Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Health Obama Says: Required Reading
Posted by Eli Sanders on Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 12:02 PM
If President Obama pronounced a blog post on health insurance reform to be a must-read, and then Rahm Emmanuel told senior White House staffers "not to come back" the next day if they hadn't read the post, would you make it your business to read the post too?
Share via
1
not unless it was something about how ramping up for the Vietnam war was a really really big mistake.
Which both Afghanistan and Iraq are.
Which both Afghanistan and Iraq are.
5
it was pretty long for a blog post. and it has no boob-cupping, which would make it way more interesting for me.
6
no coverage for abortion services, no peace
Three-quarters of American citizens want single payer national health care. It's only the old whiny white people who hate America and our President and our Government that don't. And they already HAVE socialized medicine, so kick em to the curb.
Three-quarters of American citizens want single payer national health care. It's only the old whiny white people who hate America and our President and our Government that don't. And they already HAVE socialized medicine, so kick em to the curb.
8
Gee, read about how Obama will give the insurance lobby blow jobs while fucking America by not providing us Single Payer Universal Health Care?
I'd skip it.
I'd skip it.
9
@5 Michael Jacko preferred little boy bum-shtupping, i think. better ask the rahminator, the artful dodger of loquaciousness.
10
to be quite frank, any blog post in the Atlantic tends to blow too.
Nah, no interest in that, @9. Think it's too much Cthulhoid reading.
Nah, no interest in that, @9. Think it's too much Cthulhoid reading.
11
I read it, casually. It's all economics, not health care or health care policy.
I have a serious problem with the framing of this debate in terms of "controlling costs." That really doesn't seem like it should be the primary goal of health care reform. Sorry if this sounds radical, nay, socialist, but shouldn't accessible, high-quality health care be the primary goal of health care reform? Not, you know, a cheaper health care "system"?
Bleh.
I have a serious problem with the framing of this debate in terms of "controlling costs." That really doesn't seem like it should be the primary goal of health care reform. Sorry if this sounds radical, nay, socialist, but shouldn't accessible, high-quality health care be the primary goal of health care reform? Not, you know, a cheaper health care "system"?
Bleh.
12
I read it over lunch. A worthwhile read if you're into the details of how Reid's bill plans on slowing the growth in health care costs. I'm really interested in the ideas about how to shift away from a fee-for-service model for providers and towards a model that pays more on patient outcomes/results. The post is a little light on details there (it's more of an overview of all the different tactics in the bill), but definitely worth reading.
13
@11 - Yeah, I thought it was interesting that the post didn't focus on the expansion of coverage or the public option at all. But, it's just one blog post. Maybe he wanted to write a post on the cost control aspects of it, rather than the entire issue of health care....
14
Ugh, I suffered through the entire, boring Atlantic post.
1) It took 19 paragraphs to explain why this bill is a good thing--the Dems may be even more screwed politically due to the pretzel-esque complexity of trying appease both private insurers and the public, rather than if they simply did nothing at all.
2) Anything other than single-payer is just re-arranging deck chairs on the Titantic.
1) It took 19 paragraphs to explain why this bill is a good thing--the Dems may be even more screwed politically due to the pretzel-esque complexity of trying appease both private insurers and the public, rather than if they simply did nothing at all.
2) Anything other than single-payer is just re-arranging deck chairs on the Titantic.
No one can say for certain that these initiatives will improve efficiency enough to slow the growth in health care spending... the Republican view is that the best way to hold down long-term costs is to directly expose patients to more of them.
16
Dan, you're right, it's required reading, albeit if only to help me understand a bit better the sort of group thinkey monoculture of the mind that leads our illustrious political and punditry elite to repeatedly and obstinately rally around the same bad zombie ideas over and over again. Er, maybe that wasn't completely fair of me, because there are some kernels of good ideas in this blog post that everyone seems to be reading-- but overwhelmingly what I got while reading it was a sense of, OMFG, here we go again with these same bad ideas (like "let's bend the cost curve!" or like the totally undemocratic idea of creating an independent Medicare Advisory Board that would have the power to override Congress-- is that really constitutional?-- and which board some critics on the left contend would be nothing more than a backdoor way to cut existing Medicare benefits for the elderly and poor).
And besides the deja vu of finding the same bad ideas being propounded, I'm sensing in Ambinder's post that it's the same damned bad actors doing the propounding-- actors who historically don't have much of a record of being right about anything, ever: I'm talking about people like: the centrist blogwriter himself, Marc Ambinder; and Max "I'm Such a Shitty Senator" Baucus; and the Brookings Institute; and P. Orszag (whose name not coincidentally makes me think of 'Nut sac'); and Harry "BB-sized Balls" Reid, et al.
Maybe the short of what I meant to say here is that it sure looks like Obama will only, like his predecessor, listen to people who will validate his preexisting conceptions. And none of those voices will be from anywhere left of Shitty Senator Bacus. And for that I'm not going to cut BHO any more slack than I did for GWB.
And besides the deja vu of finding the same bad ideas being propounded, I'm sensing in Ambinder's post that it's the same damned bad actors doing the propounding-- actors who historically don't have much of a record of being right about anything, ever: I'm talking about people like: the centrist blogwriter himself, Marc Ambinder; and Max "I'm Such a Shitty Senator" Baucus; and the Brookings Institute; and P. Orszag (whose name not coincidentally makes me think of 'Nut sac'); and Harry "BB-sized Balls" Reid, et al.
Maybe the short of what I meant to say here is that it sure looks like Obama will only, like his predecessor, listen to people who will validate his preexisting conceptions. And none of those voices will be from anywhere left of Shitty Senator Bacus. And for that I'm not going to cut BHO any more slack than I did for GWB.
17
And the post's comments almost instantly devolved into a slightly more literate version of the usual anti-poor, anti-"illegals," crypto-racist, anti-sanity, helping-people-is-evil, bullshit arguments.
I'm 1,000,000% in favor of single-payer, universal healthcare as a human right, and then I realize it would also cover the 50%-ish of AmeriKKKans who're un-self-aware, insane, right-wing assholes, and then suddenly I don't give a fuck anymore.
I'm 1,000,000% in favor of single-payer, universal healthcare as a human right, and then I realize it would also cover the 50%-ish of AmeriKKKans who're un-self-aware, insane, right-wing assholes, and then suddenly I don't give a fuck anymore.
18
And while I was composing my rant, @8, @11 and @14 said things I completely concur with (or maybe, they said what I was trying to say, but succinctly). Oh, and @12, your comment underscored what I was trying to say re that there are indeed some kernels of good ideas. But like kernels at the bottom of a compost pile.
19
will in seattle, are you referencing Lovecraft? cut and paste some good analysis on him and post it. Cthulu, how do you spell it? Interested?
@9 you meant 'rahminaturd'
@9 you meant 'rahminaturd'
20
@16 - Not to be pedantic, but Eli is the author of this post, and Ron Brownstein wrote the "must read" article at the Atlantic.
I'm with Original Andrew, though. It seems like we're going through an awful lot of contortions (like the public option) to get to where we want to be, in order to avoid a single payer system. The ideal for me looks something like: single payer, coverage for all, reform of the fee-for-service payment system, medical malpractice reform, reforms to address doctor supply issues (e.g., expansion of tuition reimbursement for doctors practicing in under-served areas)... It gets depressing to think about it too much, because a single payer system is obviously not going to happen any time in the near future.
I'm with Original Andrew, though. It seems like we're going through an awful lot of contortions (like the public option) to get to where we want to be, in order to avoid a single payer system. The ideal for me looks something like: single payer, coverage for all, reform of the fee-for-service payment system, medical malpractice reform, reforms to address doctor supply issues (e.g., expansion of tuition reimbursement for doctors practicing in under-served areas)... It gets depressing to think about it too much, because a single payer system is obviously not going to happen any time in the near future.
22
@16, you weren't pedantic, no, and I did realize my mistakes shortly after hitting Post, but didn't want to turn this comment chain into a bunch of my personal oopses and emendations. I think I conflated Dan and Eli because earlier today I kept trying to comment on a Dan post but the Slog kept putzing out. As for my misreading of "Ambinder," that was just sloppiness on my part.
24
A better example of Barack Hussein Obama's dictatorial tendencies will never be found.
If you don't want martial law declared by this usurper, vote GOP in 2010!
If you don't want martial law declared by this usurper, vote GOP in 2010!
27
Thanks for pointing to this, Eli. It is a good read. I'm not sure I agree with this statement, though:
"And since virtually, if not literally, none of [the Republicans] plan to support the final health care bill under any circumstances, the package isn't likely to reflect much of their thinking."
I wish that were true, but I'm sure there will be plenty in that bill to appease the Republicans by the time both houses shit it out. The statement above, though, makes me wonder why.
Oh yeah - because Democrats on the hill are pussies. If Republicans had this kind of majority, they'd... uh... Nevermind - they get everything they want now.
"And since virtually, if not literally, none of [the Republicans] plan to support the final health care bill under any circumstances, the package isn't likely to reflect much of their thinking."
I wish that were true, but I'm sure there will be plenty in that bill to appease the Republicans by the time both houses shit it out. The statement above, though, makes me wonder why.
Oh yeah - because Democrats on the hill are pussies. If Republicans had this kind of majority, they'd... uh... Nevermind - they get everything they want now.
28
And now, let's finish the job in AFGANASTAN!!! Onward to VICTORY!!!!
Oh god, if the GOP fields even a sorta competent candiate in 2012, Obama is toast.
Oh god, if the GOP fields even a sorta competent candiate in 2012, Obama is toast.
Most Commented on Slog
-
Straight Up by Dan Savage
-
Stephen Fry v. the Catholic Church by Dan Savage
-
Neologism Needed by Dan Savage
-
Palin's Cheat Sheet by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: The Toilet Brush Off by Dan Savage
-
Every Child Deserves a Mother and a Father by Dan Savage
-
Tea Party Crowd Believes That Only Good Spellers Should Vote by Dan Savage
-
How's That Hopey, Changey Stuff Working Out For Childhood Obesity? by Dan Savage
-
This Shit Will Never Get Old by Eli Sanders
-
Every Child Deserves a Mother and a Father by Dan Savage
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (28) RSS