I’d like to go to Tom’s comment for a moment that “lives are being lost” here and that universal coverage is a if not the critical issue. Occasionally we must take a deep breath, stop the wonky talk and look at this on a human level. Let’s remember for a second that at the end of the day this is about people, fellow Americans, living longer, healthier lives.
Beyond this, expanding coverage to all Americans doesn’t have its roots solely in some touchy feely liberal need to help out the poor folks; America has to protect its human capital. Healthier people are more productive people, in fact so much healthier that according to more than one study the economic value of foregone health by the uninsured is double the cost of expanding health care to cover everybody, even when we consider that people with insurance generate higher medical costs by utilizing the system more often. That’s a no brainer – lets get people healthy and put them to work.

And you know what, let’s talk about me for a minute! I want everyone insured because in a month I’m going to be turning twenty one, and I’ll be off my parents’ insurance. That means I have to pay for insurance, and my insurance is more expensive because there are uninsured who can usually only pay a quarter to a third of what they owe. In fact, Pity Pat and Tom, when we graduate in a year and have to be real people, we are going to be helping pick up the tab for two-thirds of the cost of uncompensated care used by the uninsured in our higher premiums. Maybe that would be okay with me, maybe, if we didn’t have an opportunity right now to fix it by making sure everyone has coverage.

No wonder people think Obama is talking about expanding coverage. He IS. And it is an essential part of creating a health care system that works. Yes we need to worry about affordability, and yes we should disentangle “perverse incentives”, but some of the money is in making sure everyone, not only those that can afford to pay, is healthy. We may have to jettison the public option, even though it would be helping better the system through the very force of competition that conservatives do so love. That’s fine – compromise is the American way. However, passing health care reform without universal coverage is like being the tallest midget. Or making fun of Charles in a room full of Young Dems. It misses the point.

Last comment. When will we see this chance again? It has been fifty years since LBJ and the last real movement on health care. I don’t want to see this fail and spend another fifty years being the only wealthy nation that doesn’t guarantee essential care to its citizens.

Thanks for listening

I’d like to go to Tom’s comment for a moment that “lives are being lost” here and that universal coverage is a if not the critical issue. Occasionally we must take a deep breath, stop the wonky talk and look at this on a human level. Let’s remember for a second that at the end of the day this is about people, fellow Americans, living longer, healthier lives.
Beyond this, expanding coverage to all Americans doesn’t have its roots solely in some touchy feely liberal need to help out the poor folks; America has to protect its human capital. Healthier people are more productive people, in fact so much healthier that according to more than one study the economic value of foregone health by the uninsured is double the cost of expanding health care to cover everybody, even when we consider that people with insurance generate higher medical costs by utilizing the system more often. That’s a no brainer – lets get people healthy and put them to work.

And you know what, let’s talk about me for a minute! I want everyone insured because in a month I’m going to be turning twenty one, and I’ll be off my parents’ insurance. That means I have to pay for insurance, and my insurance is more expensive because there are uninsured who can usually only pay a quarter to a third of what they owe. In fact, Pity Pat and Tom, when we graduate in a year and have to be real people, we are going to be helping pick up the tab for two-thirds of the cost of uncompensated care used by the uninsured in our higher premiums. Maybe that would be okay with me, maybe, if we didn’t have an opportunity right now to fix it by making sure everyone has coverage.

No wonder people think Obama is talking about expanding coverage. He IS. And it is an essential part of creating a health care system that works. Yes we need to worry about affordability, and yes we should disentangle “perverse incentives”, but some of the money is in making sure everyone, not only those that can afford to pay, is healthy. We may have to jettison the public option, even though it would be helping better the system through the very force of competition that conservatives do so love. That’s fine – compromise is the American way. However, passing health care reform without universal coverage is like being the tallest midget. Or making fun of Charles in a room full of Young Dems. It misses the point.

Last comment. When will we see this chance again? It has been fifty years since LBJ and the last real movement on health care. I don’t want to see this fail and spend another fifty years being the only wealthy nation that doesn’t guarantee essential care to its citizens.

Thanks for listening

Simply cutting costs will not accomplish what all of what Obama wants, which includes what the public perceives him to want: expanding coverage to the uninsured. I agree that cutting costs is a highly important, noble goal. However, peoples’ lives are being lost because they do not have medical insurance, which is why he (and I) think it so important that we focus on expanding it. If Obama was simply interested in winning a political victory, he wouldn’t even have made the push on healthcare in the first place — with all the mess our economy is in, healthcare discussion could have fallen by the wayside. Furthermore, if the public perception is that Obama is focused on expanding healthcare, it’s very easy to spin that into a GOP political victory — “Obama wanted a public option, but our campaigning prevented Congress from passing it. Ensure that it doesn’t come close again, vote for us in 2010.” Note, it’s only possible for them to spin it because Obama put his neck out, he could have held back and there would have been no spin.

I also agree that other countries’ healthcare systems are better structured. That does not mean we cannot adopt their structures.

As far as bipartisanship goes, it’s impossible to achieve when the other side has a complete philosophical rejection of your approach. Yes, the stimulus could have been more properly vetted. But when the GOP’s position is that there should be NO stimulus, what are the Dems supposed to do? Pick the number they like and then cut it in half? That’s a poor understanding of bipartisanship, and ignoring the reality of a majority. Bipartisanship on the stimulus would be giving constructive advice about the best ways to spend the stimulus money, not simply yelling, “No stimulus!” When a whole party decides they will vote against the bill no matter what, it is much harder to vet the bill. Maybe if the GOP decided to recognize it would pass, and then offered advice, we’d be better off. They decided not to think about the bill at all.

Simply cutting costs will not accomplish what all of what Obama wants, which includes what the public perceives him to want: expanding coverage to the uninsured. I agree that cutting costs is a highly important, noble goal. However, peoples’ lives are being lost because they do not have medical insurance, which is why he (and I) think it so important that we focus on expanding it. If Obama was simply interested in winning a political victory, he wouldn’t even have made the push on healthcare in the first place — with all the mess our economy is in, healthcare discussion could have fallen by the wayside. Furthermore, if the public perception is that Obama is focused on expanding healthcare, it’s very easy to spin that into a GOP political victory — “Obama wanted a public option, but our campaigning prevented Congress from passing it. Ensure that it doesn’t come close again, vote for us in 2010.” Note, it’s only possible for them to spin it because Obama put his neck out, he could have held back and there would have been no spin.

I also agree that other countries’ healthcare systems are better structured. That does not mean we cannot adopt their structures.

As far as bipartisanship goes, it’s impossible to achieve when the other side has a complete philosophical rejection of your approach. Yes, the stimulus could have been more properly vetted. But when the GOP’s position is that there should be NO stimulus, what are the Dems supposed to do? Pick the number they like and then cut it in half? That’s a poor understanding of bipartisanship, and ignoring the reality of a majority. Bipartisanship on the stimulus would be giving constructive advice about the best ways to spend the stimulus money, not simply yelling, “No stimulus!” When a whole party decides they will vote against the bill no matter what, it is much harder to vet the bill. Maybe if the GOP decided to recognize it would pass, and then offered advice, we’d be better off. They decided not to think about the bill at all.

I don’t mind having argument with Andrew. Facts bear me out.

I don’t mind having argument with Andrew. Facts bear me out.