Thursday, September 17, 2009

A Turning Point for the Public Option??



Bill O'Reilly went on record tonight that he is in support of a public option saying, "I want that. I want, not for personally for me, but for working Americans, to have a option, that if they don’t like their health insurance, if it’s too expensive, they can’t afford it, if the government can cobble together a cheaper insurance policy that gives the same benefits, I see that as a plus for the folks."

Even though he says at the beginning of the clip that he thinks the public option is dead. The reality is that the House Bill will have a public option and one of the two Senate bills currently has it (the HELP Committee Bill). As the Baucus bill goes right now it may not have enough support in committee to pass as it currently stands. Baucus will have to move it to the left in mark up to get the support of the 5 or 6 liberals on the committee including Sen. Rockefeller and Sen. Schumer, or move it to the right to try and get a couple of Republican votes. Outside of Olympia Snowe I see very little possibility of any other Republicans voting for it. Unless, Republicans vote for it in the Finance Committee with no plans to support it on the Senate floor just to be sure that the possibility of bi-partisanship remains so that liberals will not be able to construct the bill as they want and then pass it through with reconciliation.

Reconciliation is a rule in the Senate that allows for a bill to be passed through with 51 votes if it pertains to a law deemed absolutely necessary in relation to the nation's budget. President Bush used reconciliation to pass his tax cuts, therefore there is a clear precedent to advocate for its usage to pass health care. Senators seem to believe that most of the health care bill could be framed as necessary on budgetary grounds. While reconciliation should be a last choice because it would require removing certain parts of the bill (most likely to be passed later) but it would also mean that the health care changes would have to be re-authorized after a certain amount of time.

My point is that the public option is NOT dead. With or without Bill O'Reilly's endorsement. But his comments certainly should put a little momentum behind the liberals in the Senate and all of us here on campus working hard to hold our congressmen accountable to what the people and their doctors really want.

11 comments:

Anonymous said...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204518504574416843940486508.html

Listen to your own party. Universal healthcare and all these other entitlements look great on paper, but what is it with you liberals and refusing to educate yourselves about the consequences of the national debt? And don't turn this around and say "BUSH STARTED IT", which is usually the response I get when trying to talk to Obamabots about the consequences of the national debt. What if liberals justified everything they did by saying Bush started it? Torture, 2 foreign wars, etc. Bush was no conservative, get that through your head. What's done is done, and the day of reckoning will be upon us soon. Educate yourselves liberals. For once in your life, stop treating the NYTIMES Op-Ed page as gospel and as the only intelligent "opinion" out there. Read both sides of an issue, get the facts, and decide on your own.

LeftCoastLefty said...

Hey Anon... how does that Kool-Aid taste?

blakey said...

Oh Bush wasnt a REAL CONSERVATIVE? Then were were all the REAL CONSERVATIVE, when he cut taxes for the rich and started iraq, with out any ability to pay for either. Im sure you were there standing up denouncing him then.

I agree, we need to bring down our debt. Lets start by cutting wasteful money in our healthcare system. Single Payer is the cheapest option. IF you want to bring down debt, why are you defending our unsustainable private system?

Is the NYTIMES what counts for liberal these days?

Bayh is a hack.

blakey said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Chris Rhodenbaugh said...

I have the facts. The President and everyone who has been asked from the Administration about the debt as said the new health bill HAS to be deficit neutral if the president is going to sign it. The bill will even include a measure saying that if projected savings do not materialize that congress will be obligated to find a way to pay for it. No money will be added to the deficit.

I am concerned about the debt. We need to start paying it off by raising the inheritance tax.

Chris Rhodenbaugh said...

Blakey makes a good point that the current financial outlook for health care is unsustainable.

I am with you Blakey on single-payer but our political system and the American people are not ready for that. Therefore I am advocating for what I view as achievable. Keep speaking out though! Single payer should always have a voice in any health care discussion because it is the best model.

Anonymous said...

The "deficit neutral" lie spewed by Obama and congressional democrats has already been debunked by the ASSOCIATED PRESS no less.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g5ewCvsGcSPBeHJurb6qYZLVU8OgD9AKAF902

The non-partisan CBO has estimated that Obamacare will add $597 billion over just the next ten years. Furthermore the Senate Joint Economic Committee has released a report studying the government's track record when it comes to accurately measuring the future costs of health care programs. They found that health care plan costs are always dramatically underestimated. From the report:

"Medicare (hospital insurance). In 1965, as Congress considered legislation to establish a national Medicare program, the House Ways and Means Committee estimated that the hospital insurance portion of the program, Part A, would cost about $9 billion annually by 1990.v Actual Part A spending in 1990 was $67 billion. The actuary who provided the original cost estimates acknowledged in 1994 that, even after conservatively discounting for the unexpectedly high inflation rates of the early ‘70s and other factors, “the actual [Part A] experience was 165% higher than the estimate.”

Medicare (entire program). In 1967, the House Ways and Means Committee predicted that the new Medicare program, launched the previous year, would cost about $12 billion in 1990. Actual Medicare spending in 1990 was $110 billion—off by nearly a factor of 10.

Medicaid DSH program. In 1987, Congress estimated that Medicaid’s disproportionate share hospital (DSH) payments—which states use to provide relief to hospitals that serve especially large numbers of Medicaid and uninsured patients—would cost less than $1 billion in 1992. The actual cost that year was a staggering $17 billion. Among other things, federal lawmakers had failed to detect loopholes in the legislation that enabled states to draw significantly more money from the federal treasury than they would otherwise have been entitled to claim under the program’s traditional 50-50 funding scheme.

Medicare home care benefit. When Congress debated changes to Medicare’s home care benefit in 1988, the projected 1993 cost of the benefit was $4 billion. The actual 1993 cost was more than twice that amount, $10 billion.

Medicare catastrophic coverage benefit. In 1988, Congress added a catastrophic coverage benefit to Medicare, to take effect in 1990. In July 1989, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) doubled its cost estimate for the program, for the four-year period 1990-1993, from $5.7 billion to $11.8 billion. CBO explained that it had received newer data showing it had significantly under-estimated prescription drug cost growth, and it warned Congress that even this revised estimate might be too low. This was a principal reason Congress repealed the program before it could take effect.

SCHIP. In 1997, Congress established the State Children’s Health Insurance Program as a capped grant program to states, and appropriated $40 billion to be doled out to states over 10 years at a rate of roughly $5 billion per year, once implemented. In each year, some states exceeded their allotments, requiring shifts of funds from other states that had not done so. By 2006, unspent reserves from prior years were nearly exhausted. To avert mass disenrollments, Congress decided to appropriate an additional $283 million in FY 2006 and an additional $650 million in FY 2007. "

And to be honest I objected to Bush's tax cuts because they didn't come with a decrease in government spending. I was also opposed to the Iraq War from Day 1. One positive thing Obama has done is end Bush's costly plan to provide for a missile defense shield in Eastern Europe. It's about time Europeans started paying for their own defense, so hurray for that. But, seriously, get your facts straight. Not everything politicians say is true, even when they come from your boy Barack.

blakey said...

Chris, you should advocate for what you believe to be right. Let the politicians do the compromising. I was kind of surprised that you think, "the American people arent ready for it," because most polls i have seen show a majority of americans support single-payer. The people have always been more progressive than liberals give them credit for.

please read this;

http://www.ianwelsh.net/left-wing-self-defeatism-and-how-to-win/

blakey said...

Chris, you should advocate for what you believe to be right. Let the politicians do the compromising. I was kind of surprised that you think, "the American people arent ready for it," because most polls i have seen show a majority of americans support single-payer. The people have always been more progressive than liberals give them credit for.

please read this;

http://www.ianwelsh.net/left-wing-self-defeatism-and-how-to-win/

LeftCoastLefty said...

I'm seen plenty of polls showing strong support for a public option, but I haven't seen any showing strong support for single payer. Do you recall what polls you're talking about?

blakey said...

Here's a bunch:

http://www.wpasinglepayer.org/PollResults.html

And one recent one:

http://www.healthcare-now.org/another-poll-shows-majority-support-for-single-payer/