tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3401584991689197404.post8471948066834434784..comments2024-03-02T09:41:35.809-08:00Comments on Donkeylicious - A Blog by Neil Sinhababu and Nicholas Beaudrot: A Public Option Without Health Care Reform?Neil Sinhababuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03249327186653397250noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3401584991689197404.post-49775474075130556822012-06-16T21:28:30.375-07:002012-06-16T21:28:30.375-07:00I wondered if there was a way after the 2010 elect...I wondered if there was a way after the 2010 elections that a reasonable GOP House of Representatives might horsetrade a weak public option for eliminating the mandate. After all, they would get rid of the dreaded mandate, not have to have as much money into a public option as one they might fear, and it's closer to what Obama ran on (I was a Clinton supporter who preferred her health care plan, FWIW). Of course expecting a reasonable GOP after 2010 was probably the opposite worthwhile.Carl Ballardhttp://horsesass.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3401584991689197404.post-63134149850589102182012-06-16T12:31:08.742-07:002012-06-16T12:31:08.742-07:00I feel a lot of that, LTC. But basically everythi...I feel a lot of that, LTC. But basically everything we're doing has to be aimed at 2017 -- given how the Senate races look, that's the next time we have a nice majority that we can use to pass stuff.<br /><br />Blar, let me go with 'yes'. After all, this isn't a universal coverage story. It's a cost control through monopsony and comparative effectiveness research story. And, yeah, I guess that does make it less exciting.Neil Sinhababuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03249327186653397250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3401584991689197404.post-5849132302904089372012-06-16T11:32:33.548-07:002012-06-16T11:32:33.548-07:00Would the stand-alone public option discriminate b...Would the stand-alone public option discriminate based on preexisting conditions?<br /><br />If it uses all the same tricks as private plans, it's hard to get too excited about. If not, it risks the adverse selection death spiral.<br /><br />A public option works better if we change the game (as the ACA does) so that insurance companies aren't competing to avoid covering the sick.Blarnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3401584991689197404.post-76764378210085585792012-06-16T07:38:51.980-07:002012-06-16T07:38:51.980-07:00My attitude is, we got what we could get on health...My attitude is, we got what we could get on health care in 2009-10. It took a major push just to PTDB after Scott Brown won Ted Kennedy's old Senate seat.<br /><br />Meanwhile, we face a ton of more pressing problems. Massive unemployment as far as the eye can see. Global warming, ditto. If we get a more hospitable legislative landscape, those concerns matter far more than a public option. <br /><br />Assuming the ACA survives SCOTUS, all I really want to do with health care is let the ACA take effect, see how it works, and see what needs improving then. By 2017 we'll have a better idea of what changes need to be made, and how much of a difference a public option might make anyway. Right now, it's all theoretical.<br /><br />Meanwhile, I really doubt that the Dems are going to make much dent in the filibuster, even with Harry Reid's support. This is a Democratic caucus that, seventeen months ago, wasn't even willing to make a Motion to Proceed non-filibusterable - and that's the sort of reform that even the Broderists would have a hard time objecting to, and that more right-wing pundits would have a hard time <i>explaining</i> their objections to.<br /><br />Maybe they'll do that much, and a little more, this time, but I don't see them denting the filibuster itself. Assuming the Dems remain in control of the Senate next year, it'll be just barely, and there are enough dinosaurs in our caucus who want to keep the damned thing.low-tech cyclistnoreply@blogger.com