House Democrat: Senate public option “compromise” is a total victory for fans of … single-payer
posted at 9:43 pm on December 9, 2009 by Allahpundit
No wonder The One digs it.
Obama hailed “a creative new framework that I believe will help pave the way for final passage of legislation and a historic achievement for the American people.” He said, “I support this effort, especially since it’s aimed at increasing choice and competition and lowering cost.”
A provision opening Medicare to uninsured Americans between the ages of 55 and 64 drew praise from some liberals.
Rep. Anthony Weiner, D-N.Y., called it “an unvarnished, complete victory for people like me who have been arguing for a single-payer system.”
He told another newspaper that it might “get us on the path to a single payer model.” And guess what? He’s right. Philip Klein:
[E]xpanding Medicare would go further to advance the original aims of liberals than the watered down version of the public option. By definition, the Medicare option (which would eventually be offered on the exchange to those over 55) would set reimbursement rates at Medicare levels, thus putting the squeeze on doctors and offering lower premiums that would make it more difficult for private insurers to compete. As with the public option, liberals will try to argue that the Medicare expansion will be funded by the premiums it collects, but it will benefit from the taxpayer-funded infastructure that is already in place to support Medicare — not to mention potential subsidies down the road…
For liberals who view a single-payer, or government-run, health care system as ideal (and that list begins with President Obama), the goal of health care legislation was to move the nation as far as they could in that direction, knowing that the best way to achieve their goal over time was by building on the current system with which people are familiar.
If Democrats unite behind this “compromise” and the broader legislation becomes law, liberals will have largely succeeded. The legislation already expands Medicaid and S-CHIP by 15 million people and coupled with the Medicare expansion, most newly covered Americans would simply be added to the rolls of existing government-run programs. Millions more would be using government subsidies to purchase government-designed insurance policies on a government-run exchange. And the rest of the system would be subject to so many taxes, penalties, and mandates that it wouldn’t resemble a private market in any meaningful sense of the word.
The Mayo Clinic, which Obama once touted as a model for delivering excellent health care at lower costs, hates the Senate compromise because even they can’t make costs low enough to make Medicare viable. They lost $840 million last year on the program; expanding it, they note, would be “unsustainable” and “disastrous.” Which we already knew given the projections about the program’s inevitable bankruptcy, but it can’t hurt having experts remind the Senate of it. The question now: Does Reid have the votes? Thune and Bob Bennett both predict that Snowe won’t go for it and that Reid will have to face a united GOP caucus. That leaves him needing 60 from his own side, but Landrieu and Lincoln are already insisting that no deal’s been struck and Lieberman’s been adamant in opposing any system that could lead to single-payer. Between Nelson, Lincoln, Lieberman, Bayh, and Pryor, figure right now the Dems are probably still two votes short.
Exit question: If the compromise is a relatively sweet deal for the left, why are nutroots activists opposing it? Would they really rather have an age-unlimited public option that a Medicare expansion that might lead to the progressive dream of single-payer?
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 3 4 5 6 Next »
You made fun of his moniker and I called you on. I did not jump down your throat. Perhaps if you treated others with the sensitivity you demand for yourself, then you wouldn’t get called on your behavior.
Laura in Maryland on December 10, 2009 at 1:06 AM
No, I did not. I pointed out that his pushing any universal truths or axioms on the internet while going by the name of meathead is a tad ridiculous.
alliebobbitt on December 10, 2009 at 1:11 AM
And I don’t demand any sensitivity from anyone. I just said you ain’t all that pure yourself, so spare me your lectures.
alliebobbitt on December 10, 2009 at 1:13 AM
Yep. Don’t disagree. That’s what I posted above.
Well, you usually can’t prove an axiom – kind of defeats the purpose. So you ASSUME the statement of the axiom is true. You can also assume the negation is true and make the negation of your axiom an axiom so long as you discard the original axiom.
I didn’t say it’s the same, but I did give a detailed explanation as to how an axiom and faith are closer than you (in less than one sentence) claim they are – not that the length of a valid argument means anything.
You may be right about me assuming too many things, but you are most likely wrong given the empirical evidence that I have seen you give us all tonight.
And now you go on to contradict yourself in just one post.
versus
True, there may have been some philosophical arguments, but the Founders made clear that they were not going to debate the the validity of their truths. They accepted them to be true without proof because, IT WAS SELF-EVIDENT.
In the end though, does this discussion matter? From everything I have seen, you are not capable of
1) comprehending posts
2) acting anything near civil
3) making a valid, rational argument
So what’s the point in continuing this discussion? I’m not budging from my position and you aren’t either.
MeatHeadinCA on December 10, 2009 at 1:13 AM
Well I probably wouldn’t be either. But people grieve in different ways, I guess. I don’t know Ernesto well, he’s young and he’s scared. And I know all about being scared when they told me I was going blind, can’t drive anymore and having to depend on people for just simple things.
Thank God for PeaPod.
Knucklehead on December 10, 2009 at 1:13 AM
Knucklehead on December 10, 2009 at 12:52 AM
Totally agree. 2 weeks is too short a time to go through all the medical paperwork, insurance paperwork, figure out their current medical insurance, figure out if you need to sell the house etc etc- and what they might need to sell the house for to pay off any medical bills.
IMO Ernesto was just saying that if Medicare was available for his mother that it would help in the short term in taking a burden off his mind. What he hasn’t come to realize is that the burden off his mind today, mulitplied by everyone else’s burden’s being lifted off their mind’s today and tomorrow is going to be not only a burden, but the bibical grinding stone around our necks as we are tossed into a sea of debt.
What would help Ernesto is if someone on HA knew a great, cheap insurance policy that his mom and brother could afford? or if the area he is living in at the county/ city/village level has a support network ie financial planners that help people in this situation. And he is going to need it soon because tax prep season is almost upon us.
Ernesto, my condolences to you and your family. Know that many young men and women your age have battled this same battle and have come out on top. Don’t give up. And if you are doing pot- give it up, it won’t help.
journeyintothewhirlwind on December 10, 2009 at 1:14 AM
Exactly.
If Ernesto lost his father recently, all our sympathies are with him and his family. There is no dispute about that.
However, Ernesto is not a “valued member” here at HA. He has been much of a troll.
So why would he bring his family issues here?
He brings up the fact that his father, who once provided his family with upwards of 200K income, has died. Why didn’t his father provide for his widow? Life insurance?
The excuse of “he had an issue that the life insurance didn’t cover” is flimsy, at best.
Something isn’t right here.
Intrepid on December 10, 2009 at 1:15 AM
Sad the irony of my moniker is lost on you… I bet Laura gets it, right?
MeatHeadinCA on December 10, 2009 at 1:16 AM
I’ll say this – Ernesto has a way of derailing a thread, indeed.
Intrepid on December 10, 2009 at 1:17 AM
Hey, you might be right about Ernesto trolling… we just don’t know. He could be some old man hiding in a basement next to a sump pump…
MeatHeadinCA on December 10, 2009 at 1:19 AM
ON TOPIC:
I’m hoping that the health care “compromise” will fail, like a stone tossed into a pond.
Intrepid on December 10, 2009 at 1:19 AM
It is nothing remotely similar to what you posted. An axiom is not faith or an assumption. You have no idea what you’re talking about.
You’re damned straight there were philosophical differences. They went to war. That was why the spelled out their own personal truths, not axioms. WE hold these truths to be self-evident. NOT YOU.
You persisted every time I told you to drop it. Once again, it’s you not me.
alliebobbitt on December 10, 2009 at 1:20 AM
Fair enough, oh and, allie… where did you learn about axioms again? The wiki page? It’s kind of my profession, sooooo…
MeatHeadinCA on December 10, 2009 at 1:22 AM
“ThackerAgency” a member here, is an insurance agent. If you click on his name, it takes your right to his company.
Knucklehead on December 10, 2009 at 1:23 AM
alliebobbitt on December 10, 2009 at 1:25 AM
You misused the word. And the wiki page was about the word empirical.
alliebobbitt on December 10, 2009 at 1:27 AM
Yep. I’ve also heard that Knucklehead is pretty smart too.
Laura in Maryland on December 10, 2009 at 1:30 AM
Yes, the wiki page that you initially linked to and then claimed showed, what was it, Science doesn’t accept empirical evidence was, well, a wiki page.
I was just asking you where you learned about axioms. Wikipedia? A course/book on logic? Your parents? I don’t know. Where?
MeatHeadinCA on December 10, 2009 at 1:30 AM
Pfft… who would chose the moniker Knucklehead? Must be a sonny boy!
MeatHeadinCA on December 10, 2009 at 1:31 AM
Maybe Alanis Morisette.
alliebobbitt on December 10, 2009 at 1:31 AM
Well, I don’t think Alanis Morisette posts here, but hey, maybe even she’d get it…
MeatHeadinCA on December 10, 2009 at 1:33 AM
+10
There is also a rumor that Bishop isn’t an ordained member of the clergy, and AllahPundit isn’t actually a diety…
*GASP*
Laura in Maryland on December 10, 2009 at 1:36 AM
Bishop isn’t an ordained clergyman??? OMG!!! I wonder what his angle is… I might have to ratchet up my twitter privacy settings in case he finds me…
MeatHeadinCA on December 10, 2009 at 1:38 AM
Real scientific theories must be falsifiable. They must be capable of being modified based on new evidence. So-called “theories” based on religion, such as creationism or intelligent design are, therefore, not scientific theories. They are not falsifiable, they don’t depend on new evidence, and they do not follow the scientific method.
That’s not from Wikipedia. Or my parents. My mother worked as a medical librarian while she raised me, and my father and stepfather work in science.
You said, “Fair enough.”
alliebobbitt on December 10, 2009 at 1:39 AM
If you have read any of the lefty blogs this year, you will see that this is more or less a religious issue for them. They want a public option FOR THEMSELVES, not for the near-elderly or the near-poor, and they think Obama owes it to them. Most of them are younger people who are uninsured by choice and want the rest of us to subsidize their health insurance so they can keep their crappy left-wing activist jobs. Gradually working toward single-payer won’t help them.
rockmom on December 10, 2009 at 1:40 AM
Oh for crying out loud, you make him sound like one of those Nigerian scammers or something like that. And to be honest, I don’t think those are your words but a copy and paste job from somewhere else.
Knucklehead on December 10, 2009 at 1:41 AM
Uh… that doesn’t answer where you learned about axioms…
“Fair enough” = Oh, true, I did say that it was pointless to really continue arguing with you. Just to clarify.
MeatHeadinCA on December 10, 2009 at 1:43 AM
But I’m sure Bishop is a Satanist, as the law of irony dictates. It’s an axiom.
alliebobbitt on December 10, 2009 at 1:44 AM
Yes, he probably is… I heard Bishop burns pigs on an alter and reads Ayn Rand.
MeatHeadinCA on December 10, 2009 at 1:46 AM
And you might want to reconsider getting rid of that nothing picture over there too. It scares me and overloads my brain cells.
Knucklehead on December 10, 2009 at 1:47 AM
You brought up my parents. I just thought you should know that I’ve lived with people who understand axioms better than you. Where I learned what the word axiom means is neither here nor there. You still got it wrong.
alliebobbitt on December 10, 2009 at 1:49 AM
Oh, don’t make me…
I’m a proud elephant…
Oh wait… http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x93/sonicspikesalbum/GOPDinosaur.jpg Must be something I picked up from Grahamsy
MeatHeadinCA on December 10, 2009 at 1:49 AM
I bet you meant altar with two A’s.
alliebobbitt on December 10, 2009 at 1:50 AM
Perhaps your parents know what an axiom is… perhaps they don’t. I don’t know. You sure don’t seem to know what they are.
MeatHeadinCA on December 10, 2009 at 1:50 AM
I did.
MeatHeadinCA on December 10, 2009 at 1:50 AM
It’s been linked to this site by the admins in its own thread.
alliebobbitt on December 10, 2009 at 1:51 AM
You were the one who misused the word, as surely as you misspelled altar.
alliebobbitt on December 10, 2009 at 1:52 AM
AP is correct. This is a complete trojan horse for single payer. Heck by definition it IS single payer.
voxpopuli on December 10, 2009 at 1:53 AM
No, I misspelled “altar.” I didn’t misuse the word. Want me to tell you where I learned about axioms?
MeatHeadinCA on December 10, 2009 at 1:54 AM
“Incontheevable!”
Paging Enigo Montoya!
Laura in Maryland on December 10, 2009 at 1:55 AM
Even Lieberman said so, including that he had evidence.
Laura in Maryland on December 10, 2009 at 1:56 AM
*storming away angrily!*
Wack job!!!
MeatHeadinCA on December 10, 2009 at 1:57 AM
Oh … yes… we should get back on topic. Good call. Uh, yeah, boo single payer, but Rush was right… Why didn’t the Republicans use more parliamentary procedures to stop this???
MeatHeadinCA on December 10, 2009 at 1:58 AM
This explains much about your hatred for real Americans.
voxpopuli on December 10, 2009 at 1:58 AM
OMG woman go to bed. You are on system overload.
Knucklehead on December 10, 2009 at 2:00 AM
I think I’ll turn in too. It is quite late for those of us who aren’t in CA.
Laura in Maryland on December 10, 2009 at 2:00 AM
Seems as though this was a spicy thread this evening. Everything from family grief and the expectation of public benefits to empirical evidence and axioms.
Hey, Meathead, I “get” your moniker as well.
As for medicare as a path to a single payer system, well yes it is, and that revelation merits a resounding duh. It’s just another imbecilic liberal strategy that has absolutely zero chance of benefitting anyone. Planning to slash medicare funding while simultaneously proposing to increase the rolls of insured provides me with all the empirical evidence I need to conclude that my former party is odiously grotesque.
anXdem on December 10, 2009 at 2:00 AM
It was a very short sentence. I’m stunned that you screwed that up, too.
Where did you learn that faith is an axiom? Or that an axiom is an assumption? Or that your notion of compassion is a universal truth? Or any of the inane statements you have made and persist in making? Seriously, stop.
alliebobbitt on December 10, 2009 at 2:01 AM
Hehe
I just wish me lady Ann would… ;-)
Heated indeed. I’m about ready to follow that foxy thing Laura out of this mess… You are in charge now.
MeatHeadinCA on December 10, 2009 at 2:01 AM
You’re a Rob Reiner fan?
alliebobbitt on December 10, 2009 at 2:03 AM
I’m a mathematician (8 years in the training). That answers the where as far as you need to know. I have faith, so…
MeatHeadinCA on December 10, 2009 at 2:03 AM
Really? I am the missing link after all…
MeatHeadinCA on December 10, 2009 at 2:04 AM
Weirdo.
alliebobbitt on December 10, 2009 at 2:04 AM
Me too. We got alot of rain here yesterday, my basement flooded. I need to go tinker with my sump pump before I turn in.
Knucklehead on December 10, 2009 at 2:05 AM
I know… Like I said, I have low standards, just not quite as low as you.
MeatHeadinCA on December 10, 2009 at 2:06 AM
And where do you live again? Did you ever tell me, or did you just allude that it was somewhere in the United States?
MeatHeadinCA on December 10, 2009 at 2:06 AM
That doesn’t give you the right to make up your own definitions.
alliebobbitt on December 10, 2009 at 2:07 AM
No, it just suggests that I might be more familiar with the definition that you the, what again?
MeatHeadinCA on December 10, 2009 at 2:08 AM
You’re leaving before telling me what the big deal is with Ann? What’s with all the hoopla that both you and Liam share about her? How has the captivating Ms. AnninCA so mesmerized? Isn’t she a concern troll?
anXdem on December 10, 2009 at 2:08 AM
Talk to me about your standards when I proposition you. Otherwise, troll away with your dingbat “lady” and “foxy” Laura.
alliebobbitt on December 10, 2009 at 2:08 AM
*than
MeatHeadinCA on December 10, 2009 at 2:09 AM
That’s top secret, but it’s dark and cold and I have no mittens.
Knucklehead on December 10, 2009 at 2:09 AM
Ann a concern troll??? NO!!! Seriously? ;-)
I have heard about this legendary Liam… Is it “Princess” that he calls her. Fine, she’ll be “me lady.” Ruff!!
MeatHeadinCA on December 10, 2009 at 2:10 AM
No mittens and no love, remember? ;-)
MeatHeadinCA on December 10, 2009 at 2:11 AM
The definitions of an axiom you gave throughout this thread were wrong.
alliebobbitt on December 10, 2009 at 2:11 AM
Eh, me lady has it coming, but foxy Laura… no, she’s a saint and a looker from what I hear…
MeatHeadinCA on December 10, 2009 at 2:13 AM
No, they weren’t. In fact, they actually agreed with your initial definitions.
MeatHeadinCA on December 10, 2009 at 2:13 AM
What definition did Meathead provide, allie? Just curious.
anXdem on December 10, 2009 at 2:14 AM
@anXdem
Here… copied from beloved wiki itself.
MeatHeadinCA on December 10, 2009 at 2:15 AM
He once asked her to meet him off the HA site. Alas, she rebuffed him.
anXdem on December 10, 2009 at 2:17 AM
Oh gosh… the man must be out of his mind – this is me being serious, completely serious.
MeatHeadinCA on December 10, 2009 at 2:19 AM
Correct. An axiom is also an established principle derived from a decided truth.
anXdem on December 10, 2009 at 2:21 AM
My argument was that given that we don’t prove axioms, they are assumptions made. Sure, there is this connotation that an assumption is bad, but one must make assumptions or leaps of faith to get anywhere given that if one’s axioms are the empty set, one can prove anything.
MeatHeadinCA on December 10, 2009 at 2:23 AM
You forget, my learned friend, that I was posting on the same thread one evening when you too seemed profoundly interested in the CA temptress. LOL
anXdem on December 10, 2009 at 2:25 AM
Yes, I did *seem* quite interested didn’t I? ;-)
MeatHeadinCA on December 10, 2009 at 2:26 AM
Or disprove anything.
anXdem on December 10, 2009 at 2:27 AM
Exactly.
MeatHeadinCA on December 10, 2009 at 2:28 AM
OK, @anXdem, now that we seem to agree with that, do you find it outrageous that I believe our founders held their own axioms? Perhaps their “self-evident” truths? Sure, one can say that some of these truths had been discussed and debated in Europe previously, but I’m not sure if a proof of their truth can be given that isn’t dependent on equivalent axioms.
MeatHeadinCA on December 10, 2009 at 2:30 AM
What’s fascinating to me is all the insider nuances, and mind games on this site.
anXdem on December 10, 2009 at 2:31 AM
Hmmm… I guess when you meet with mostly anonymous people on a heated forum like HA, you don’t know what to expect.
MeatHeadinCA on December 10, 2009 at 2:32 AM
alliebobbitt on December 10, 2009 at 2:34 AM
Yes, everything ending in “MeatHeadinCA” is my work.
MeatHeadinCA on December 10, 2009 at 2:35 AM
Forgive my delayed responses– I never took typing in HS, but managed, as a professor, to write a four hundred page textbook at breakneck academic speed.
Yes, I do agree that our constitutional framers did hold certain axioms to be both true, self-evident, and absolute. And, for the most part, I think most of them still are.
anXdem on December 10, 2009 at 2:36 AM
I tend to find them all self-evident and true. I’m not sure I could give you a proof independent of some initial assumption.
MeatHeadinCA on December 10, 2009 at 2:37 AM
The cover of anonymity creates the conditions for amusing interactions, but when someone raises the stakes, everything changes.
I feel for Liam. He honestly believes he can convert/transform Ann. What he fails to realize is that she’s the magician– a mythological trickster.
anXdem on December 10, 2009 at 2:43 AM
For me, the proof is experiential. Our founding principles (axioms) have worked extraordinarily well for over 230 years.
anXdem on December 10, 2009 at 2:45 AM
Proof – by many standards, but not a proof that holds up to more rigorous standards (which may or may not be unfortunate). I would say though that the experiential part validates these truths.
MeatHeadinCA on December 10, 2009 at 2:49 AM
Of Weasels and Men
Kini on December 10, 2009 at 2:49 AM
The Founders were consumed with determining the rights of the individual, not universal truths. America was meant to be exceptional from its founding.
So, that’s a start. You have said that an axiom is faith. Not true or even close.
As a mathematician, you use an axiom as a starting point. But you are not “assuming” something about some entity outside of the system, that might really be true or false; rather, you are “assuming” something only in the sense of deciding what it is that our system is about. So, there is no leap of faith. You are operating on something that fits into a context, supported by other factors that you can observe.
You cannot make assumptions about a universal truth as an individual. Our Founders did not make assumptions about others, they made a Declaration of Independence that they were prepared to defend. You’re totally wrong still.
alliebobbitt on December 10, 2009 at 2:51 AM
And as Ben Franklin pointed out, “When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.”
alliebobbitt on December 10, 2009 at 2:53 AM
Uh… the right of the individual WAS their universal truth, and no, they didn’t just pull these ideas from thin air.
Actually, I never said that. I said that the two are similar.
Yes, most mathematicians would not describe their assumptions as leaps of faith, but they are still assumptions that haven’t and often can’t be proven. They will often motivate their axioms; however, in the end they must assume these axioms to hold (and further show that no two axioms contradict one another).
If it’s not provable or disprovable, you can. Deciding the provability of such statements is non-trivial; however using the logical standards that academics have been using for thousands of years, one can show there are true statements that aren’t provable.
They never proved the self-evident truths, therefore they assumed them to be true.
MeatHeadinCA on December 10, 2009 at 3:02 AM
Sadly, his claim is fast becoming true. But can we prove it? Experientially, we can determine that certain patterns of evidence support the claim. There are some schools of scientific thought that contend one can never prove anything, but only support a claim or disprove it.
anXdem on December 10, 2009 at 3:02 AM
Goodnight, Meathead and allie.
May you both find the truth in your collective conservative axioms.
anXdem on December 10, 2009 at 3:16 AM
Goodnight.
MeatHeadinCA on December 10, 2009 at 3:16 AM
by the way this is an old trick. Reid makes the announcement, the media runs with it, and the goals is to build up pressure as if its real. In the real world Reid does not have the votes and I doubt he has even checked with the members of his caucus about what they think.
rob verdi on December 10, 2009 at 6:21 AM
The libs seem determined to turn the US into a socialist country, by hook or by crook. I really wish someone would step up and stop it.
Unfortunately they all seem to have no brains whatsoever.
dogsoldier on December 10, 2009 at 6:35 AM
Reid is lying. Yes, that is a major redundancy, but especially about his reaching a milestone compromise. Don’t fall for it. He does not have the 60 votes to pass this and my not be at 55 or 56.
KEEP UP THE PRESSURE. BURN THE PHONE/FAX/E-MAIL LINES.
KILL – THIS – BILL
Oh, yeah. Almost forgot. I HATE Anthony Weasel.
J.J. Sefton on December 10, 2009 at 6:47 AM
ANYTHING the Congress passes is but a step to single payer. There is no doubt about the goal.
drjohn on December 10, 2009 at 9:01 AM
They defined their own truths and stated that whether they were true or not, they held them to be self-evident. Not an axiom.
An individual cannot hold an universal truth. That’s an oxymoron, you axihole.
alliebobbitt on December 10, 2009 at 9:32 AM
I’m laughing hard allie because you have no idea who you’re talking to. You certainly look foolish to those of us who do.
AsianGirlInTights on December 10, 2009 at 9:35 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 3 4 5 6 Next »