Dupe - please delete

[Pirate Smile]

20 Questions for Bill Killers
by Nate Silver @ 1:30 PM
Share This Content
1. Over the medium term, how many other opportunities will exist to provide in excess of $100 billion per year in public subsidies to poor and sick people?

2. Would a bill that contained $50 billion in additional subsidies for people making less than 250% of poverty be acceptable?

3. Where is the evidence that the plan, as constructed, would substantially increase insurance industry profit margins, particularly when it is funded in part via a tax on insurers?

4. Why are some of the same people who are criticizing the bill's lack of cost control also criticizing the inclusion of the excise tax, which is one of the few cost control mechanisms to have survived the process?

5. Why are some of the same people who are criticizing the bill's lack of cost control also criticizing the inclusion of the individual mandate, which is key to controlling premiums in the individual market?

6. Would concerns about the political downside to the individual mandate in fact substantially be altered if a public plan were included among the choices? Might not the Republican talking point become: "forcing you to buy government-run insurance?"

7. Roughly how many people would in fact meet ALL of the following criteria: (i) in the individual insurance market, and not eligible for Medicaid or Medicare; (ii) consider the insurance to be a bad deal, even after substantial government subsidies; (iii) are not knowingly gaming the system by waiting to buy insurance until they become sick; (iv) are not exempt from the individual mandate penalty because of low income status or other exemptions carved out by the bill?

8. How many years is it likely to be before Democrats again have (i) at least as many non-Blue Dog seats in the Congress as they do now, and (ii) a President in the White House who would not veto an ambitious health care bill?

9. If the idea is to wait for a complete meltdown of the health care system, how likely is it that our country will respond to such a crisis in a rational fashion? How have we tended to respond to such crises in the past?

10. Where is the evidence that the public option is particularly important to base voters and/or swing voters (rather than activists), as compared with other aspects of health care reform?

11. Would base voters be less likely to turn out in 2010 if no health care plan is passed at all, rather than a reasonable plan without a public option?

12. What is the approximate likelihood that a plan passed through reconciliation would be better, on balance, from a policy perspective, than a bill passed through regular order but without a public option?

13. What is the likely extent of political fallout that might result from an attempt to use the reconciliation process?

14. How certain is it that a plan passed through reconciliation would in fact receive 51 votes (when some Democrats would might have objections to the use of the process)?

15. Are there any compromises or concessions not having to do with the provision of publicly-run health programs that could still be achieved through progressive pressure?

16. What are the chances that improvements can be made around the margins of the plan -- possibly including a public option -- between 2011 and the bill's implementation in 2014?

17. What are the potential upsides and downsides to using the 2010 midterms as a referendum on the public option, with the goal of achieving a 'mandate' for a public option that could be inserted via reconciliation?

18. Was the public option ever an attainable near-term political goal?

19. How many of the arguments that you might be making against the bill would you still be making if a public option were included (but in fact have little to do with the public option)?

20. How many of the arguments that you might be making against the bill are being made out of anger, frustration, or a desire to ring Joe Lieberman by his scruffy, no-good, backstabbing neck?

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/12/20-questions-for-bill-killers.html

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

1. not usually a dupe hawk, but this is posted only about ten spots below your post

[lapfog_1]

7. Not seeing it.

Can you post a link to the first one. I'd like to put my point by point rebuttal into the record here.

[grytpype]

2. This is too complicated for the screamers.

[lapfog_1]

6. No it's not. See my post #5. - n/t

[MercutioATC]

3. "Ok, so the tires are bald, the fenders are rusty and the windshield is cracked...

...but it's better than walking and it's the only car on the lot right now. How could you even THINK of not buying it?"

[Cronus Protagonist]

4. Let's make it 21 questions - "How many seats are you willing to lose over the mandate?"

Because that WILL happen if they try to make America tithe to the insurance companies.

[lapfog_1]

5. Nate is smarter than that.

1. Over the medium term, how many other opportunities will exist to provide in excess of $100 billion per year in public subsidies to poor and sick people?

At any point in time, via reconciliation, Medicare could have funding added to it and age restrictions removed.

2. Would a bill that contained $50 billion in additional subsidies for people making less than 250% of poverty be acceptable?

Mandates suck. Nobody liked the mandate part of this bill. Why don't you do a poll and figure this out.

3. Where is the evidence that the plan, as constructed, would substantially increase insurance industry profit margins, particularly when it is funded in part via a tax on insurers?

Disingenuous Nate. Much like the old joke, they make it up in volume. This bill hands 30 million people over to the private insurance people, at profit margins that match current ones. Build volume and maintain margin is a great way to make... drumroll... MORE PROFITS. (not margins, just profits). More profits mean more bonuses and greater stock value and more money to buy politicians.

4. Why are some of the same people who are criticizing the bill's lack of cost control also criticizing the inclusion of the excise tax, which is one of the few cost control mechanisms to have survived the process?


5. Why are some of the same people who are criticizing the bill's lack of cost control also criticizing the inclusion of the individual mandate, which is key to controlling premiums in the individual market?

Because the insurance industry is an effective monopoly. The mandate does nothing to control costs. You have to believe that somehow the insurance industry would act out of the goodness of their hearts to lower rates for current rate payers because of the inclusion of new (and healthy) individuals. I think most of us are smart enough to not count on the insurance companies to do anything out of a sense of social responsibility. Obviously, Nate has never been seriously sick in his life.

6. Would concerns about the political downside to the individual mandate in fact substantially be altered if a public plan were included among the choices? Might not the Republican talking point become: "forcing you to buy government-run insurance?"

Disingenuous again. Nobody is forced to buy the government run health care, that's why it's called an option. If you are worried about the "mandate" aspect having a political downside, well, it does. It was accepted as needed in order to also have a robust public option. That was the trade off. No public option, then the Mandate is all downside.

7. Roughly how many people would in fact meet ALL of the following criteria: (i) in the individual insurance market, and not eligible for Medicaid or Medicare; (ii) consider the insurance to be a bad deal, even after substantial government subsidies; (iii) are not knowingly gaming the system by waiting to buy insurance until they become sick; (iv) are not exempt from the individual mandate penalty because of low income status or other exemptions carved out by the bill?

I have no idea. But I'm one of those. Too young for Medicare. Medicaid requires poverty, and while I'm poor right now, I don't meet the definition of poverty. I have pre-existing conditions and private insurance has been way too expensive for me. For the same reason that I don't qualify for Medicaid, I suspect I will not qualify for exemption.

But that's not the point. What does it matter how many people are in this category.


8. How many years is it likely to be before Democrats again have (i) at least as many non-Blue Dog seats in the Congress as they do now, and (ii) a President in the White House who would not veto an ambitious health care bill?

Who cares. They can't do it now. I guess they will never do it.

9. If the idea is to wait for a complete meltdown of the health care system, how likely is it that our country will respond to such a crisis in a rational fashion? How have we tended to respond to such crises in the past?

Zero. But this isn't a rational response and will do nothing to forestall the crises you are predicting. Using taxpayer money to pay off insurance companies will not save the system. Where is the cost containment?

10. Where is the evidence that the public option is particularly important to base voters and/or swing voters (rather than activists), as compared with other aspects of health care reform?

You are the pollster, you tell me. In poll after poll, the majority of people (of any party) want a public option. Actually, they want Medicare for all. They are sick and tired of fighting insurance companies. Obviously, again, you Nate, have never been seriously ill.

11. Would base voters be less likely to turn out in 2010 if no health care plan is passed at all, rather than a reasonable plan without a public option?

Count me as one that will vote for my Congress critter (a blue dog dem) if they KILL this. And, more importantly, contribute money to the Democrats around the country as I have in the past. If this passes WITH mandates and NO PUBLIC OPTION, I will be sitting on my hands. Fuck the Corporatist Dems.

12. What is the approximate likelihood that a plan passed through reconciliation would be better, on balance, from a policy perspective, than a bill passed through regular order but without a public option?

Well, the only thing that CAN be passed is to either increase (or decrease) the funding of Medicare. And the eligibility for it. You cannot pass new programs or substantial rule changes to current programs with reconciliation. Nate should know this.

13. What is the likely extent of political fallout that might result from an attempt to use the reconciliation process?

Well, nobody seemed to mind when the Repukes used it to pass their tax cuts under W. Bush was re-elected. And republicans won MORE seats in the Senate and House after the Bush tax cuts were passed (under reconciliation). So maybe this is a pure canard.

14. How certain is it that a plan passed through reconciliation would in fact receive 51 votes (when some Democrats would might have objections to the use of the process)?

Won't know until you try.

15. Are there any compromises or concessions not having to do with the provision of publicly-run health programs that could still be achieved through progressive pressure?

Yes, take out the public option, take out the mandates. Increase funding for Medicaid. Pass the rest of HCR.

16. What are the chances that improvements can be made around the margins of the plan -- possibly including a public option -- between 2011 and the bill's implementation in 2014?

ZERO. The Congress will not want to reopen this for general (non-reconciliation) discussion for probably another decade.

17. What are the potential upsides and downsides to using the 2010 midterms as a referendum on the public option, with the goal of achieving a 'mandate' for a public option that could be inserted via reconciliation?


Well, the 2010 (and likely 2012) elections are going to be a referendum on "Change we can believe in", for better or worse.

18. Was the public option ever an attainable near-term political goal?

Yes, I think it was. Who has threatened Lieberman and Baucus the way they SHOULD be threatened. They can vote on the bill however they want. But they HAVE to vote with the leadership and the caucus on procedural votes. It they don't, then they can't be chairman of committees, they can't count on Democratic funding for re-election, and they will get frozen out of anything in the future.

19. How many of the arguments that you might be making against the bill would you still be making if a public option were included (but in fact have little to do with the public option)?

I never liked the mandate. It was the compromise for having the Public Option.

20. How many of the arguments that you might be making against the bill are being made out of anger, frustration, or a desire to ring Joe Lieberman by his scruffy, no-good, backstabbing neck?

Nope. I was frustrated over the bank bailouts. I was frustrated over the lack of vision in the stimulus. I am frustrated over the lack of progress on climate change. But this one isn't just Joe Lieberman, it's the Dems and Obama. They are losing me, and I'm not a "raving lefty". I used to be called a moderate. I was an enthusiastic supported of Obama, but not to the point of being a "koolaid drinker".