What's this Blog About?

Politics in Wisconsin as they roll up to every level... and some other thoughts that may cross my mind are explored here from my lefty point of view. My values shape my opinions. You'll always find them in here. Let's have some fun exploring why Liberal values are American values!

Your comments are both welcome and encouraged!
(The watercolor is called Magnolia Tree for Momma, by Audrey Crawford)

Monday, August 17, 2009

Why Obama Failed... So Far...

So I've ranted. I've called to action. I'm really angry.

I also want to break down here what went wrong.

Obama failed before he started. And don't kid yourself a co-op option (we already have these by the way...) is a pure and utter and absolute failure.


He failed because he started in the wrong place from the beginning.

The first rule of a successful negotiation is that you always start from your ideal position. You know, if you got to make the decision all by yourself and you thought the best thing in the world would be in your wildest dreams... that's where you start.

In other words, don't cave before you sit down to the table. What is ideal? What should Obama came to the table with?

Single payer healthcare.

It's the cheapest. The most effective. Would cover the most people. It has been proven to work around the world.

That said...

What's the problem with single payer healthcare? The hand full of insurance companies left selling health insurance in this country (and there are really just a handful compared to 20 years ago) would have to work harder on life insurance or go back to nursing school.

So that was mistake number one. Obama caved before he came to the table. In fact, he didn't let the ideal outcome at the table at all. Obama started with a compromise position, had he started with single payer, I'd be ranting that a public option is a cop out to single payer, but an acceptable compromise.... for now...

But now, we are discussing the most ludicrious of options.

Think about this.

Co-ops. So called non-profits pooling resources to negotiate lower rates and setting up partner "advocacy organizations" to lobby congress to help out the insurance industry even more.

Here is what a co-op is not:

It is NOT in any way reform to our health care industry. WE HAVE CO-OPS ALL OVER THE COUNTRY ALREADY. They do not work. They become political organizations in their own right. They may be owned by members, but how many members of a credit union have ever been to a meeting? How many Outpost or Willy Street members have ever been to a meeting?

How many actually care to run for office to help run the organization?

It's all good if it's groceries or books or milk farmers who create a co-op. Negotiating the price of your milk as a group makes perfect sense.

Health insurance is a whole other deal. Primarily because the potential for discrimination in health care in a voting membership organization is way high in this country. For example, what if the co-op in a particular area gets together and says no Asians can be covered under their plan.

Think that's crazy? Well how about they say no gay people can cover their partners?
Not so crazy now is it? How about Obama writes into the plan that they cannot discriminate against gays and their partners? Now he doesn't have enough votes to pass it at all, it fails and he gets to say he tried at least... A co-op will create the tyrrany of the majority in regional areas around the country. This is as Matt Taibi said, "Sick and Wrong".

In a public option this becomes mute. Anyone can get covered regardless of their relationship status. No private rules apply. How fast do you think insurance company executives will get on the boards of those "non-profit co-op organizations"?

This is the most insane of the proposals.

Let's see. Keep every thing the same as far as how insurance is delivered. Add bigger conglomerates that we can control internally. Add requirements to cover everyone so the cost skyrockets for everyone. Finally, sell the new super more expensive package as some sort of "health care reform" and give a discount to approximately 20% more than we pay now... When it all fails as this is no doubt going to in the long run, blame the Dems for the crappy idea to regulate the insurance industry.

Dems are done politically for 20 years if they don't allow a vote on at the very least the public option. Done. Their voters will stop caring for another 15 years. You can't promise the people of this country something this big and then give them a worse product than they started with in the first place. They're DONE if they don't force a floor vote on the public option.


This is the B.S. the so-called Dems in Congress and now the White House are trying to sell us. A vote on crap is somehow better than forcing everyone to take sides.

I say vote on single payer (medicare for all), vote on the public option and then on this crap co-op option. I want to know where everyone stands on each option. It's only fair.



How can he get this back? Force this vote. I guarantee that if only 43 say privately they will vote for the public option plan an actual VOTE will change that equation significantly.



Georgia said...

Single payer option is the ONLY way to go!!! Cuts all the fat from the policy and is far more user friendly....

An insurance tale (true): when you purchase an insurance policy from an insurance company (salesperson) that policy is in effect as long as you pay. And - as long as you pay, the person you 'bought' your policy from MAKES MONEY from your premiums. As long as you pay - they earn. They earn as long as they stay employed by the company - - - that is TRUE with EVERY insurance policy you have - your car insurance, your home owners policy, your life insurance and YES: your health insurance too.

What's wrong with that picture? Why can't you buy directly from the company?????

Insurance is a HUGE business and mainly owned by the repugants.

Now ask yourself this. Why?????

Big money to be made. Lots of - - -hmmmmm Smoke and mirrors.
They pat you on the back with one hand whilst picking your pocket with the other?????
To quote Sarah... "You Betcha!"

Erik said...

Before deciding that socialized medicine is the way to go you should watch this story by John Stossel of ABC


Socialism does not take into account the Human behavior factor. Our medical system does have problems, True. However, there ARE better solutions.

Health System expert Nina Owcharenko dissects "five major faults with the health care bills" being pushed in the House and Senate.

1. The public "option." Both proposals would create a government-run insurance plan which proponents claim would foster honest competition among private insurers. But how can there be fair competition when one of the players -- Washington -- is both writing the rules and playing the game? What's more, this scheme could lead millions of Americans to lose their private health insurance.

2. Centralized regulation. Both the House and Senate bills would result in sweeping and complex federal regulation of health insurance. This would take oversight away from states and concentrate it in Washington -- and this oversight is best left at the state level.

3. Greater dependency on government. Both bills would expand existing government health care program and introduce massive new taxpayer-funded subsidies to buy health insurance. This would leave millions of Americans dependent on government for their health care.

4. Employer mandate. The plans would force employers to provide coverage for all employees or face a massive tax. These "play-or-pay" mandates will raise prices, stifle economic growth and particularly hurt low-wage earners.

5. Individual mandate. Both bills require that all Americans purchase health insurance. Those without coverage or whose plans don't meet the new federal standards would face tax penalties. Special interests are sure to "lobby intensively to expand the legally mandated health benefits, medical treatments and procedures, and drugs that all Americans must buy under penalty of law."

Taken together or individually, these flaws would inflict serious damage on an industry that represents one-sixth of our nation's economy.


The conservative alternative to socialized medicine is to enact serious reforms in current tax and insurance law that would expand personal ownership and control of health insurance and transfer the control of health care dollars to individuals and families. These reforms would move today's bureaucracy-driven, heavily regulated third-party payment system to a new patient-centered system of consumer choice and real free-market competition.

Competition is a REAL factor in lowering health care cost. One big way to do this would be to allow insurance companies to sell across state lines. Even liberal reporter Wolf Blitzer has brought up this point.

All I'm saying is let's not jump in without weighing the options and considering the possible problems. Once programs are enacted, it is near to impossible to go back.

Think first, then act.