My only question is: why insist that the coalition is nonpartisan? When I first heard "what side are you on," I thought I would be given two legitimate options. Instead, of the two choices, there was only one real answer. And then there was the strong rhetoric against conservatives and the medical industry. Not that I don't agree with it. But still. Just come out and say it: Health Care For America Now is a major progressive coalition. Also, Ezra, how does this fit into finding a politically feasible policy for health care reform? You think they are counting on sheer force or does this sound like a group that would accept compromise?

The ad is such a scam. The reasons for socializing medicalcare are all about saving money by withholding overtreatment and squeezing providers.

Yesterday's Hillhas exciting news about the GOP really going out of their way to piss off the the American Medical Association who at one point was the leading force working to stop universal health care.

It would interesting to look at how the NFIB's position on health care has changed since medical inflation has made it nearly impossible for small businesses to provide health care for their employees and continue to make a profit.

As Kirsch puts it...

Its interesting, because if the actual plan proposed is similar to the ones proposed by Clinton or Obama in this campaign, then most of the rhetoric above, which is consistent with what I've seen elsewhere from the group so far, is demonstrably untrue.

"Trust the insurance companies to fix the health care mess?" The answer? "Not on your life."

Clinton and Obama's plans do "trust the insurance companies to fix the health care mess" for the most part. There is new oversight and a proposed public option, but insurance companies remain a critical part of the equation.

Indeed, the campaign's second principle, after a "truly inclusive and accessible health care system where no one is left out," is "a choice of a private insurance plan, including keeping the insurance you have if you like it, or a public insurance plan without a private insurer middleman."

As proposed under the Obama/Clinton plans, a public option won't be a choice for everyone. Just those whose current employers don't provide current health care coverage, and would prefer to pay a tax/fee rather than provide insurance. The option described above would only be possible if employers were required to offer the public option to their employees.

In short, they are touting the benefits of a plan that isn't being offered. Perhaps the actual legislation in 2009 will be more consistent with their claims, perhaps that is their goal to make it so-- but that pretty much requires single-payer as the proposal. Any proposal reasonably approximating the plans from the primary campaign is inconsistent with their advertising.

In short, they are touting the benefits of a plan that isn't being offered.

Just as the industry lobbies in 1994 touted the flaws of a plan that wasn't being offered.

If healthcare reform goes to Congress next year, there needs to pressure from the left as well as the right.

Wisewon: You're wrong on the Clinton/Obama plans. Employers can buy into the menu, yes, but so can individuals. If you wanted to buy into the federal pool and the public option, you could. It's open to everyone.

It's open to everyone.

Ezra,

Of course if people want to buy-in to the plan, they could. I was pointing out that individuals who "choose" the public option would be giving up free/subsidized private insurance from their employers, so that they could pay for the public option on their own. To the tune of $10K or so. That isn't a "choice" for most people. So yes, there are some people who currently have individual plans that would now have choice, but the majority of people with employer-based plans wouldn't have a real choice. So my primary point stands-- many people wouldn't have a choice under the Obama/Clinton plan, contrary to what the group implies.

Just as the industry lobbies in 1994 touted the flaws of a plan that wasn't being offered.

I almost made this point in my earlier post. You can argue that its great politics, it very likely is. But it isn't true. I'm just making the distinction between the two.

ah back in 1994. So labor was mad and AARP assumed something would pass and was being a narrow minded interest group. But why were the business roundtable, the national chamber of commerce and the national association of manufacturers opposed ?

The plan was designed to help big business second most (after helping the uninsured). If it had passed, GM wouldn't be risking bankruptcy. Did ideology trump the shareholders' interests ? I wouldn't be amazed given how dumb and entrenched management is and how even lobbyists have opinions.

However, I think it had to do with the genius of Ira Magaziner who knew how to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. He is a management consultant and has that unique stereotypical management consultant's ability to get on peoples nerves (the only management consultant who I know personally is a wonderful person).

He decided to tell all the human resources managers in the USA that he could do their job way better than they could (stereotypical management consultant). Thus he would save their firms money by forcing them to join his "alliances" which would do a better job of getting good deals from health insurers that the incompetents who had worked on that all their lives.

CEO's will ask human resource managers to judge the plan. Few said, "sure Ira Magaziner is smarter than I am and, besides he has the coercive power of the state on his side working for efficiency. Go for it."

Working the odds, you have to consider the Magaziner effect (try asking Obama's chief health care advisor David Cutler about Magaziner).

By the way, I agree with you that the huge problem with the Obama plan is the lack of an individual adult mandate. We have some odd company which I bet you didn't see in your magic 8 ball.

http://www.greenchange.org/article.php?id=2875

"

Obama's surrogate [Dr. Kavita Patel] made her comments Wednesday while representing him at a National Journal health-policy forum moderated by Ron Brownstein, the political director of Atlantic Media.

Patel's individual mandate remarks were made in response to an insurance industry leader suggesting at the same forum that insurers will oppose Obama's plan as currently structured. Insurers are worried that the Illinois Democrat has not tied an individual mandate to "guaranteed issue," the industry's term for requiring patients to be covered without regard to pre-existing conditions.

"We've had the conversation about . . . guaranteed issue," said Karen Ignagni, the president and CEO of America's Health Insurance Plans. "But we are prepared to have that conversation in the insurance industry if the politicians are ready to stand up and say we are going to get everyone in."

Ignagni's words are watched closely because the organization she heads emerged from the Health Insurance Association of America, sponsors of the "Harry and Louise" ads which played a critical role in killing Clinton's effort to reform health-care in the 1990s"

I didn't see that coming, but I should have. Obama's plan has the part consumers like but has the problem that it would bankrupt the health insurance industry. Hmmm what if his plan was to terrify them into accepting universal health insurance with he public sector allowed to compete ? Current proposal sounds lovely. It would make it advantageous to the young and healthy to wait till they get sick to get insurance. The problem is that it could cause the industry to enter a death spiral.

But it sounds lovely. Do you want to bet your industry on your ability to stop the 46 year old African American major party nominee whose middle name is Hussein and who beat the police and the newly elected Democratic governor in a *unanimous* Illinois senate vote ? Better to deal I'd say.

I don't know if his is just brilliant or is also blessed.

for it to be non partisan would imply that both sides are treating the issues seriously doesn't it? I suppose if one wants the illusion or more likely cover that both parties are, then sure, but if not, then what would be the point?

Their use of the language "Health care for all in America" is interesting. Seems to be intentionally distinct from "Health care for all Americans."

Is it possible that what appears to be one of the smartest political coalitions in a long time has been stupid enough to leave the window open for this to become a debate about health care for undocumented immigrants?

I just hope they don't fuck this up. I'm 41, I'm losing my job, and I have pre-existing conditions. I have 36 months of COBRA coverage. After that, the mystery of the unknown.

The embed link seems to be broken. I think I found the video at http://youtube.com/watch?v=tirU5qpmFK4

Trust the insurance companies? Better than trusting the doctors. Having doctors design health reform is like having Exxon design energy policy. Too often, health reform discussions deliberately leave out insurers, who at least have experience in the effects of changing different parts of the system, but (as Clinton did) bring the ones who receive the most financial benefit, the health care providers. Uwe Reinhardt's Health Affairs article of a few years ago, "It's the Prices, Stupid!" is worth the read. At least insurers engage in open price competition, seeking the lowers prices they can get from providers to allow the insurers to have lower rates. While neither all health insurers nor all doctors are opposed to universal health insurance, history tells us that it was the AMA that has been the primary obstacle in developing universal health coverage: it was the case in the 1930's, it was the case in the 1940's, and it continues to be a significant factor.