In theory insurers are now obliged to spend money on actual health care, not on lunches, private jets, prostitutes and lobbying. In practice anyone with political experience knows that they will do everything they possibly can to make those clauses impossible to enforce. Until an insurer is sued, fined or forced out of business because they are not obeying the letter of this new law, those clauses remain meaningless.
Many of the flaws of the system - random and expedient exclusions, and refusals to pay not being the least - remain more or less unchallenged.
So it's almost entirely a political bill, designed to placate the base and make it possible to say that Obama Delivered, while not actually annoying anyone with money.
More than that, it's revealed Obama as a slimy little opportunist, who is unwilling or unable to change the status quo, and whose MO remains fine speechifying, with as little political and economic leadership as he can get away with.
This is a triumph of expediency, and the end of Obama's political momentum - not the beginning of the progressive renaissance that he worked so hard to persuade his supporters of.
It's true that it's as good as could be expected, considering Obama's lack of interest in real reform. But that's a receipt for mediocrity, not a recipe for continued improvement.
But it's not giving people healthcare - it's forcing them to buy healthcare from third party providers who do not have their interests at heart, at prices which they may not be able to afford, with stiff penalties if they can't make the payments.
The penalties involved cannot be more than 2% of your income or $750, whichever is more. Most people - a huge amount of people - will be eligible for Medicaid, which is a de facto public option, or subsidies. So far as I can tell, anyone to whom the $750 would apply wouldn't consider it 'stiff.' And there's a cap on premiums, limiting them to 8% of your income which, as Drew said upthread, would be a godsend to most people.
It's not an entirely political bill, as you claim - it's got 900 billion concrete bucks behind it. You say it ignores flaws in the system, and at the same time acknowledge it addresses some flaws, but predict they'll never be enforced. So damned for the stuff they include and damned if they don't?
it's revealed Obama as a slimy little opportunist, who is unwilling or unable to change the status quo, and whose MO remains fine speechifying, with as little political and economic leadership as he can get away with.
Obama's lack of interest in real reform
I'm not sure where all this vitriol comes from. As angry as the left got at Clinton, and for much better reason, I never heard this level of character assassination directed at him from 'our side.'
I mean, really "with as little... as he can get away with" - seriously? You're calling him lazy?
And he has no interest in reform? So I guess that's why he's come closer to achieving an unprecedented bill which establishes healthcare as a responsibility of government than the multiple presidents who have tried and failed before him.
But just to be clear that I understand your position: $900 billion to get healthcare for most people, reigning in the worst excesses of one of the most powerful industries in the world, saving countless lives, risking his entire political career to do so, and setting a legal and historical precedent that no one's ever been able to achieve makes him an uninterested slimy opportunist? I'm not following the reasoning here... Maybe we can eventually make language a complete impediment to understanding. -Hobbes
He's an opportunist because his campaign was a lie. He's on the record campaigning for a public option on many occasions, and then last week he says 'Nah - didn't say that.'
That is not the action of an honourable man, and it certainly makes his true intentions - whatever they are - suspect.
And it's not a $900bn bill - it's a $90bn bill that runs for at least ten years. In public spending terms, that's pocket money. Compare with $680bn per year for defence.
Now considering the current system is legalised mugging, it's certainly a step up from that, for at least some of the population. But I don't think it's realistic to pretend that this is a move to a Euro style health system. And I would still want to see some kind of punitive action taken against insurers when - and it will be when, not if - they start pushing the limits of what's legal, or they begin to use creative accounting and other tricks to minimise their obligations.
The key point is that Obama hasn't been actively pushing for change - he's allowed others to fight it out, and has reliably contradicted himself, to the extent that it's impossible to know what he himself believes, wants, or stands for.
If that doesn't make him slimy, it certainly makes him a poor leader.
He's pushed for the congress to come up with a healthcare bill (which is a change). Allowing 'others' to fight it out is exactly what the system over here is designed to do -- congress legislates. As I said elsewhere, I find it frustrating as well, but respect that he respects the system enough to actually, y'know, not circumvent it.
And I think it's a bit of a reach to say his whole campaign was a lie because you have one article seeming to contradict one aspect of it. He campaigned for healthcare reform, he's pushing healthcare reform. He supported a public option within that reform and, so far as I'm aware, has never come out against it. Maybe we can eventually make language a complete impediment to understanding. -Hobbes
