Baumblog EST 1968 - A blog for the Baumbachs who originated in Syracuse, NY

Frank Rich is certainly a NYT columnist of the left leaning order, but his recent column about the source of the Tea Party anger seems to be right on the money, in my opinion. What do you all think?

Eric said about 2 hours later

I couldn't disagree more. Here are some reasons why:

"the bill’s prototype is the health care legislation Mitt Romney signed into law in Massachusetts." I can believe anyone thinks this is a good thing. How is Massachusetts doing with their universal health care? They are broke and asking for a federal bailout. Do they still think it can work? Sure they do! And they are fooling themselves. I'm still talking about Massachusetts here; I know the Fed has all their ducks in a row and won't let this happen.

"it delivers 32 million newly insured Americans to private insurers." The CBO came out last week and estimated that by 2019, there would still be about 19 million people that are uninsured. Some just won't join the program, and some still won't be able to afford it; according to the CBO.

"this “middle-of-the-road” bill, as Obama accurately calls it," Are you kidding me? Shouldn't a middle of the road bill be acceptable to most of Congress, not just most of the majority party in Congress?

"To find a prototype for the overheated reaction to the health care bill, you have to look a year before Medicare, to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Both laws passed by similar majorities in Congress" That is NOT correct. They were not "similar majorities." It is true the Democrats controlled both Houses of Congress when Medicare and the Civil Rights Act were passed. The difference was that majorities of both Republicans and Democrats voted for those pieces of legislation. In fact, percentage-wise, more Democrats voted against the Civil Rights Act than Republicans! The "overheated reaction" was mostly a north vs. south sentiment, as you can imagine.

The last four paragraphs basically state that the whole movement is racist. Gee, everyone in the Tea Party movement is white. Hmm...it must be racist then. Heck, everyone who plays hockey is white. Those damn stick-toting racists! Even the puck is black!

Maybe there are some extremists in the Tea Party. I wonder if there are any extremists on the left? There's always going to be loons out there that resort to violence, no matter what their political views are. The point is that the vast majority of those Americans who joined the Tea Parties are good people that just have a different opinion. Just like the majority of the super left (you know, the communists, the socialists) are also good people that just have different opinion (albiet wildly misguided) of how the government should function.

I really enjoyed the article though. Even though the NY Times readership is down to about 36 people, I think it's important to understand where everyone is coming from.
GJ said about 8 hours later

Everyone who plays hockey is white? Grant Fuhr would like a word with you, once Jarome Inginlia finishes showing you how black his fists are. :)

Do tell me you realize that the national plan and the Massachusetts plan are different. Do you know how they differ, or why the Dems believe the changes they made address those shortcomings?

>> "it delivers 32 million newly insured Americans to private insurers." The CBO came out last week and estimated that by 2019, there would still be about 19 million people that are uninsured. Some just won't join the program, and some still won't be able to afford it; according to the CBO.

Please explain how your statement relates to the first one. Those are two different numbers--the number of people who will be added compared to the number who won't be. It's a known fact that this plan will not guarantee universal coverage. I think they're shooting for 97%, if I remember correctly.

>> "this “middle-of-the-road” bill, as Obama accurately calls it," Are you kidding me? Shouldn't a middle of the road bill be acceptable to most of Congress, not just most of the majority party in Congress?

Oh, is that how democracy works? I was thinking it was more like this: whoever has the votes, makes the rules. The GOP had the votes in Bush's early years, and that didn't stop them from putting in all kinds of stuff that drove Dems wild. By a "middle-of-the-road" bill, I believe he means that it was formed based on the alternative plan the GOP created during the Clinton years, later put in place by Romney in Massachusetts, and is now being revised (to deal with cost control, but to continue to keep the high penetration of coverage in the general population). Unlike the mid-90s, I didn't really see a Republican plan presented this year, but I did see them spent a lot of time throwing out the socialism word in an vain and ultimately inept attempt to sway public opinion in their favor.

You are correct about the Civil Rights Act voting--Frank totally screwed up that item. Point given. :)

I would agree that both sides have had the loons and extremists. I wouldn't put communists / socialists in that bucket, however. Don't be drinking that kool-aid. The nuts on the left are the wacky environment / animal rights yahoos--they correspond well to the god-militias and anti-abortion wackaloons on the right. I put commies and socialists in the same group as the neocons--they're considerably further down the scale of crazy.

Anyhoo--I'm curious to see if the Tea Party can maintain this head of steam until the elections, and then see what impact they can have. I'm betting it's not going to be anywhere near what the GOP is hoping for, however.

Geoff said about 8 hours later

I thoroughly enjoyed the article and Eric's response. The good news for us is this: In 2014 when the health industry no longer can deny coverage for pre-existing conditions, we are going to drop health care for our employees, pay the fine (which would be about $750 for us, a whole lot cheaper than the $2500/month), and then when trouble arises, we'll sign right back up to take care of whatever problems we have to deal with. Hey, you got my vote!

I can't say I'm really surprised at any of this. Seems like the perfect time to pass costly legislation. At least we can say Obama did something, right?

It's not his fault. We basically just need to throw out everyone in congress pretty much, get rid of this obnoxious party system which inherently can't get anything done, and somehow figure out how to get people in this country motivated to action.

Vote Ron Paul!

Eric said about 9 hours later

My point about all hockey players being white was a dig at his comment. I know they are not all white; neither are all the tea partiers all white (although the vast majority are, just like in hockey!)

Yes, I know the the plans are different, but not as different as you might think. There is a pool of private insurance you can choose from. If you are 300% or less above the poverty level, you receive subsidies to buy from the pool. At some level of poverty you get full Medicaid. There is a mandate with a tax penalty if you don't purchase. Sounds kind of like the Fed program if you ask me. Anyway, HE'S the one that said that Massachusetts was the model, not me.

By the way, Mitt Romney vetoed eight sections of the Mass. Health Care bill - the overwhelmingly Democratic congress overuled him on every one. I'm just sayin'.

- 32 million newly insured - I am assuming he's talking about the currently uninsured ranks of Americans, purportedly around 46 million (which I think is at least slightly inflated.) Well, if 19 million will still be uninsured, 46 minus 19 is 27. Only 27 million newly insured. And they won't be all in private insurance. Many of them will be the proud new recipients of Medicaid!

- middle of the road - Okay, I'll give you middle of the road if that means somewhere between leaving health care as is and going for a full blown, goverment-run, single-payer system. Then yes, it's middle-of-the-road. Not middle-of-the-american-people's-feeling-on-the-whole-thing.

I know I'm correct about the Civil Rights Act 1964 and the Social Security Act of 1965. I reported only the facts man!

I don't know what's left for the Tea Parties either. I am impressed, however, that they have generated as much steam as they have. Probably the most influential movement in recent history, politically speaking.
GJ said about 12 hours later

Influential, if you count the Scott Brown election. I don't think they'll have much else to show for it, unless they develop a cohesive platform and stay active. Right now, they're feeding off irrational anger stirred by crackpots like Michelle Bachmann and Glen Beck--which probably accounts for the nutjob attraction to this movement.

>> I know I'm correct about the Civil Rights Act 1964 and the Social Security Act of 1965. I reported only the facts man!

Too bad more folks can't be bothered to do this. I'll give you a prime example of how not to do this: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/03/28/ftn/main6341097.shtml Of course I'm cheating--Ms. Bachmann has a history of delusional ramblings, and she makes an inviting target for we lefties.

>> The good news for us is this: In 2014 when the health industry no longer can deny coverage for pre-existing conditions, we are going to drop health care for our employees, pay the fine (which would be about $750 for us, a whole lot cheaper than the $2500/month), and then when trouble arises, we'll sign right back up to take care of whatever problems we have to deal with. Hey, you got my vote!

Geoff, I can't wait to see how that strategy works out for you. I think you may find it working out a bit differently than you've got it portrayed above. You might want to read the nitty gritty details before banking on that approach. The fine is there to discourage exactly what you're suggesting, as any system that allowed folks to just jump into insurance when they need coverage would kill the system. You realize that what it's trying to do is prevent insurance companies from doing this to folks, which they do all the time today. Want an example? http://www.star-telegram.com/2010/03/25/2068267/crowley-newborn-with-heart-defect.html#tvg This kind of crap goes on all over the place. Too bad nobody came up with another solution to this problem, eh?
Geoff said about 13 hours later

Yes I know, but take a look at the current law proposed (if you can figure it out which I'm sure most of whom voted for it didn't bother too). Individual fine is what I'll incur, which looks to either be a fixed amount or 1% of my income. Both of which are FAR less than what I pay monthly. Since our company is less than 50 full time employees, our company does not incur gross fines. I'm sure there will either be something to alter this in the law, or the insurance companies will figure out a way to deny coverage. Prescriptions cause a bit of an issue for those who require ongoing prescriptions with this method, but there are prescription plans that places such as Walgreens offer (and one of our clients, Transparent Health). Get on a plan like that, and your prescription care should be covered for most common prescriptions.

We've got a few years to figure out the loop holes :)
GJ said 1 day later

The health care bill isn't a finished product--more like, it's a start. No doubt we'll find stuff that didn't work, and hopefully have the sense to toss it. Cost control isn't guaranteed either--the CBO is expecting savings of $124B for the deficit, but it is largely expected that out-of-pocket costs will continue to rise, albeit on a more predictable and less onerous scale.

Btw, I looked at the CBO numbers. They are working on assumptions of 50 million uninsured now, whereas that number drops to 22 million will be uninsured by 2014. Obviously, by 2014, with population growth, you can't exactly show how many people migrated from one place to another in terms of plans, but the CBO is expecting the decrease in the uninsured, and an increase of only 11 million to Medicaid. The rest show up in the exchange plans (24 million).

The critical thing here is we have to stop trying to paint this as either the salvation of health care or the dawn of socialist American. It's not either of those things. What it is: an attempt to corral the problems of health care in this country and make the system work more efficiently.

Geoff, to your point on the individual side of things, they are trying to force insurance companies to take on folks with existing conditions, but they are trying to prevent someone from skipping out on insurance until their expenses go through the roof (for example, major surgery or cancer, that kind of thing). It will be very interesting to see how that plays out. In reality, those playing that game should be shown the door--but I'll be shocked if they're able to pull that off (think "death panels"). Failing that response, they need to recognize that pattern early on and deal with it (maybe far higher fines)--because it will kill this plan financially if not nipped in the bud.

I would hope the GOP would smarten up and give up on the repeal language--while it's what the Tea Party wants to hear, it's simply not going to happen anytime soon due to the lack of seats they can win in the midterm elections (they'd need enough not only to get a majority but also to override a veto). I do think the GOP could do far better to find parts of the solution that they can find a better solve for and work to implement those, even if that takes them a few years (read--change of house/senate makeup) to do so.

Of course, this being America, and the electorate being so freaking polarized right now, that's not gonna happen. So, instead, we get to see what impacts the health plan as it stands has on voters, rather than what the left-wing and right-wing media say about it, which is pretty much all we've gotten up to now.
Geoff said 1 day later

Yup I just like shooting holes through things haha. I'm debugging.