That's not true. If the Democrats truly believe in this program and all the people that voted for the Democrats this time 'round believe in their policy prescriptions, then there's no obstacle. The real reason they won't pass it without Republican support is they know it's going to be wildly unpopular and they're going to pay a heavy political price. They want the Republicans to join them in jumping off the cliff.
I was just curious why maxiep liked their system because I know he doesn't agree with illegal immigrants receiving treatment, but in the current Swiss system they do treat them. It's become a big problem for them. They've recently tried getting rid of Anchor babies to curb the appeal of illegals having babies born in their country, but it hasn't had the effect they were hoping for. I though maybe maxiep knew of something else they were trying to do to fix the problem. I hate how the health system is abused by illegal immigrants. At the same time I don't think it's right to just deny someone if they're dying or having complications during birth and don't have money to pay for the treatment.
I think the Democrats holding out are just waiting for better "pork" money. You know the bill is going to be filled with a bunch of crap that has nothing to do with healthcare.
To be frank (not Jim or Tony), I'm a little surprised that conservatives would like the Swiss program. There are a couple of features I could see them liking, but overall? There is lots of government intervention. What does everyone else think? Personally I'd be willing to give it a shot, even though I disagree with a couple of aspects. From Wikipedia... Regulations also restrict the allowable policies and profits that a private insurer may offer, as noted by healthcare economics scholar Uwe Reinhardt in a review in JAMA. Reinhardt writes that, "To compete in the market for compulsory health insurance, a Swiss health insurer must be registered with the Swiss Federal Office of Public Health, which regulates health insurance under the 1994 statute. The insurers were not allowed to earn profits from the mandated benefit package, although they have always been able to profit from the sale of actuarially priced supplementary benefits (mainly superior amenities). Regulations require "a 25-year-old and an 80-year-old individual pay a given insurer the same premium for the same type of policy..Overall, then, the Swiss health system is a variant of the highly government-regulated social insurance systems of Europe..that rely on ostensibly private, nonprofit health insurers that also are subject to uniform fee schedules and myriad government regulations."[1] Another set of interesting articles that summarizes the situation: http://healthcare-economist.com/2007/11/27/swiss-healthcare-system/ http://healthcare-economist.com/2008/02/26/swiss-healthcare-system-part-ii/ A fascinating "personal perspective" of the Swiss system (I know - for you righties, it's NPR, but try and bear through reading it) http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92106731 "The costs have increased in the last 10 years by 50 to 60 percent," says Roland Brunner, a banker from Baden." And the fact that that chunk of the budget grows each year has been particularly frustrating for members of the Swiss parliament, Zweifel says, because "those poor [who get the subsidies] are not those that go to the polls and give you the votes." "But even with the subsidy, there's still a regressive aspect of the Swiss system: health insurance premiums are not linked to income. So everyone pays the same."
Sure. I'm not sure what you are saying isn't true, though. Creating fear, uncertainty, and doubt tends to impinge upon the certainty of at least the latter, if not the former, set of people. That would be the preference, but it is clear now that that isn't going to happen. So they'll either pass it without the Rs, or give up. barfo
Because Democrats are absolutely useless. Seriously. I cannot even begin to tell you how much it pains me to have to vote for them... You are 100% correct: there is no excuse, whatsoever, for the Democrats not to pass, on a party-line basis, a good health reform plan. Instead they're watering it down in an absolutely futile effort to "compromise" with people who fundamentally have no interest in compromising with them, and won't support it in the end anyway. The bill that Max Baucus is hyping today is perhaps the worst piece of legislation in the history of the American republic. If the Democrats actually pass that steaming pile of shit, they will absolutely deserve the crushing defeat they'll suffer in the next election. Sometimes I can't believe how inept they are, honestly. If they pass a strong bill (one that would create a Swiss-style system, saving tons of money while providing better care to more people) they will enjoy not only good policy, but also great partisan politics. People will love the system and they'll get all the credit. But instead they seem intent on passing a useless pile of crap that will do nothing to control costs or improve care, will apparently coerce individuals to buy shitty private insurance plans that they don't want, and will bankrupt the country. Everyone will (justifiably) hate it, and everyone will (justifiably) blame the Democrats for passing it. And all in the name of "bipartisanship" and "compromise" with an opposition party that obviously just doesn't want health insurance reform at all. (Which is perfectly fine! But why the F are the Democrats trying to negotiate with them? Oh yeah, because they suck!) SR
Pretty much you could've cut your post down to this. On the flip side, Republicans get a lot of crap for being unwilling to negotiate when they are in power. So, really, neither side wins. Either you put out a program, try to involve the other side, and look weak or you push through a program and look oppressive and unbending. I think the bill is kind of crappy the way it is, but I think their original tact was right on. What they should have done is said "Look, we've given you A,B,C,D,E from your list of demands. We expect a little support" and then if they didn't get it revoke A,B,C,D,E from the list and just say the GOP wasn't willing to budge an inch, which they aren't. The problem when you have super-majorities (problem?) is that the minority always seems to act like they have no other power than to go the "nuclear route" of defiance the entire time. So even if some Repubs did agree they're being pressured to put up this party of no crap.
Yeah, I would love to see the democrats come out and say, well, we tried, but they didn't want to compromise, so we are going to do what we believe is the right thing, and start over from scratch with a real reform plan instead of this incremental fiddling. But that aint gonna happen. barfo
Again, because they suck. If the shoe were on the other foot, the Republicans would have gotten this done. Period. 60 Democratic Senators wield power about as effectively as 35 Republican Senators. It's amazing. The great irony is that the BaucusCare is essentially a moderate Republican bill. (It's basically a rehash of John Chafee's proposed plan from 1994.) Nevertheless, current Republicans will demagogue it as if it's Stalincare exactly the same as they would have if it had actually been an ambitious reform plan, and because it's a weak moderate Republican plan instead of real healthcare reform it won't succeed, but now it will be branded (not unfairly) as the Democrats' plan. Charlie Brown, meet Lucy's football. Again, for the ten thousandth time. Never could have seen that coming!
They were ready to roll out half dead Ted for the 60th vote if they actually brought a bill to the floor while he was alive.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/20...g-big-tax-on-middle-class-in-baucus-bill.html It's not every day that you hear a Democratic senator charge that a fellow Democrat is proposing to raise taxes on the middle class, but that is what happened on Tuesday when Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., ripped into the health-care bill developed by Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mt., the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. The Baucus proposal would impose, starting in 2013, a 35 percent excise tax on insurance companies for "high-cost plans" -- defined as those above $8,000 for individuals and $21,000 for family plans. Health economists believe a tax on high-priced benefits could help slow the growth of health costs by making consumers more sensitive to prices. The tax contemplated by Baucus is also a big revenue raiser. It is expected to raise $200 billion, money that Baucus is hoping to use to pay for subsidies for the uninsured. Given how much money this kind of tax can raise, Rockefeller says he understands why it is "tempting." The West Virginia Democrat worries, however, that a lot of middle class workers, like the coal miners in his state, will end up facing "a big, big tax" under the Baucus bill because they currently enjoy generous employer-provided health care benefits which they receive tax free. Referring to Baucus, Rockefeller said, "He should understand that (his proposal) means that virtually every single coal miner is going to have a big, big tax put on them because the tax will be put on the company and the company will immediately pass it down and lower benefits because they are self insured, most of them, because they are larger. They will pass it down, lower benefits, and probably this will mean higher premiums for coal miners who are getting very good health care benefits for a very good reason. That is, like steelworkers and others, they are doing about the most dangerous job that can be done in America." "So that’s not really a smart idea," Rockefeller continued. "In fact, it’s a very dangerous idea, and I’m not even sure the coal miners in West Virginia are aware that this is what is waiting if this bill passes." more at the link.
interesting... why do you think so? i'd rank the french system number one but we'll never, ever have anything like that. i would tend to think the swiss system or something close to it is the best we could ever hope for. why do you like the germans' scheme so much?
hopefully jay rockefeller has more friends in the dem caucus in the senate than max baucus does... because rockefeller is absolutely right on this one. i seriously don't know what the hell baucus is thinking.
People can opt out, for one. Home care is done by family, for two. The govt. doesn't pay $.01 for it, for three. I'd note that this article: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91971406 seems to indicate that Germans like their plan, and they pay 8% plus 8% from their employers = 16% (about what we pay).
The tax break side of the equation isn't talked about much. At 35% corporate tax rate, the companies get a 35% discount on buying insurance for their employees. The plans I've seen offered, but not yet voted on, expect to tax those plans, giving the employers less incentive to buy the insurance.
