame it on "stubborn republicans" who "don't want reform". This would be purely dishonest and unquestionable spin to me for one simple reason...

The Democrats would've been JUST as stubborn.

You can not blame the other side for doing something that you yourself are doing directly back. Yes, Republicans are going "NO" when it comes to the Public Option, but simultaneously Democrats are going "NO" to the notion of reform WITHOUT the public option. Both are being incredibly stubborn and if zero reform happens BOTH share equal blame, because they knew there was one particular issue that was not going to allow it to go forward and rather than set that aside for now and get to real reform the choice was to instead attempt wedge politics.

Now, I know the natural reaction for some people is to instantly state that the Public Option is the only logical, and good, choice and anyone not doing it is not wanting what's best for the country and is only being greedy, or something of the sort. I'm asking you to possibly step back and not come at this with the notion that one side or the other hates America, hates poor people, are just greedy SOB's or communist hippies, and to acknowledge that both sides simply DISAGREE on how to best help this country.

So here'd be my questions....

1. Those on the left, can you understand the republican issue with compromise on the issue of a Public Option, even if you think they should still compromise

2. Those on the right, would you be willing to compromise on your principles in regards to regulation of insurance companies and other such things in exchange for the public option not being included?

3. To the left, would you be willing to let the public option lie and discuss it at a lesser date if it meant you could get many of your regulatory and other forms of reform that you wish passed?

4. To both sides, do you agree or disagree with me on the notion of both sides stubborness, and fault? Has this entire thing been about health care REFORM, or has it been simply about public or private health care?

If you've got other directions you want to go off it, be my guest, those were just some of the thoughts I came up with. Again, I'll ask if we can try to keep this not just civil, but adult and polite, with people entering this with open minds and attempting to remove at least a BIT (no one can remove all) of their bias to try and give both sides a fair look.

okay.....here goes:

yes, both sides are stubborn, but you have to ask yourself WHY......dems believe a public option is necessary and good, in part because it creates competition, and you have to remember it's an OPTION, not a mandate. why are republicans so opposed, when it's just an option? because they are beholden to ins companies, as are some opposition dems? you bet.

i don't believe hcr is reform without a public option, and i have yet to hear one sound argument against it. to me, it seems that disinformation is the only trick the republicans have, so again, ask yourself why?

the side issues of illegals and abortions and so-called death panels are diversions from the real issue, namely, lawmakers bought by insurance companies.

 

[Zyphlin]

okay.....here goes:

yes, both sides are stubborn, but you have to ask yourself WHY......dems believe a public option is necessary and good, in part because it creates competition, and you have to remember it's an OPTION, not a mandate. why are republicans so opposed, when it's just an option? because they are beholden to ins companies, as are some opposition dems? you bet.

Are you telling me you can't step back, try to look at this objectively, and not possibly see that just maybe its not this ridiculous stereotype that "conservatives are all just bound to corporations" but something else?

That perhaps that they feel investing further control over peoples health to the government, thus making our health and our body become part of the governments interest, and causing more people to become beholden to government handouts coming from other peoples money is a bad thing for this country? That is reduces some of our potential freedoms while further empowers the government? That there is possibly an actual legitimate reason why they simply fundamentally disagree with your solution and feel that its a bad idea?

Saying that the reasons conservatives are against it is because they're beholden to corporations is no different, and no more constructive nor fully reasonable, than saying the only reason liberals want a public option is to make more of the population beholden to the government and thus have ways to manipulate and control them in regards to votes by essentially bribing them.

Do you not realize you can ignore the fact that the other side isn't actually some great evil horrible thing and just spew stereotypical non-sense that has perhaps kernals of truth but doens't get close to cutting to the true heart of the issue for both sides? Is that negative stereotype I typed above really any less or more valid than the one you tried to put forth?

i don't believe hcr is reform without a public option, and i have yet to hear one sound argument against it. to me, it seems that disinformation is the only trick the republicans have, so again, ask yourself why?

So then yes. When people cry out "We must have reform" its actually complete and utter spin, a code way of saying "We must have national health care" without actually directly saying it. What you are telling me here is that there is zero, absolutely zero, way to fix any of the issues with the cost of health care, people not having health insurance, misdeeds by the insurance comapny, etc without a public option? That such is absolutely impossible to have any positive effect without doing a public option?

If your answer is yes that strains almost all credibility. If the answer is no, then you're simply proving my point that for some this is not about "reform" as they keep trying to paint it but about "A Government Option" and that if no reform happens YOU are just as guilty as any republican because you refuse to accept any other form of reform.

 

[rathi]

The reason I don't get all bent out of shape over the public option is that we already have 47% of our healthcare spending coming from the government. The public option just extends that to a few more people who want it. That said, I don't consider the public option an integral part of reform compared to more pressing issues.

My main problem with the Republicans in this issue is the refusal to actually try and make progress. They chose to go on a mindless smear campaign with the death panels rather than actually debate the issue. They could have looked at the bill and said "here are the parts we like, here are the parts we don't like, and here is a list of better alternatives". The media may have played out the more sensational crap like always, but that doesn't excuse the lack of useful debate.

What I really hope for is that both sides use the common ground as the starting point for changing the system. Tort reform is a fine example, as neither side has any partisan reasons to oppose it. It won't fix the system, but he might actually put people in the mindset of actually trying to.

 

[jackalope]

A good post, Zyph, but it starts out failing to acknowledge something important. The public option IS a compromise position.

Many of the Dems wanted a single payer plan. The plan that Obama referenced by Rep Dingell's father, that was introduced in the 40s, and continues to be introduced every session by him is a single payer plan.


Perhaps the Democrats just compromised too soon?

 

[justabubba]

A good post, Zyph, but it starts out failing to acknowledge something important. The public option IS a compromise position.

Many of the Dems wanted a single payer plan. The plan that Obama referenced by Rep Dingell's father, that was introduced in the 40s, and continues to be introduced every session by him is a single payer plan.


Perhaps the Democrats just compromised too soon?

while i would personally want a single payer program, insisting on it and refusing to compromise, would be pitting the perfect as the enemy of the good. with that approach, the democrats have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory on this issue since the late 40's. it IS now time for a change

despite medicare and medicaid and social security ... and a myriad of other social programs ... our population still so equates socialism with hated communism that our electorate is not ready to adopt a single payer system - at least not with open eyes*

and i do believe Obama made a well reasoned explanation that to create a health care system out of whole cloth would place a significant portion of our nation's economy in disarray. as we can see from our current economic malaise, business does not operate well when indicators to help predict future outcomes are nonexistent. avoiding that scenario within the health care industry would be prudent at this time

*and may the one thing the republicans got right come true: that this is actually a step closer to the single payer system. this compromise sets the stage for that to become the ultimate result

 

[Anikdote]

There are two issues that really stump me regarding the entire healthcare debate, and they irk me because neither parties actually addresses them. In my opinion this stems from the fact that politicians in general aren't beholden to constituents, but instead to lobbyists and other contributors that fund their campaigns.

First, insurance misses the point. Insurance isn't even really a problem, much less the problem. The problem is the cost of care, if care were affordable then insurance would be irrelevant. The two things I believe have a major issue on cost are malpractice insurance (tort reform) and the length of the monopolies granted to drug companies on pharms.

Second, we already have a "public option" medicare is an existing government program, riddled with issues that no one is even suggesting to fix. Why not reform medicare to cover those who are in positions were they truly cannot afford care.

 

[jackalope]

while i would personally want a single payer program, insisting on it and refusing to compromise, would be pitting the perfect as the enemy of the good. with that approach, the democrats have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory on this issue since the late 40's. it IS now time for a change

But, noone is insisting on single payer and refusing to compromise, that was the point I was trying to introduce. The Democrats have compromised on single payer, and the public option is the compromise.

 

[jackalope]

There are two issues that really stump me regarding the entire healthcare debate, and they irk me because neither parties actually addresses them. In my opinion this stems from the fact that politicians in general aren't beholden to constituents, but instead to lobbyists and other contributors that fund their campaigns.

First, insurance misses the point. Insurance isn't even really a problem, much less the problem. The problem is the cost of care, if care were affordable then insurance would be irrelevant. The two things I believe have a major issue on cost are malpractice insurance (tort reform) and the length of the monopolies granted to drug companies on pharms.

Second, we already have a "public option" medicare is an existing government program, riddled with issues that no one is even suggesting to fix. Why not reform medicare to cover those who are in positions were they truly cannot afford care.

IA, cost really is the major issue.

 

[Zyphlin]

A good post, Zyph, but it starts out failing to acknowledge something important. The public option IS a compromise position.

Many of the Dems wanted a single payer plan. The plan that Obama referenced by Rep Dingell's father, that was introduced in the 40s, and continues to be introduced every session by him is a single payer plan.

Perhaps the Democrats just compromised too soon?

Actually, it didn't fail to acknowlege it. It was actually the central point I was making. That the public option "Compromise" isn't a compromise that will, or can, work. The reason for this is defined clearly in my first post. Its a no win compromise for Conservatives. Its "either have a lot of government ran healthcare, or have a small amoutn of government ran health care". Either way, it introduces government ran health care further into the equation and makes it so that the NEXT TIME this comse up the argument is no longer "No public option vs heavy public optoin" (I use "public option" here generally as any kind of government ran / instituted insurance or health plan) but instead changes it to "light public option vs heavy public optoin". Any compromise then would just continue be moving it towards the direction Democrats want and away from the direction Republicans want.

There is going to be no compromise on government ran healthcare for the general public. Its not going to happen. For Republicans to go along with it is a slap in the face to all their constituents as its directly going against numberous core and definitively important aspects of conservatism. They are stabbing every one of their constituents in the back and essentially misrepresenting the voters that put them into power if they go for any kind of public option, as that is the number one most disliked things by conservatives in regards to reform.

Democrats have used this now to paint Republicans as simply against "reform". This is said all over the forums by many people who mindlessly spout rhetoric. However, its not true. Republicans are against a government ran form of health care; more than likely you would be able to gain Republicans (not all, but enough) to your side if such wasn't included, and they would begin compromising on other things.

So yes, Republicans are being stubborn by going "Look, we'll compromise on other things, but we will NOT compromise on any kind of government ran or issued health care". However, Democrats are ALSO being stubborn by going "We're not even going to consider trying to pass a reform bill that doesn't have any kind of government ran or issued health care".

Now here's the big difference. Democrats can possibly get their way WITHOUT Republicans, the republicans can't do this. HOWEVER, if the Democrats fail to pass this AND fail to remove the public option they can not legitimately, without a great amount of political spin, blame it soley on the Republicans because it is their own stubborness as well that caused it.

Actually, let me rephrase.

They could blame the Republicans for not having a public option or some form of government care.

They CAN'T blame the Republicans singularly however for not having any "reform" because they made reform contingent on something they knew would have no chance of getting the votes needed.

I understand that the "public option" as it is now is a compromise by many democrats from the Single Payer, universal health care system many of them want. What I am saying is that's not really a compromise at all that the Republicans will, can, or should ever go for in my opinion, because much like SCHIP or minimum wage or anything else...it sets an artificial new bottom so that the next time the debate happens the inevitable "compromise" then simply pushes it farther from what they want and closer to what the other side wants. When the only compromise you can ever hope for is to make something happen "not as much" or "not as fast" that's not really compromise and not a good enough reason to go back to your constituents and tell them "We screwed you over and did not uphold your principles. Aren't we good representitives".

 

[Zyphlin]

A good post, Zyph, but it starts out failing to acknowledge something important. The public option IS a compromise position.

Actually, here. From the OP.

Democrats are trying to compromise, and Republicans will compromise....the issue is finding the common ground to compromise on.

That common ground however can not be the public option, not in the mind of Republicans. The reason for this is because its a false compromise. Let me try to explain why.

Let us go with two general thesis at first. That the Republican "perfect option" would be absolutely 0 public option and the Democrat "perfect option" would be a wide ranging government option (for sake of not over generalizing I won't say complete natioanlized, but simply a large robust public option).

Here's the issue with "Compromise" in this case, and why its a false compromise.

Republicans want nothing, Democrats want robust. Compromise is had and in the end we get a light, small, public option for the lowest of low class.

The reason I went with "Wide ranging government option" was that I know some Democrats want actual, legitimate, single payer national health care whlie others want just an extremely thurough public option, and I was simply trying to use terms that was broad enough to fit the various extremes of the democratic views into, without trying to get the conversation bogged down in rather all democrats what a universal system or not.

But the above paragraphs out of the OP does directly relate to what you were saying you didn't see. The fact that this "compromised" put forth by the dems of a lighter, more narrow public option is still not truly a "compromise" that can be accepted for all the reasons I described above.

 

[jackalope]

Actually, here. From the OP.



The reason I went with "Wide ranging government option" was that I know some Democrats want actual, legitimate, single payer national health care whlie others want just an extremely thurough public option, and I was simply trying to use terms that was broad enough to fit the various extremes of the democratic views into, without trying to get the conversation bogged down in rather all democrats what a universal system or not.

But the above paragraphs out of the OP does directly relate to what you were saying you didn't see. The fact that this "compromised" put forth by the dems of a lighter, more narrow public option is still not truly a "compromise" that can be accepted for all the reasons I described above.

Sorry, you're right, I didn't see that.

An interesting thread. Sorry I'm not contributing more of substance, I'm reading and digesting.

 

[Zyphlin]

Sorry, you're right, I didn't see that.

An interesting thread. Sorry I'm not contributing more of substance, I'm reading and digesting.

NP I know I'm a wordy son of a bitch and that its easy to have the eyes gloss over and miss things I write sometimes. You're fine.

 

[liblady]

Are you telling me you can't step back, try to look at this objectively, and not possibly see that just maybe its not this ridiculous stereotype that "conservatives are all just bound to corporations" but something else?

That perhaps that they feel investing further control over peoples health to the government, thus making our health and our body become part of the governments interest, and causing more people to become beholden to government handouts coming from other peoples money is a bad thing for this country? That is reduces some of our potential freedoms while further empowers the government? That there is possibly an actual legitimate reason why they simply fundamentally disagree with your solution and feel that its a bad idea?

Saying that the reasons conservatives are against it is because they're beholden to corporations is no different, and no more constructive nor fully reasonable, than saying the only reason liberals want a public option is to make more of the population beholden to the government and thus have ways to manipulate and control them in regards to votes by essentially bribing them.

Do you not realize you can ignore the fact that the other side isn't actually some great evil horrible thing and just spew stereotypical non-sense that has perhaps kernals of truth but doens't get close to cutting to the true heart of the issue for both sides? Is that negative stereotype I typed above really any less or more valid than the one you tried to put forth?



So then yes. When people cry out "We must have reform" its actually complete and utter spin, a code way of saying "We must have national health care" without actually directly saying it. What you are telling me here is that there is zero, absolutely zero, way to fix any of the issues with the cost of health care, people not having health insurance, misdeeds by the insurance comapny, etc without a public option? That such is absolutely impossible to have any positive effect without doing a public option?

If your answer is yes that strains almost all credibility. If the answer is no, then you're simply proving my point that for some this is not about "reform" as they keep trying to paint it but about "A Government Option" and that if no reform happens YOU are just as guilty as any republican because you refuse to accept any other form of reform.

of course SOME positive effect could occur without a public option? but what?

a) tort reform has not been proved to reduce malpractice ins costs and would really do nothing but benefit insurance companies. small savings might be realized by curtailing "defensive medicine" costs.

b) if we subsidize ins premiums for those unable to afford ins, who benefits? insurance companies.

c) what possible reason would ins companies have to address their bloated premiums? none.

d) i believe politicians are owned by ins companies, not just republicans.


who said "we must have national health care"? not i.....i want a public OPTION, not a mandate. and i fail to see why a mere option has so many people up in arms. oh wait, it IS because of disinformation, or outright LIES, spread by republicnas. you can't deny that.

 

[liblady]

while i would personally want a single payer program, insisting on it and refusing to compromise, would be pitting the perfect as the enemy of the good. with that approach, the democrats have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory on this issue since the late 40's. it IS now time for a change

despite medicare and medicaid and social security ... and a myriad of other social programs ... our population still so equates socialism with hated communism that our electorate is not ready to adopt a single payer system - at least not with open eyes*

and i do believe Obama made a well reasoned explanation that to create a health care system out of whole cloth would place a significant portion of our nation's economy in disarray. as we can see from our current economic malaise, business does not operate well when indicators to help predict future outcomes are nonexistent. avoiding that scenario within the health care industry would be prudent at this time

*and may the one thing the republicans got right come true: that this is actually a step closer to the single payer system. this compromise sets the stage for that to become the ultimate result

i disagree.....party control comes and goes, i don't see a public option morphing into a single payer system in the near or distant future.

 

[Zyphlin]

of course SOME positive effect could occur without a public option? but what?

a) tort reform has not been proved to reduce malpractice ins costs and would really do nothing but benefit insurance companies. small savings might be realized by curtailing "defensive medicine" costs.

Tort reform also hasn't been tried in a great way to be able to really "prove" anything and experts are on both sides of the issue. However even you acknowledge that it would cause some savings, even if you feel it is small.

Would some tort reform be better than no reform at all?

b) if we subsidize ins premiums for those unable to afford ins, who benefits? insurance companies.

Perhaps you could say insurance companies benefits. They are not however the ONLY people that benefit, as those that now have insurance or cheaper insurance that previously didn't also benefit.

Is that not somehow a benefit over what we have now? Is that not better tahn no reform at all?

c) what possible reason would ins companies have to address their bloated premiums? none.

As I said, there could be potential for compromise on regulations and mandates put on the Insurance Companies. While its not something Republicans like, its undoubtably a far easier option to garner the handful of Republicans votes needed to get something passed easily and claim bipartisan support than trying to push a public option of any kind.

who said "we must have national health care"? not i.....i want a public OPTION, not a mandate. and i fail to see why a mere option has so many people up in arms. oh wait, it IS because of disinformation, or outright LIES, spread by republicnas. you can't deny that.

My fault "We must have a government ran plan of some kind". Same general thought, different term. In the end, the thought is still the same. Your call isn't really "we must have reform", but is "We must have government involvement in issuing health care".

You fail to see why an option has so many people up in arms because you seemingly refuse to actually step back, take your own biased glasses off, and look at things from a reasonable, intelligent, neutral position and attempt to legitimately see what the other side thinks without preconcieved notions, stereotypes, and your own biases.

An option, for one, enters the government into the business of health care in a way outside of a relatively strict venue (ala medicare), or you could say simply FURTHERS the amount of government involvement in health care. This bothers people because they feel it is not the governments job or duty and is thus giving them more power then they should have. They feel that the costs of it that are pushed on other tax payers is wrong, especially for something the government shouldn't be doing. They feel that having even more people relying even more on the government to provide them with things is detrimental to the growth of individuals, of the nation, and decentives a number of sectors of the economy and the population. They believe that by giving government a reason to be able to state that they have a public interest in what you do with or put in your body is a dangerous thing and is a threat to our freedom, much the same way people felt that the Patriot Act was a potential threat to our freedom by its mere existance. They believe that by introducing a public OPTION that over time additional laws and actions will be taken, all predicated on the notion that republicans must "compromise" with the Democrats who are asking for more, to push the prevelance of said option, expand said option, and continue to move steadily towards a nationalized version of health care, citing past examples in both health care and outside of health care as evidence for why they believe it will go this way.

Now, I can understand if you don't AGREE with those reasonings. You may think they're all wrong in your mind. But I frankly can't understand, in any way, how you can sit there with a straight face and tell me that every single one of those are 100% completely and utterly illigitamate worries or issues with this notion EVEN if you disagree with them.

This notion that one side hates america, or is just greedy, or all their people are just out for corporations, or are idiots, or are assholes, or whatever else in my mind is ten times more damaging to this country and its politics than any idiotic misinformation being put out by some on either side.

 

[liblady]

Tort reform also hasn't been tried in a great way to be able to really "prove" anything and experts are on both sides of the issue. However even you acknowledge that it would cause some savings, even if you feel it is small.

Would some tort reform be better than no reform at all?



Perhaps you could say insurance companies benefits. They are not however the ONLY people that benefit, as those that now have insurance or cheaper insurance that previously didn't also benefit.

Is that not somehow a benefit over what we have now? Is that not better tahn no reform at all?



As I said, there could be potential for compromise on regulations and mandates put on the Insurance Companies. While its not something Republicans like, its undoubtably a far easier option to garner the handful of Republicans votes needed to get something passed easily and claim bipartisan support than trying to push a public option of any kind.



My fault "We must have a government ran plan of some kind". Same general thought, different term. In the end, the thought is still the same. Your call isn't really "we must have reform", but is "We must have government involvement in issuing health care".

You fail to see why an option has so many people up in arms because you seemingly refuse to actually step back, take your own biased glasses off, and look at things from a reasonable, intelligent, neutral position and attempt to legitimately see what the other side thinks without preconcieved notions, stereotypes, and your own biases.

An option, for one, enters the government into the business of health care in a way outside of a relatively strict venue (ala medicare), or you could say simply FURTHERS the amount of government involvement in health care. This bothers people because they feel it is not the governments job or duty and is thus giving them more power then they should have. They feel that the costs of it that are pushed on other tax payers is wrong, especially for something the government shouldn't be doing. They feel that having even more people relying even more on the government to provide them with things is detrimental to the growth of individuals, of the nation, and decentives a number of sectors of the economy and the population. They believe that by giving government a reason to be able to state that they have a public interest in what you do with or put in your body is a dangerous thing and is a threat to our freedom, much the same way people felt that the Patriot Act was a potential threat to our freedom by its mere existance. They believe that by introducing a public OPTION that over time additional laws and actions will be taken, all predicated on the notion that republicans must "compromise" with the Democrats who are asking for more, to push the prevelance of said option, expand said option, and continue to move steadily towards a nationalized version of health care, citing past examples in both health care and outside of health care as evidence for why they believe it will go this way.

Now, I can understand if you don't AGREE with those reasonings. You may think they're all wrong in your mind. But I frankly can't understand, in any way, how you can sit there with a straight face and tell me that every single one of those are 100% completely and utterly illigitamate worries or issues with this notion EVEN if you disagree with them.

This notion that one side hates america, or is just greedy, or all their people are just out for corporations, or are idiots, or are assholes, or whatever else in my mind is ten times more damaging to this country and its politics than any idiotic misinformation being put out by some on either side.

okay......i never directly said or even implied that that every single one of your reasonings or worries was 100% illegitimate. i never said one side hates america, or are idiots, or are assholes. please don't put words in my mouth.

as for all your points about tortt reform, ins reform, etc.....of course changes can made.

but what you are saying is some people are worried about the POTENTIAL problems with a public option.......why can't we address the potential problems instead of burying it?

the everyday joe who is happy with his medicare fails to understand his insurance is no different than a public option. he's been terrified into believing HIS status will be affected, and it won't.

could we be honest here? how would a public option differ much from medicare?

not one single person would be forced into that option.

 

[apdst]

The public option won't create competition. It will stifle competition. private companies can't operate at a loss like the government can. Therefore, the governmnt can mandate that individuals be rquired by law to purchase a minimum smount of coverage, then offer the same coverage for less money, thereby cutting the insrance companies throats. It will evolve into a single payer system, as the insurance companies are slowly squeezed out of the market.

 

[liblady]

The public option won't create competition. It will stifle competition. private companies can't operate at a loss like the government can. Therefore, the governmnt can mandate that individuals be rquired by law to purchase a minimum smount of coverage, then offer the same coverage for less money, thereby cutting the insrance companies throats. It will evolve into a single payer system, as the insurance companies are slowly squeezed out of the market.

a public ins option would be revenue neutral. and why would you think ins companies would have to take a loss? please. there will always be a market for premium insurance.

 

[apdst]

a public ins option would be revenue neutral. and why would you think ins companies would have to take a loss? please. there will always be a market for premium insurance.

That's my point. Private companies can't operate with revenue neutrality. If they do, they'll go out of business.

There may be a market for super premium insurance, for the ultra-rich, but the insurance that all us working folks purchase will no longer exist and we won't be able to afford the super-premium plans.

 

[Zyphlin]

as for all your points about tortt reform, ins reform, etc.....of course changes can made.

Good, then how about we come together from both sides and try to find the things we can agree on, and things we're willing to compromise on, and get THOSE passed and then move on to the controversial part?

but what you are saying is some people are worried about the POTENTIAL problems with a public option.......why can't we address the potential problems instead of burying it?

I'm wanting to bury my face in my hands.

Sigh.

Its not just about potential.

Here, most simply. Its putting more of our health, of average citizens health, into the hands of the government. Yes, potential issues are part of it...but at the very heart of it is giving the government more power in an area these people believe it has NO BUSINESS being in.

None of which actually addressed the topic of this thread. You're trying to argue about conservatives not getting on bored with a public option, which was already stated in the first post. The question then becomes as I said...

Are the democrats any less stubborn than the Republicans for refusing to allow for any reform that doesn't have some kind of government plan?

Is the issue really "Reform" of health care or "Reform specifically through a government plan?"

Can Democrats legitimatelly and without spin state its all the Republicans fault if "no reform is passed" when they themselves could've taken any kind of government plan off the table and likely have gotten the votes needed from republicans by compromising and seeking middle ground in other places.

I'm not disagreeing with you the fact that republicans don't want the public option. They don't. End of story. They're not going to budge on that. There's not going to be any compromise for the reasons I've listed repeatedly in this thread and you repeatedly seemingly ignore and just wish to continue to go essentially that it doesn't make sense.

Doesn't matter if it doesn't make sense to you, it makes sense to them, and the fact of the matter in reality is there's not likely going to be compromise on this particular issue by those on the right.

Which leads to the questions this thread is ACTUALLY about.

So can we stop this discussion of what national health care of the public option is or isn't going to do and actually get back to the topic? There are half a dozen other threads for discussing that, lets keep this one on point. (not directed just at you)

 

[jackalope]

Sen McCaskill was speaking this am about 'handcuffing the public option'. I think this might be the way to a compromise, even though I'm not in favor of a handcuffed public option:

McCaskill: I'm Happy That Obama Spoke About 'Handcuffing The Public Option'
Versha Sharma | September 10, 2009, 11:14AM

Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) said she was pleased with Obama talking last night about "handcuffing the public option" in an appearance on MSNBC's Morning Joe today. Watch the video below.

"He talked about handcuffing the public option, which is essential...for a moderate like me," she said. "Without handcuffing it, it could morph into a comprehensive government plan, which I think most moderates can't support."

...

McCaskill: I'm Happy That Obama Spoke About 'Handcuffing The Public Option' | LiveWire