21 December 2009

Worthwhile perspectives on the Senate bill

Professor Jacob Hacker, the "godfather of the public option", and Senator Al Franken explain why they support the passage of the Senate bill, even weakened as it is. Both found via Oliver Willis, who has consistently been a good source of blogger coverage and analysis on this issue -- Liberal Values has been another. And don't forget Paul Krugman. Update: The AMA comes out in support too.

Hey, all forty Republicans still voted against the thing -- there must be some good in it!

8 Comments:

Blogger Sue said...

All great, informative links Infidel, Thanks!

21 December, 2009 09:52  
Blogger Infidel753 said...

Thanks. I'm trying to spread them around as much as possible. I think these people are among the best positioned to evaluate the bill.

21 December, 2009 10:39  
Blogger Ranch Chimp said...

A large number of American's wanted a public option,many polititian's said they would go for the public option,as I stated before in your post's, this will probably be twisted into something non public and non option. And to me the Pfesident and both the right and the left failed the people if they dont do what they said they would ...period. This is more of the same crap, to where once again...as I had previously statede...people will say well something is better than nothing. Enough said.....

Thank You Sir ......

21 December, 2009 12:18  
Blogger Leslie Parsley said...

Re Neda:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/12/person-of-the-year.html

22 December, 2009 10:50  
Blogger TomCat said...

The opinion I found the most convincing in favor of support is that of Bernie Sanders.

22 December, 2009 11:42  
Blogger Infidel753 said...

RC: True, a majority of Americans wanted a public option (even more wanted the Medicare expansion), but given the constraints imposed by the Senate rules, I don't think it was possible to get those items on this go-round. But every major reform started in a limited form and was improved later as it became possible. I think this will be the same.

LP: Thanks, I saw that. An excellent choice.

TC: Do you have a link to what you're referring to?

22 December, 2009 11:58  
Anonymous Kvatch said...

Hey, all forty Republicans still voted against the thing -- there must be some good in it!

On the other hand, insurance stocks have been pretty much on an upward trajectory ever since this thing hit papers.

Just an observation...

23 December, 2009 05:03  
Blogger Infidel753 said...

The insurance companies will probably continue to be profitable -- at least more profitable than they would have been if they had to compete with a public option, which until very recently would have seemed like a realistic possibility in the eyes of investors.

And actually, I don't object to insurance companies or any other business making a profit -- I just object to them engaging in unethical practices to do so, as the health-insurance industry has been doing in spades lately.

The difference is that investors tend to think short-term while the Republicans are thinking several moves ahead. They, unlike some of the more short-sighted Democrats, realize that this legislation is the beginning, not the end. As with earlier similar reforms, we are starting by taking what we can get now, to build on it with further reforms later as conditions permit. That's why the Republicans have to stonewall against anything, no matter how many concessions we make to weaken it.

23 December, 2009 05:18  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home