Prospects dimming for gov't insurance plan

"Prospects for a government insurance plan appeared to be sinking fast Tuesday as lawmakers returned to Capitol Hill a day ahead of a major health care speech by President Barack Obama."

"House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., told reporters a Medicare-like plan for middle-class Americans and their families isn't essential for him to back legislation. Hoyer's comments came shortly after a key Democratic moderate said he could no longer back a bill that includes a new government plan."

"The fast-moving developments left liberals in a quandary. Progressives have drawn a line, saying they won't vote for legislation if it doesn't include a public plan to compete with private insurance companies and force them to lower costs."

Prospects dimming for gov't insurance plan - Yahoo! News

Looks like another nail in the coffin for a government option. Will other officials follow, and if so, who?

I think many of the Democrats elected in 2006 and 2008 may drop support for a public option, especially those who were elected as fiscal Conservatives. The Democrats have a major split in their party, and many here at Debate Politics predicted this as a problem in 2006. Kudos to all our members who did.

Alex said:

"Prospects for a government insurance plan appeared to be sinking fast Tuesday as lawmakers returned to Capitol Hill a day ahead of a major health care speech by President Barack Obama."

"House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., told reporters a Medicare-like plan for middle-class Americans and their families isn't essential for him to back legislation. Hoyer's comments came shortly after a key Democratic moderate said he could no longer back a bill that includes a new government plan."

"The fast-moving developments left liberals in a quandary. Progressives have drawn a line, saying they won't vote for legislation if it doesn't include a public plan to compete with private insurance companies and force them to lower costs."

Prospects dimming for gov't insurance plan - Yahoo! News

Looks like another nail in the coffin for a government option. Will other officials follow, and if so, who?

I think many of the Democrats elected in 2006 and 2008 may drop support for a public option, especially those who were elected as fiscal Conservatives. The Democrats have a major split in their party, and many here at Debate Politics predicted this as a problem in 2006. Kudos to all our members who did.

Click to expand...

Actually, I did not predict a Democratic split in 2006, but I DID predict one in 2008, before the elections.

danarhea said:

Actually, I did not predict a Democratic split in 2006, but I DID predict one in 2008, before the elections.

Click to expand...

You are actually one of the members I was mentioning. I could not remember if it was 2006 or 2008, though. Thanks for clearing it up!

This is exactly why electing a Democrat that votes like a Republican is no better than electing a Republican

Its been dimming for 3 months now.

Alex said:

"Prospects for a government insurance plan appeared to be sinking fast Tuesday as lawmakers returned to Capitol Hill a day ahead of a major health care speech by President Barack Obama."

"House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., told reporters a Medicare-like plan for middle-class Americans and their families isn't essential for him to back legislation. Hoyer's comments came shortly after a key Democratic moderate said he could no longer back a bill that includes a new government plan."

"The fast-moving developments left liberals in a quandary. Progressives have drawn a line, saying they won't vote for legislation if it doesn't include a public plan to compete with private insurance companies and force them to lower costs."

Prospects dimming for gov't insurance plan - Yahoo! News

Looks like another nail in the coffin for a government option. Will other officials follow, and if so, who?

I think many of the Democrats elected in 2006 and 2008 may drop support for a public option, especially those who were elected as fiscal Conservatives. The Democrats have a major split in their party, and many here at Debate Politics predicted this as a problem in 2006. Kudos to all our members who did.

Click to expand...

Good job. So wants next? A victory dance or serious discussions on a way to make some reform to fix an ever growing problem?

Because I am going to assume by the descriptive analysis of Democrats being split, that all republicans have come together and agreed on ONE formidable solution to fix this mess.

The Democratic party has always represented a far larger ideological spectrum than the Republican Party. Anymore in the Republican Party you have a couple of moderates left in the North East, and other than that the ideological spectrum ranges from conservative to right wing extremist.


With the Democratic Party you have centrists, moderates, pro-business democrats, pro-labor democrats, and liberals. It's why the Democrats are typically in power far more often historically than the Republicans. However, its also why you can't easily get something through like a public insurance plan. Personally, I think the whole CO-OP idea is a decent one and accomplishes what the public option is supposed to accomplish without some huge new government program.

The objective is three-fold:

1. Make health insurance accessible to everyone regardless of income level.

2. Make health insurance affordable to everyone.

3. Ensure those who have health insurance are able to retain it (i.e., ensure that it's portable).

Now, the question is how do you do it?

Solution to item #1: Expand Medicaid by lowering the federal poverty level.

Solution to item #2: Remove the state boundary limitation and create co-ops and/or state-based health insurance exchanges to compete with private insurance.

Solution to item #3: Lift the restriction to pre-existing conditions.

Easier said than do, but if these are the objectives as outlined by the President, then it should only be a matter of finding the right mix to "get 'er done!"

That's NOT good enough.

The entire bill, all of it, ought be defeated.

Then there ought to be a restart of Health Care Improvements.

Among these improvements ought be...

Tort reform (as a separate bill)

Insurance freedom, as in being able to buy health insurance over State borders much like we can buy car insurance (as a separate bill)

Improvements and a great increase in monitoring of health care providers. Much as the monitors the airlines and the pilots to make sure the public is served well and safely. (as a separate bill)

...and for the biggest improvement.....drum roll, please.....

An increase of the total number of active doctors in this country from the estimated 800,000 now to a goal of 1.6 million by 2040!

People, people, people.....I don't care how much money you and the government throws at this problem without doctors and nurse it's all just so much noise.

Objective Voice said:

The objective is three-fold:

1. Make health insurance accessible to everyone regardless of income level.Why? Health Care is NOT a right.

2. Make health insurance affordable to everyone.Read your #1. If it is a right why does it have to be affordable.

3. Ensure those who have health insurance are able to retain it (i.e., ensure that it's portable).

Now, the question is how do you do it?

Solution to item #1: Expand Medicaid by lowering the federal poverty level.You mean....raise it vice lower it. Besides, Medicaid is run by the States.

Solution to item #2: Remove the state boundary limitation and create co-ops and/or state-based health insurance exchanges to compete with private insurance.If these coops are run by the governments then it is a very bad idea. Removing the restriction of State boundries.....good!

Solution to item #3: Lift the restriction to pre-existing conditions.Why? If you think about it, that destroys your whole plan.....if there is no limits to pre-existing conditions why have insurance in the first place? No insurance....no problem. If you break your leg, just buy health insurance after you break it. Why do it before you need it. Come on people think!

Easier said than do, but if these are the objectives as outlined by the President, then it should only be a matter of finding the right mix to "get 'er done!"

Click to expand...

Gee, this is fun!

SouthernDemocrat said:

The Democratic party has always represented a far larger ideological spectrum than the Republican Party. Anymore in the Republican Party you have a couple of moderates left in the North East, and other than that the ideological spectrum ranges from conservative to right wing extremist.


With the Democratic Party you have centrists, moderates, pro-business democrats, pro-labor democrats, and liberals. It's why the Democrats are typically in power far more often historically than the Republicans. However, its also why you can't easily get something through like a public insurance plan. Personally, I think the whole CO-OP idea is a decent one and accomplishes what the public option is supposed to accomplish without some huge new government program.

Click to expand...

We have John McCain, so you are all wrong.

I don't understand why conservatives are so offended by the idea of trying to provide affordable health care for everyone. Who cares if health care isn't a right? It shouldn't be a luxury either. Capitalism exists to distribute resources and it seems pretty obvious that in the case of health care, it isn't doing a very effective or efficient job of it. We are already paying more for less than many other countries and we don't even have universal care. If the market isn't working to meet the demand that exists, then that suggests that their are elements in the market which are exploiting it. That is the justification for the government to intervene by discovering exploitation and providing tools by which to bring the market back into efficiency. The way I see it, health care really could lead to a market failure down the road unless something is done.

CriticalThought said:

I don't understand why conservatives are so offended by the idea of trying to provide affordable health care for everyone. Who cares if health care isn't a right? It shouldn't be a luxury either. Capitalism exists to distribute resources and it seems pretty obvious that in the case of health care, it isn't doing a very effective or efficient job of it. We are already paying more for less than many other countries and we don't even have universal care. If the market isn't working to meet the demand that exists, then that suggests that their are elements in the market which are exploiting it. That is the justification for the government to intervene by discovering exploitation and providing tools by which to bring the market back into efficiency. The way I see it, health care really could lead to a market failure down the road unless something is done.

Click to expand...

Lack of health insurance is not the only or even the primary reason Americans health are so poor. We are fat and lazy. We eat junk third world countries would not eat. The best way to lower our health care cost is to start living healthy. This would make a much greater impact than any reform bill by a Democrat or a Republican.

Federal Reserve policy is continual price increases. Prices, including health care, continue to rise in part because of Federal Reserve policy. Even if Obamacare is passed. A government option is created. Health care prices will continue to rise. No one is even addressing this issue at all. The last thirty to forty years has seen the slow destruction of the middle class. Prices have risen faster than wages. The destruction of the dollar has impacted citizens ability to pay for a lot of things, including health care.

Government standards and the idea that health care is right increase costs. For example, as a kid I got bronchitis every year. Both my parents were smokers. Every year the doctor gave me medicine. Every year it would run its course. When I got older I stopped going to the doctor. Guess what. It lasted about as long as it did with medicine. Finally I moved out of my parents house. I no longer get bronchitis at all.

You see, my parents had good insurance from the military. My mom didn't want me to feel sick. So she took me to the doctor. The doctor didn't want to tell her that it would pass in time. That I would be OK. So he game me some bubble gum tasting antibiotic. It was unnecessary.

The point I'm trying to make is this. There is difference between someone dying in the street because no one will treat them and our health care system tending every bump, bruise, cough or cold. My mom thought nothing of taking me to the doctor. Why? She didn't have to pay the full cost. So every sneeze or sniffle was a trip to the doctor. She isn't the only one that behaves this way.

Contrast that to my father who grew up poor. He never went to the doctor. Hell, he got kicked in the chest as a kid. He laid on his parents couch for days hurting with every breath. He never went to the doctor. To this day his chest is concave. That is an extreme example, but you get the picture.

Increasing health care cost should be an incentive for Americans to take better care of themselves. If those with insurance were required to pay for unnecessary or excessive care. They might reevaluate their health as well. Government standards would require health insurance companies to pay for doctor visits. If it costs families so little. Why not run to the doctor every time you have a problem? Why eat better and exercise? When you can get that heart surgery at 45 for a $1500 deductible. No, no. These health reform plans don't address the real problems. They socialize the costs of care. Spreading them among the populace in what politicians feel is a more balanced way. The truth is that you cannot escape the costs of your lifestyle nor that of your neighbors. The poor, middle class and wealthy all will pay for health reform. You aren't saving those less fortunate a dime. You are simply changing the way they pay for it.