Robert Reich on What It All Means...

[WilliamPitt]

The Final Health Care Vote and What it Really Means
By Robert Reich - March 22, 2010, 9:35AM

It's not nearly as momentous as the passage of Medicare in 1965 and won't fundamentally alter how Americans think about social safety nets. But the likely passage of Obama's health care reform bill is the biggest thing Congress has done in decades, and has enormous political significance for the future.

Medicare directly changed the life of every senior in America, giving them health security and dramatically reducing their rates of poverty. By contrast, most Americans won't be affected by Obama's health care legislation. Most of us will continue to receive health insurance through our employers. (Only a comparatively small minority will be required to buy insurance who don't want it, or be subsidized in order to afford it. Only a relatively few companies will be required to provide it who don't now.) Medicare built on Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal notion of government as insurer, with citizens making payments to government, and government paying out benefits. That was the central idea of Social Security, and Medicare piggybacked on Social Security.

Obama's legislation comes from an alternative idea, begun under the Eisenhower administration and developed under Nixon, of a market for health care based on private insurers and employers. Eisenhower locked in the tax break for employee health benefits; Nixon pushed prepaid, competing health plans, and urged a requirement that employers cover their employees. Obama applies Nixon's idea and takes it a step further by requiring all Americans to carry health insurance, and giving subsidies to those who need it.

So don't believe anyone who says Obama's health care legislation marks a swing of the pendulum back toward the Great Society and the New Deal. Obama's health bill is a very conservative piece of legislation, building on a Republican rather than a New Deal foundation. The New Deal foundation would have offered Medicare to all Americans or, at the very least, featured a public insurance option. The significance of Obama's health legislation is more political than substantive. For the first time since Ronald Reagan told America government is the problem, Obama's health bill reasserts that government can provide a major solution. In political terms, that's a very big deal.

The rest: http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/03/22/the_final_health_care_vote_and_what_it_really_mean/?ref=fpblg

[pattmarty]

1. Thank you Robt Reich, for again telling the truth. This IS NOT............

............utopian healthcare "reform".

[nightrain]

2. nor one based on traditional Democratic principles and values.

It's a Republican trojan horse.

[pattmarty]

3. Agree. It IS NOT in the tradition of SS or Medicare.

[AllyCat]

6. And HCR supporters all say "we know it isn't perfect, but it's a start"

I agree with the other poster here that this is a Republican trojan horse. They fought this because it offered a few protections, mostly for kids. They all know full well that in four years when the other provisions are supposed to "help" the needy, they will have it all changed. The passage of this bill reasserts who is in charge: big business.

[ProSense]

4. Don't buy it. The Clinton era people are having trouble dealing with this.

So don't believe anyone who says Obama's health care legislation marks a swing of the pendulum back toward the Great Society and the New Deal. Obama's health bill is a very conservative piece of legislation, building on a Republican rather than a New Deal foundation. The New Deal foundation would have offered Medicare to all Americans or, at the very least, featured a public insurance option.

The significance of Obama's health legislation is more political than substantive. For the first time since Ronald Reagan told America government is the problem, Obama's health bill reasserts that government can provide a major solution. In political terms, that's a very big deal.

First, a non-profit plan is a wholly unique concept in the plan. Furthermore it strengthens Medicare and expands Medicaid, and increases funding and builds more community health centers.

Not only does this plan makes it possible for a public option to follow, it also introduces federal funding for state single payer plans. When a state like California goes single payer, this is the foundation for a New Deal.

[AllyCat]

7. What non-profit plan? The "exchange" that starts in enough years

that the Cons can get rid of it? Great for kids. Not sure I see where community health center numbers will increase, just some funding to them which is good. The rest of it entrenches that insurance holds the reins. Public option might follow if we all get behind Grayson's bill. But there is no framework here to make things better for us. They won't touch this again with a 39 1/2 foot pole.

[ProSense]

8. Here

details

[amborin]

12. LOL more White House talking points

as usual

Robert Reich, gives a truthful, incisive analysis

[eyepaddle]

17. I don't think he is as down on the bill as you imply

From Mr Reich...

"We will not return to the New Deal or the Great Society, but nor will we continue to wallow in the increasingly obsolete Reagan view that we don't need a strong and competent government. Today's vote confirms our hope that we can have both strength and competence in Washington. It is an audacious hope, but we have no choice."

I read that as a refutation that this is "Socialism" as much as a criticism of the bill--that and the fact that it passed may portend well for our future.

[amborin]

26. he disabuses the mesmerized

that this is any kind of 'great society' or progressive bill

it's a conservative bill and big pharma LOVES it

[bigtree]

13. exactly

the premise of Reich would be correct if the process ended* with the passage of the Senate bill. It's not the Democrats plan to just sit on this one victory. It's a 'step' in the right direction; toward that public option that he correctly faults this bill for neglecting. There's actually a good deal of time to whip something up before the midterms. The 'political' achievement helps in that regard. It's about time we actually moved the ball forward, and I think voters will recognize that accomplishment from Democrats. Reich sounds like sour grapes. He contradicts himself by acknowledging the continuation of the process, however grudgingly.

[Gormy Cuss]

15. Reich is correct. It's not a swing back towards the Great Society or New Deal.

Without diminishing the fact that this bill will benefit many people it's still a very modest change compared to single payer and if you think CA will go to single payer anytime soon, I have a bridge to sell you.

[laughingliberal]

16. Blue Cross already has several non profit plans in some states

Their premiums are not lower than the for profit plans.

If a public option follows, that will be great. Time to get to work on them to make that happen.

[ProSense]

21. Blue Cross is not a non-profit. Not only that, it's not

administered by the government.

[laughingliberal]

25. There are non-profit divisions of Blue Cross. It's a big company with a lot of different plans in

different states.

I didn't say they were administered by the government. AFAICS, neither will the non-profit plans in the exchanges be administered by the government. These are not a substitute for a public option which would be administered by the government despite Jay Rockerfeller trying to pass them off that way as his justification for not supporting PO by reconciliation.

[progressoid]

5. "Obama's health bill is a very conservative piece of legislation"

No shit? Some of us have been saying that for months. But apparently, it's more important to beat the other guys. Never mind that the bill is a "a very conservative piece of legislation".

We win! Woohoo! :sarcasm:

[MarjorieG]

9. Best we could get in conservative, media-driven, down economic times. And public-private the way

countries are going now. The exchange will allow for a strong public option when possible. Obama said this isn't radical change, but a major change, which is why he thought this would pass last year. What many here thought as compromised deals from partners were really their necessary concessions to get this through.

A shifting away from employer-based is a good thing, giving business a chance to be competitive and employees some independence.

All of this sets the stage for positive change, if the GOP doesn't continually use HCR as a perpetual cudgel.

[pattmarty]

10. It blows. If you want a good "private" plan copy the way the................

..............Swiss did it in 94. This institutionalizes privatization into our healthcare system with no cost controls, exchanges or not.

[BeFree]

14. Yeah

Y'know, I am beginning to understand why Rahm said what he did. And I am no fan of his.

The politics of this whole thing is incredible. It passed by just 3 votes!!

DC is one messed up place and, sadly, it reflects the republic all too well.
But by gawd, the Dems have finally crashed the gate and have an inside track.
Sadly, that is about all we can expect for now. So all those who want more (me too!) have our work cut out for us. At least we know we have a party that can fight and win. And we have a president that can get something done. No, Obama is no dictator, but he can play the game... and win!!

[laughingliberal]

18. Other countries with public-private partnerships have HIGHLY regulated

the industry without loopholes to allow the insurers to dodge the regs.

We will try very hard to move the legislation left.

[MarjorieG]

22. Agreed, a tough road ahead for necessary cost controls, regulations.

[amborin]

11. K&R Reich is brilliant and incisive! a Republican bill is what Americans got

why else did David Brooks of ny times (formerly of weekly standard) praise it?

[berni_mccoy]

19. To all who are only reading that this is a Republican bill, you missed a key point of Reich's

We will not return to the New Deal or the Great Society, but nor will we continue to wallow in the increasingly obsolete Reagan view that we don't need a strong and competent government. Today's vote confirms our hope that we can have both strength and competence in Washington. It is an audacious hope, but we have no choice.

It's neither left, nor right. It's a solution that works. And this will restore hope in government and dispel the insane rw-meme that has permeated even the left: that government is evil.

[Romulox]

20. It's a triangulated piece of garbage. nt

[optimator]

24. the merger of corporations and government

is evil.

[pundaint]

31. Works is such a vague thing. If we define work as move us toward a world-standard

set of benefits - well not it doesn't. If we define work as ending health-related bankruptcies - well not. If it means that it moves America toward the world standard that private parties do not profit because people get sick - no that still happens. If it means that there is some actual rules attenuating the upwards cost spiral of healthcare - no, not at all.

If works means entrenching the unique aspect of American healthcare differentiating it from the World standard, and guaranteeing second-class care for all Americans - the profit motive for denying treatment - it works brilliantly.

[divvy]

23. Too bad our leadership is too lame to carry this ball.

There are so many simple and effective responses to the GOP obstruction machines propaganda. It makes me ill that our leadership is so vain and prideful to think that it does not deserve a response. If we follow the play nice, just ignore the liars and they will go away strategy, we will fail.

[upi402]

27. Reich touted NAFTA, I ignore him

until he starts some kind of movement to undo his Clinton/Gore DLC NAFTA, he has nothing for me.

[amborin]

29. he has pointed out, however, that the jobs are going to China, not Mexico

[Scurrilous]

28. K & R

:thumbsup:

[sulphurdunn]

30. Please correct me if I'm wrong,

but this poor excuse for a HCR bill is virtually the only social legislation to pass Congress since 1980. Its primary value may have less to do with insurance than with organizing. It may be a crack in the corporate dike. If the final goal is Medicare for all (why not? We all pay for it), then grass roots progressive organizing needs to use it as an organizing tool, a litmus test for political support and a million pound shit hammer descending on the block head Congress during every congressional session from now on until single payer passes.