Joe Biden backs away from a public option.

[Silvanus]

I don't really care what The Democrats say. I trust them to stick to their word about as much as I trust Lying Richie The Lying Liar whose pants became on fire due to all of his lying. Democrats talk the talk but they never walk the walk so until this is actually on the table as something they might actually fight for, I couldn't care less about their talk. Because we've seen this episode countless times; they say they want a public option, it meets the smallest amount of resistance, it gets cut. See you next time, same Bat Place, same Bat Channel.

Yeah, Crimson's pointed out that Obama did actually promote a public option during the 2008 campaign. I was mistaken.

Because we have zero information on what the Public Option would actually mean and do and they want to add the Public Option to Obamacare (to be fair to them, they probably can't have specific information on what it would actually entail because they wouldn't know that until they actually tried to pass it instead of just talking about it in the abstract).

Maybe the costs and the details would be different if they ever actually tried to pass the stupid thing instead of constantly saying NEXT time we'll look at adding it but right now, that's the only information I would have access to in order to see what the public option might look like.

It's perfectly fair to say the information isn't available, but it wouldn't make sense to say that because current private options are too expensive, therefore a theoretical public option will be comparably expensive.

 

[Silvanus]

Carry that water. I'll be like you and just give up ahead of time, there's no point in asking for anything, I'll be like you, the good centrist that asks for nothing. With any luck, I'll be dead soon and you won't have to argue with me anymore.

"A centrist who asks for nothing", except that I've always advocated a universal healthcare system, and want them to introduce one to congress immediately.

It never ceases to make me laugh that even if someone advocates for redistributive socialism, nationalised industries, & universal healthcare, they must be a despicable centrist if they're not willing to write it off completely because it hasn't been enacted 1 month after the election.

Obama in 2008 promised a public healthcare plan, and then scrapped it himself. None of this is new or novel, except that it's happening during COVID.

Right you are; I was mistaken and forgot that this was a plank of the 2008 campaign.

 

[Seanchaidh]

It never ceases to make me laugh that even if someone advocates for redistributive socialism, nationalised industries, & universal healthcare, they must be a despicable centrist if they're not willing to write it off completely because it hasn't been enacted 1 month after the election.

Do you honestly expect it will happen in the near future?

 

[crimson5pheonix]

"A centrist who asks for nothing", except that I've always advocated a universal healthcare system, and want them to introduce one to congress immediately.

It never ceases to make me laugh that even if someone advocates for redistributive socialism, nationalised industries, & universal healthcare, they must be a despicable centrist if they're not willing to write it off completely because it hasn't been enacted 1 month after the election.

Correction: It hasn't been enacted in 11 50 years. And it's not being considered as part of pandemic relief, when it would naturally be considered. Democrats have been threatening universal single-payer healthcare since the 70's and they manage to squander every single opportunity they're given. Partly because centrists come up with "well we can't do it now" without thinking at all critically about what they're saying.

For example, if this was really about expediting COVID relief, why is the minimum wage hike (which doesn't even have to do with COVID relief, it's just good compromise policy) attached to the bill?

The answer is that "it'll delay relief" is a giant load of bullshit peddled by people who don't need to be listened to.

 

[Agema]

Do you honestly expect it will happen in the near future?

Not in the USA, where the political system is pretty much designed around making it hard to pass laws.

And where the people say they want universal healthcare, and then oppose it when anyone tries it because it's socialism.

 

[Eacaraxe]

It's perfectly fair to say the information isn't available, but it wouldn't make sense to say that because current private options are too expensive, therefore a theoretical public option will be comparably expensive.

Almost certainly as much if not more so, because the most likely avenue to a public option would be to mimic TRICARE. In other words, public in name only because it would be the issuance of federal contracts to private insurers for administering "universal" coverage. And it's a virtual guarantee if legislation ever got that far, any sort of realistic or effective cost controls, regulations, or profit margin caps would be negotiated away in essence creating an unlimited pork mountain for private insurers.

The necessary factor in creating a public option that would be effective and provide cost control, at least in the US context of health care, would be to create a federal GSE, federally-owned corporation, or set of state-level health care cooperatives. TVA could be a model for health care administration in the US, for example.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

 

[Silvanus]

Do you honestly expect it will happen in the near future?

I very much doubt it. But I don't think it's very meaningful that it hasn't been done in the first month, or that it wasn't included in a Covid relief bill that needed to face no serious opposition in order to pass as quickly as possible.

Correction: It hasn't been enacted in 11 50 years. And it's not being considered as part of pandemic relief, when it would naturally be considered. Democrats have been threatening universal single-payer healthcare since the 70's and they manage to squander every single opportunity they're given. Partly because centrists come up with "well we can't do it now" without thinking at all critically about what they're saying.

Thankfully, that isn't remotely what I've been saying.

They've been making vague rumblings in small numbers since the 70s. They've been including it in manifestos since 2008.

For example, if this was really about expediting COVID relief, why is the minimum wage hike (which doesn't even have to do with COVID relief, it's just good compromise policy) attached to the bill?

Because that won't face anything even approaching the level of legislative opposition that healthcare reform inevitably will.

There's no need to delay. Introduce it separately.

Almost certainly as much if not more so, because the most likely avenue to a public option would be to mimic TRICARE. In other words, public in name only because it would be the issuance of federal contracts to private insurers for administering "universal" coverage. And it's a virtual guarantee if legislation ever got that far, any sort of realistic or effective cost controls, regulations, or profit margin caps would be negotiated away in essence creating an unlimited pork mountain for private insurers.

The necessary factor in creating a public option that would be effective and provide cost control, at least in the US context of health care, would be to create a federal GSE, federally-owned corporation, or set of state-level health care cooperatives. TVA could be a model for health care administration in the US, for example.

We'll have to see if/when the proposal is put forward, but suffice it to say that if that's the route they take, it won't remotely be resembling what's in the published plan (including the one published on Monday, post-election).

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Thankfully, that isn't remotely what I've been saying.

Debatable. Your whole position has been that we need to have faith that they'll do it later.

They've been making vague rumblings in small numbers since the 70s. They've been including it in manifestos since 2008.

A meaningless metric and it's still over a decade and counting. Maybe you should listen to Americans when they say the Democrats are untrustworthy? Has it once ever occurred to you that we might be on to something?

Because that won't face anything even approaching the level of legislative opposition that healthcare reform inevitably will.

Laughable. They're doing it right now. It's a bullshit excuse for bullshit people.

There's no need to delay. Introduce it separately.

If they did cool, but here's what's taking everyone's time and where at least a temporary expansion to medicaid would both be timely and efficient.

 

[Silvanus]

Debatable. Your whole position has been that we need to have faith that they'll do it later.

No, it actually hasn't. I don't have faith that they'll do it later. I merely think that the reasons it's being written off here are nonsensical.

A meaningless metric and it's still over a decade and counting. Maybe you should listen to Americans when they say the Democrats are untrustworthy? Has it once ever occurred to you that we might be on to something?

About the Democrats being untrustworthy? Yeah, I've been on the same page about that for quite a few years.

That said, I'm loathe to take lessons in realpolitik from the American left-wing, considering how little they've accomplished.

Laughable. They're doing it right now. It's a bullshit excuse for bullshit people.

Doing what right now? Opposing the relief bill? Well, no duh.

If they did cool, but here's what's taking everyone's time and where at least a temporary expansion to medicaid would both be timely and efficient.

Fully agreed.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Fully agreed.

Right, forgot who I was talking to. Continue on, merry arguer! Argue for arguments sake!

 

[Gergar12]

Breaking 15 dollar minimum wage axed by Senate Parliamentarian who says 15 dollar minimum wage is not relevant to the budget.

Biden could tell his vice-president to ignore the parliamentarian, but spoiler alert Biden doesn't want to do 15 dollar min wage.

Senate parliamentarian rules against including minimum wage in Covid relief bill

The Senate parliamentarian has ruled against including the increase in the minimum wage in the Covid relief bill.

www.cnn.com

 

[Avnger]

Breaking 15 dollar minimum wage axed by Senate Parliamentarian who says 15 dollar minimum wage is not relevant to the budget.

Biden could tell his vice-president to ignore the parliamentarian, but spoiler alert Biden doesn't want to do 15 dollar min wage.

Senate parliamentarian rules against including minimum wage in Covid relief bill

The Senate parliamentarian has ruled against including the increase in the minimum wage in the Covid relief bill.

www.cnn.com

I mean the parliamentarian is entirely correct in this case. $15 minimum wage, while a necessary update for the good of the country, has nothing to do with Congressional budget appropriations.

 

[Gergar12]

I mean the parliamentarian is entirely correct in this case. $15 minimum wage, while a necessary update for the good of the country, has nothing to do with Congressional budget appropriations.

15 dollar min wage -> More taxes, less welfare, etc -> Change to the budget.

 

[Avnger]

Right, forgot who I was talking to. Continue on, merry arguer! Argue for arguments sake!

Why is it so unfathomable to you that others can partially, mostly, or even entirely agree with your policy aims but disagree with your methods of achieving those aims, interpretation of events related to those aims, and political rhetoric around those aims?

 

[Avnger]

15 dollar min wage -> More taxes, less welfare, etc -> Change to the budget.

That's... not how it works. And even if it was how it worked, that's not how it should work. Put it in a separate bill, vote on it, and pass it.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Why is it so unfathomable to you that others can partially, mostly, or even entirely agree with your policy aims but disagree with your methods of achieving those aims, interpretation of events related to those aims, and political rhetoric around those aims?

Because he doesn't even disagree with the methods, interpretations, or political rhetoric. At least not when we get a few pages in. He picks fights to pick fights, it's like arguing with Houseman except without the fascist leanings.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

I mean the parliamentarian is entirely correct in this case. $15 minimum wage, while a necessary update for the good of the country, has nothing to do with Congressional budget appropriations.

The CBO disagrees with you.

 

[Gergar12]

That's... not how it works. And even if it was how it worked, that's not how it should work. Put it in a separate bill, vote on it, and pass it.

Well, now we can't even do budget reconciliation in a separate bill because of this ruling.

Fire her, and or overrule her via Vice President Harris, and take it to Supreme Court, if they overrule it, stack the courts. It's time for Dems to get more aggressive.

 

[Seanchaidh]

That's... not how it works.

It mirrors the justification for Congressional use of the interstate commerce clause to do a lot of things, so that's not clear.

At base, how it works is that some guy decides the matter but the Vice President can overrule. But she won't because the administration doesn't actually want to do what it takes to get the policy accomplished.