Jim Himes' Oped on Health Care Reform

Questions (4.00 / 2)

1. Is he really in favor of a public option?

What does "Properly structured to assure a level playing field" mean? What's the use of a public option if it offers no better access or lower cots than private insurance? Why must it be a level field? To protect the health insurance industry?

2. Does he really support health care reform at all?

Or does he just supprt it if it meets an impossible goal: reformimg "our current fee-for-service" system. In principle, creating a system where doctors are all on a salary and their income does not depend on how many tests they order, surgeries they perform, or hospital beds they fill, is an excellent goal, and will certainly reduce health care costs - but is it realistic to expect such sweeping changes any time in the near future? Will he support a bill that doesn't achieve this goal?

---

by: Jon Kantrowitz @ Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 11:23:38 AM CDT

But, But (0.00 / 0)

Jim Himes has gone on record with his views regarding health care reform.

Excellent, Jon. Maybe one of his staffers, or perhaps even Himes himself will visit here and answer those questions, because that Greenwich paper op-ed sure didn't. I did like the phrase "accelerate the unsustainable trajectory". Reminded me of "catapult the propaganda".

"If those in charge of our society...can dominate our ideas, they will be secure in their power. They will not need soldiers patrolling the streets. We will control ourselves." ~~Howard Zinn

---

by: lakezoarian @ Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 11:44:35 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

You hit the nail on the head (0.00 / 0)

Precisely the thing that we don't want is "a level playing field".  The entire idea behind the "public option" was that the government plan would enroll a large percentage of the population from day one and over time supplant private health insurance.  That was the idea.

What we have from the Democratic congress is horrible- a plan that won't be permitted to compete with the private for-profit sector, that will be forbidden to enroll current enrolees in employer-based insurance, and that will only have about 10 million subscribers for several years to come.

That is not a "public option", but a scheme to kill off a real "public option".  That is what the New Democrat Coalition wants, which includes Congressmen Himes, Larson, Murphy and Courtney.

In short, the current congressional proposal is an absolute disaster.  

---

by: thomashooker @ Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 20:17:15 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Level Playing Field? Come On... (0.00 / 0)

...do we want to remain at 16% of GDP for the cost of health-care? Sounds like a perfect way to increase rather than decrease costs? Wasn't it Obama who in earlier speeches wanted to "change the paradigm"?

---

by: Route66 @ Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 12:36:37 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Level Playing Field? Come On... (0.00 / 0)

...do we want to remain at 16% of GDP for the cost of health-care? Sounds like a perfect way to increase rather than decrease costs? Wasn't it Obama who in earlier speeches wanted to "change the paradigm"?

---

by: Route66 @ Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 12:36:38 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Level Playing Field (4.00 / 1)

That's the polite-people way of saying "a weak public option."

Ending fee-for-service is an interesting concept, but one which rockets past a strong public option, past a single-payer system, and lands squarely in the land of an actual, genuine national health system like the UK.

If we ended the fee-for-service model, there wouldn't be anyone who would be able to "keep what [they] have" if they liked what they're getting from their insurance now. To my way of thinking, that wouldn't be the end of the world -- in fact, it'd be pretty interesting. But since this concept isn't something that's been on the table in either the House or Senate, and doesn't appear to be something Himes himself has introduced, I wonder why he's talking and writing about it as if it were a make-or-break issue for his vote on the reform bill.

–7.25 / –7.28

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...

---

by: mattw @ Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 13:15:06 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Post Script (0.00 / 0)

I fully endorse your questions -- and wish we'd get better answers.  I only would add one comment to your last sentence: I share your concern about whether Jim would support a bill that doesn't achieve some of the desired goals, but I also worry that he might support a bill that has the effect of ensuring defeat of important improvements in the future.  If, as appears increasingly likely, the final bill concedes too much -- and therefore results in little progress (or worse, more nightmare scenarios) -- this could doom serious healthcare for a very long time.  

In my most pessimistic moments, I find myself thinking that this concern identifies precisely the goal of special interests now working so hard (and effectively) behind the scenes; they seek to ensure that future fat profits won't be too adversely affected; so they accept a small bumper dent in order to protect their high-end Mercedes.  The public is being bamboozled -- and not just by Fox News and the right-wing crazies.    

---

by: Ann Galloway @ Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 08:04:05 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Jim Himes has an event later today in Stamford, Courtney in Woodstock (0.00 / 0)

5:30pm - 6:30pm
Himes, Jim Stamford CT
Stamford Senior Center, 2nd Floor,
888 Washington Blvd Create Event

6:30pm - 7:30pm
Courtney, Joe Woodstock CT
Woodstock Academy, 57 Academy Road

---

by: Scarce @ Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 12:35:46 PM CDT

Although.... (0.00 / 0)

..my inbox says something else entirely.

Himes to Hold Public Meeting with FAA to Discuss Noise Concerns

Local residents expected to share concerns over FAA Airspace Redesign and Class B Airspace violations

WHAT:             Public meeting to discuss FAA-related concerns

WHEN:             TONIGHT

Thursday, August 6

6:00 pm to 7:30 pm

WHERE:           Stamford Government Center

                       Senior Center in Building

                       888 Washington Blvd

Stamford, CT

---

by: Scarce @ Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 13:45:36 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

About fair usage (0.00 / 0)

I thought that since this was an oped by a congressman, and since it would probably be carried in full on his website, that it would be permissible to quote it in full.  I thought there would be a distinction between a public official's oped and that from a paid columnist or journalist.

I might be wrong, however.  But that was my rationale for posting it in its entirety.

---

by: thomashooker @ Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 20:19:42 PM CDT