 |
 |
   Memo: The way forward on health care reform in 2010.
 A dark legacy of the Vietnam War is creating a whole new set of problems.
|
   |
|
|
November 7, 2009
COMPETING CHARTS.... Back in July, the House Republican caucus put together a chart that was supposed to characterize the proposed reforms to the health care system as overwhelmingly complex. As mini-stunts go, it failed rather spectacularly -- it only offered reform advocates a chance to point out how complex the status quo is. For that matter, the underlying argument was fundamentally lazy -- to hear Boehner & Co. tell it, we can't reform the system because the solution doesn't fit nicely on a chart. But that's not an argument. It's barely even a chart.
But House Republicans are back with another chart, this one incorporating the old one and adding a bunch of additional boxes. "This is the blueprint for a taxpayer-funded mega-bureaucracy," House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) said. But it's really not. This new chart simply identifies the names of various offices and efforts that will be part of an improved system. For example, there's a box for "Outreach program to increase awareness of diabetes screening benefits." Is that a bad thing? Probably not, but it's a "government program," which necessarily makes it part of a "mega-bureaucracy." There's also a box pointing to a grant program to "assist veterans who wish to become emergency medical technicians upon discharge." Are Republicans against this? Why? The closer one looks at the chart, and reads the descriptions in the little boxes, the more worthwhile the larger initiative seems. As Ezra Klein explained when the first chart came out, "[I]t's not very scary. In fact, it's reminiscent of nothing so much as a Magic Eye picture: Stare at the whole thing and it's a bit bewildering. But focus in, and order reveals itself. And that order actually looks kind of good. Which leaves this chart in a bit of a weird position: Those who don't read it won't be able to understand it. And those who do read it won't be scared by it."
For its part, the White House released a competing chart this afternoon, which explains the health care reform effort in a more straightforward, less deliberately confusing way. Health care policy can get pretty complicated, but this makes the policy framework pretty easy to understand. If you're happy with what you have, you keep it. The only changes are more stable costs and more consumer protections. If you don't have coverage, you get to pick from an exchange. If you can't afford a plan, the government will give you a hand. This probably isn't what the GOP staffers had in mind, but I think both boxes seem pretty compelling. —Steve Benen 7:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (15)Comments
I notice there's a third category the White House's chart doesn't include, namely "If You Have Coverage You Aren't Happy With"... Posted by: mn on November 7, 2009 at 7:37 PM | PERMALINKWhat mn said! I have Unicare which is going out of small business coverage and I will soon have BCBS. If it's for profit, I'm stuck where I am now: high deductibles, high premiums and high copays. What's not to love? And nothing yo keep them from tripling my premium. Woot! We won! Posted by: MsJoanne on November 7, 2009 at 7:48 PM | PERMALINKI am sure what will happen is companies will immediately dump their insurance to employees because it will be cheaper for them to pay the penalties for non-insured workers and people will be forced into the public plan. Which I think is fine. Posted by: MNPundit on November 7, 2009 at 7:51 PM | PERMALINKLet me add, I am just what they want in the public option: healthy and willing to pay the $1000 per month into a government pool instead of some CEOs pocket - if we could reduce the deductible and copays! We're being raped and it doesn't look like there will be improvements for the regular working stiff. Yes, I want reform...but for everyone, myself included. Posted by: MsJoanne on November 7, 2009 at 7:52 PM | PERMALINKMNPundit (and all), I heard there was a six month wait to get into the public option...which means six months not covered. Anyone know anything about that? Posted by: MsJoanne on November 7, 2009 at 7:55 PM | PERMALINKI agree with both comments above. And if buying for-profit insurance is mandatory, what a fat government giveaway to the insurance industry. And if we prevent the "cost-reduction" tactics of denying pre-existing conditions and make insurance portable, etc, well insurance cost MUST go up even faster than the current 7% per year. That means while currently the cost doubles in 10 years (it doubled in the last 9), now it will double faster, maybe within 5 years. Yikes. Thanks a lot. Posted by: GreenDreams on November 7, 2009 at 7:58 PM | PERMALINKLike everyone above me, I think the binary plan -- if you love what you've got, keep it; if you don't have it, you'll be able to get it -- is missing the "if you don't don't love it...?" And the only answer to that, that I can think of is: "if you don't love it, ditch it. Then, you won't have it and will qualify for option B (if you don't have it...)" Of course, I don't *know* that that's the key to that "treasure chest" (open exchange, including a public option). But, if it is, I can guess why the WH is not spelling it out; it would throw the Repubs into an even worse uproar, accompanied by agonised shrieks. Because, Ms Joanne isn't the only one who's willing to pay about as much as she's paying now, just for guaranteed higher security (nobody's gonna double my premiums overnight, nobody's gonna refuse payment for my chemo because I had zits as a teenager, etc, etc, etc)... Posted by: exlibra on November 7, 2009 at 8:26 PM | PERMALINKOh, and vis-a-vis the Repub "chart"... It doesn't have to make sense, if it's fascinating to look at. I remember my son used to have a toy, when he was about 5. It was a very complex structure of slides and gravity jumps and all sorts of other goodies. You dropped a little ball into a hopper at the top and watched the ball travel through the "system". And it didn't always go the same way (depending on the force with which you plunked the ball), which made it even more fascinating to watch -- which way will the ball roll *this* time?. Also, you could rearrange some of the elements, to make the ball follow a *still different* route. Riveting. This chart is like that :) Posted by: exlibra on November 7, 2009 at 8:33 PM | PERMALINKThe uncertainty about what got traded away, and who got favors for what, is what makes me wish we had just done the stupid, easy thing, which is lift a working system from another country (many to choose from) that is universal, cheaper, and better. Why innovate when you can steal wholesale? Failing that, the solution is to keep electing Democrats, and more of them, so we can ignore Lieberdoodle and his friends. Pick up a Green if you can do it without risking seat loss to an R, but otherwise, suck it up. Posted by: dr2chase on November 7, 2009 at 8:51 PM | PERMALINKMNPundit: I am sure what will happen is companies will immediately dump their insurance to employees because it will be cheaper for them to pay the penalties for non-insured workers and people will be forced into the public plan. If you are correct, is the chart really "straightforward, less deliberately confusing"? That you are probably correct (or at least that opponents agree with you) is one of the reasons that opponents oppose. If you are correct, then the reform is a bait and switch. Posted by: MatthewRMarler on November 7, 2009 at 8:52 PM | PERMALINKBait and switch? Oh, I hope so!!!!!! Affordable Healthcare for all! Posted by: MsJoanne on November 7, 2009 at 9:06 PM | PERMALINKI've been hoping for real health care reform for 20 years, but I'm afraid what the Dems have cobbled together is going to suck big time. It's going to be hugely complicated, expensive, it won't work, it will punish ordinary people and make the insurance companies richer. And the Dems will deserve all the punishment they get at the ballot box. Posted by: Speed on November 7, 2009 at 9:56 PM | PERMALINK"If You Have Coverage You Aren't Happy With"..Dump it, use the exchange, or opt for the republican plan and go to the ER. Posted by: Dave on November 8, 2009 at 7:40 AM | PERMALINKThe 6 month waiting period is a poison pill in one of the Senate bills: you can't get into the public plan unless you and your family are healthy and wealthy and lucky enough to go for 6 months without insurance. (And remember, if you do need care, you'll be paying "uninsured rates" which don't have the usual 60-80% discounts given to carriers). So, we need to understand that there's some serious heavy lifting remaining in this process, to get the House bill through reconciliation without too much damage. Posted by: ElegantFowl on November 8, 2009 at 7:43 AM | PERMALINKPost a comment
February 2010
January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003 December 2002 |
|
|
    |
|
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly
|
||||||||
