Gawker 
Enter your username and password.
New York, 12:04 PM
Wed Dec 9
47 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip Your Editors:
Tipline: 646-214-8138
Editor-in-Chief:
Gabriel Snyder |
West Coast Editor:
Richard Rushfield |
Contributing Editors:
Valleywag:
Ryan Tate |
Media:
Hamilton Nolan |
Politics:
Alex Pareene |
Investigations:
John Cook |
Entertainment:
Brian Moylan |
Nights:
Adrian Chen |
Azaria Jagger |
Ravi Somaiya |
Weekends:
Foster Kamer |
Video Editor:
Richard Blakeley |
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
12/08/09
according to marketwatch
12/08/09
12:38 AM
We'll have to get rid of he Federal Electoral Commission which continues to allow corporate money to flow freely to both parties and restricts the number of parties allowed to participate. Not sure how to do that, exactly.
01:11 AM
12/08/09
12/08/09
12:10 AM
12/08/09
04:36 AM
12/08/09
12/08/09
With the Democrats controlling both houses....even with the blue dog democrats....this would have been much easier if he had taken the lead instead of sitting back and let the three dunces (reid, frank and pelosi) run the show.
12/08/09
12:27 AM
Obama's initial strategy appeared to be to sit back and wait for the house and senate to figure it out to avoid getting dirty himself but that strategy backfired and we have no public health option as a result.
12/08/09
From the beginning, it was more or less a symbolic gesture and I'm sick and fucking tired of empty gestures.
12/08/09
12/08/09
12/08/09
Wouldn't providing real competition to private insurers go a long way towards keeping them honest, to whatever extent that's possible? It would help prevent them from charging ridiculous rates since they're the only game in town. What's to rein them in from getting together to fix prices and rates, if it's true that insurance companies are exempt from antitrust laws?
Without the public option, private insurance is free to continue their usual reindeer games because no one is really competing with them. Except other insurance companies, which (see above).
If Schumer (one of my senators) helped broker this deal with other senate progressives to appease democratic moderates and the Conservadems, no way in hell will I vote for him come re-election.
12/08/09
12/08/09
[www.thenation.com]
12/08/09
12/08/09
Except as it existed in the bill, it provided nothing of the sort to most Americans.
Honestly the only way we are going to get a proper health care system is to ban lobbying in this country, like other countries do. Fat lot of chance of that happening.
12/08/09
12/08/09
We need non-employer based insurance. But nooooo, the government can't do anything right! Business is perfect!! The Markets are never wrong!!! etc.
Remember when obama told the liberals to chill out about the public option, not to vote "no" if it was excluded, cause it was only a "sliver" of the health care bill. IIRC, left-slanting blogs went ballistic because they were still operating under the assumption that even tho it really was only a sliver, it "meant" something much more. That whole "incrementalism argument" kept emerging. This was necessary so we could expand it later. That might have been true, but no one sold it. Besides of a handful of electorally safe senators, no one, including fucking Obama, ever went to bat for it!
The only reason I'm not writing him off is because we haven't hit the year anniversary. But really, if things keeps going like this, I'm praying/searching for a primary challenger.
12:08 AM
(Wow... just read about all the anti-choice votes. That's a deal-breaker for me, but I still believe that he's practicing what he preaches.)
12:14 AM
12:28 AM
01:23 AM
02:56 AM
09:12 AM
09:28 AM
12/08/09
And secondly, go to hell Congressional Democrats. You are to human beings what packing peanuts are to a giant shipping package: just a bunch of shit that fills in empty space and keeps everything from rattling around too much. Goddamnit.
12/08/09
12/08/09
12:09 AM
09:33 AM
12/08/09
I hope they allow interstate purchasing of health care; make the purchasing of coverage mandatory; not allow a pre-existing condition exclusion; provide tax incentives to companies to offer it to their employees; and, most importantly, subsidize those who cannot afford it. If they throw in tort reform, I will swoon with delight.
12/08/09
12/08/09
12/08/09
Purchasing insurance across state borders means your employer can cancel your coverage plan if you live in a state where there is a high level of consumer protection and transfer your health insurance to a company in another state with extremely weak consumer protection. What could possibly go wrong?!
And making the purchase of health insurance mandatory? Brilliant! Force people to buy a defective product that they still can't afford anyway. Should have thought of that years ago.
12/08/09
What--are you concerned the government might do a better job of providing health care through a public option so it would put private insurers out of business?
12/08/09
12/08/09
Yet my own brother and his family (very white--red hair even!) have no health insurance and probably won't if no public option is passed. Some of these people cannot see the forest for their fear of the brown trees.
01:00 AM
02:52 AM
07:05 AM
If a small business can pay a tax to not deal with health care, I think many will choose that option even if it is more expensive or a crappy plan
Additionally, I think there is a strong possibility of the government making it difficult for insurers to compete with a gov't plan by onerous taxes or other impediments to running a business
Just remember... the government doesn't allow a competing entity to the post office, despite it being a big money loser. I wonder if we had a gov't option if we wouldn't be heading in that direction.
And thanks for not including me with the racist component of the conservative party.
07:08 AM
Government doesn't equal blacks and immigrants nor does private business owners equal crackers.
07:16 AM
I also lived in Bermuda for three years and saw first hand how crappy a gov't system was. It turned into a two tiered system where the affluent had access to the best doctors and care because they all bought private supplements (which were damn expensive) and everyone else was stuck with the bottom of the barrel as far as providers go. Great system.
I am a long time, strong proponent of health care reform, as prior Gawker comments of mine show. I'm just not a fan of gov't supplied health care/insurance.
08:05 AM
08:48 AM
For every model of public health care people cite, such as Bermuda, there are successful models, as well. I should hate to throw the baby out with the bath water because of prejudicial thinking.
For what it's worth - I'm fortunate enough to have excellent insurance and am currently sitting here, doped out of my gourd, waiting for an, "elective" procedure. This conundrum we're currently in is more about resources (or lack thereof) and a critical lack of regulation on pharma and device manufacturers (which I have banged on endlessly...).
09:44 AM
I suspect if you were able to buy insurance across state lines, state run DOIs would be a thing of the past; or at the very least, structured quite differently.
Consumer protection is certainly an issue that would need to be addressed. At the same time, it does offer a choice that doesn't exist currently. I always think about employers in the fine state of Minnesota. They would be able to choose a plan that doesn't cover hair transplants (which is mandated in Mn) and their associated costs with a plan offered from Illinois or some such other state
09:45 AM
09:55 AM
Excellent point about the hair transplants and other...erm...subjective procedures people are forced to cover, depending on the state, too.
It will be very interesting to see how this "reform" progresses. As it stands right now, I cannot see how anyone is being well served. Simply because one could technically afford insurance doesn't mean that one can afford the copays and coinsurance if they have a dog of a plan.
10:01 AM
Feel better soon.
10:26 AM
I know, I know. I don't count you in those who know why they don't want it (racists and xenophobes), I count you in those who have no idea why.
I do think they would drive many insurers out of business.
And that would be a problem... why?
Oh, here I go again with the "why".
11:17 AM
1. Jobs...in 2004, 470k people were employed in the health insurance industry ([en.wikipedia.org]). I don't think we need to add to our unemployment numbers.
2. Many insurers are publicly held companies with a fair amount of pensions and retirement monies invested in them. Wipe out insurance companies... reduce the value of pension and retirement acc'ts.
3. Many insurance companies have significant real estate exposure with their reserves invested in real estate securities and real estate securitized debt. If they need to sell those securities, down goes real estate values again.
4. Not convinced that gov't insurance will catch the rampant fraud that goes on in health care. My father has told Medicare no less than 10 times that a $5k bill that they paid for him is not his. Too small for Medicare to mess with and handle is what he was told. I've heard many stories like these. Medicare's fraud detection just sucks -- this is supposed to make me feel like they are able to reduce health care coosts?
5. Oh yea, let's add jobs again. It is worth mentioning twice.
One can easily argue that health insurers are a big part of the problem. I would wholeheartedly agree and that is why reform is needed desperately. However, I personally do not believe that a gov't sponsored health plan, at this time, is the answer. If market reforms don't work to reduce costs and provide more appropriate care, I'd be willing to give a gov't plan a go. I think it would be foolish to not try market reforms first.
11:27 AM
Awesome.
12/08/09
12/08/09
12/08/09
12/08/09
12/08/09
12/08/09
12/08/09
12/08/09
12/08/09
12/08/09
12/08/09
@ampersandparade: or donate money to their re-election campaigns.
12/08/09
12/08/09