Obama: Big Business Sellout or Bolshevik Schemer?

So a neutered version of Obama's original health care proposal finally passed (so far at least). The existing fragmented private insurance system will get a tetanus shot that will help bend the cost curve. Yippee.

From the standpoint of free market fanatics, this is still "socialism." Obama is still apparently killing the free market and imposing his communist agenda. It's still "Obamacare." No matter what the Congressional Budget Office says about this bill actually bending the cost curve on health care and reducing the deficit (especially in the long run), they still kick and scream that "we can't afford it."

From the standpoint of the extremely (and borderline socialist) liberal, Obama totally catered to the special interests. He is no different than Bush. In fact, they've been angry since they realized he wasn't pushing for Single Payer health care (I guess they never read his health care plan when he was campaigning).

And on one hand you have the people who claim he should have been more partisan on this; that he should have included more Republican ideas (read Politifact's explanation of the borderline satirical Republican health care plan). On the other hand there are those that claim Obama didn't have the courage of his convictions to stick to his original plan. Similarly, some feel he did health care 'too early' (I wonder what they think of Bill Clinton's timing).

You would think these two viewpoints would cancel each other out. That the two sides would at least take the time to understand the plan from the other's point of view and realize that this is a very centrist plan and that it's the most that could possibly pass given the political climate. There exists a mandate because it's the only way for health insurers to cover people with pre-existing conditions without going bankrupt. The mandate wouldn't be necessary with a public option. Obama doesn't control Congress. The Republican minority was working lock-step to make this Obama's "waterloo." And just because the majority of Congress happens to be Democrat doesn't mean that these Senators and House Representatives are the same people with different heads. Harry Reid and Bart Stupak are not the same person. It's not Nancy Pelosi's fault that a good portion of the Democrats are borderline Republicans. And every member of Congress has their own geographically-based constituency to cater to.

To be fair, the plan does what it was intended to do. Those who can't afford coverage will mostly be covered now. Young adults can stay on their parent's insurance policy much longer. Insurance companies can no longer deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions (the mandate is necessary to keep people from gaming insurance companies by signing up when they need treatment, getting treated, then canceling their policies). Medicaid will be expanded and those still above the Medicaid threshold will receive subsidies to help pay for this mandated coverage. Medicare will become leaner and more efficient.

Unfortunately, pointing the finger is the easy thing to do. It seems finding a specific boogie man or at least a scape goat to point to is human nature. Or perhaps this is mainly an American thing? Are our political viewpoints affected by our love-hate relationship with villains and expectation of watching heroes eventually take it to them?

Health Care (H.R. 4872 ) Finally Passed

So Health Care passed (technically there could still exist one more painstaking battle in the Senate, but Democrats only need 51 votes to pass it). It's a historic moment that will largely be overshadowed by liberals who are disappointed that there's no public option (think of it is a Medicare that anyone can opt into so long as they pay premiums which would be much more affordable than private insurance companies), and conservatives who will wrangle on about inflated costs (as though what we have now wasn't scheduled to inflate far worse) and falsely claim that their ideas would have actually done anything to cut costs and increase coverage, and an endless debate on the obscure abortion funding.

Nevertheless, this bill is a big deal and had it not passed now, we'd of probably been looking at another 10-15 years before there was a large enough Democratic majority in Congress to get this done.

The essentials of this bill are:

1- A National Exchange where people can comparison shop for coverage (think Orbitz/Travelocity)

2- Tougher regulations/rules on insurers (no more denying coverage because you forgot to mention you had asthma as a kid and this counts as a pre-existing condition which you failed to account for in your coverage).

3- Required coverage for everyone. This makes many people gasp, but the truth is, #2 couldn't work without this one, since insurance companies would be overrun by people buying coverage when they get sick or injured, getting treatment, then canceling afterwards.

4- Subsidies for people with incomes low enough to make private coverage unaffordable but too high to qualify for Medicaid (makes #3 more palatable).

It will be interesting to see how this all plays out in the November primaries this year.

The Tea Party and Public Opinion on the Health Care Bill

What appears to be a self-proclaimed journalism student attended a tea party protest, and interviewed several protesters. Not surprisingly, their opposition to the bill seems centered misinformation being spread by people like Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, and other right wing media sources. The infamous 'death pill' misconception whereby aging citizens are euthanized in order to ration health care costs finds its way in here. Others have an exaggerated idea of how effective tort reform will be at reducing costs (here is what the CBO says about tort reform). Republicans often cite large public opposition to the bill. I'd be curious to know how much of it stems from such basic misunderstanding of the plan itself.