Public Option And Medicare Buy-In Dropped
Reports are just coming in that there’s a new “deal” on health care reform. President Lieberman wants only to give U.S. taxpayer money to big insurance companies but doesn’t care anything about lowering costs. Do you know the origin of the Medicare buy-in? Joe Lieberman. Joe Lieberman proposed a Medicare buy-in compromise as late as 3 months ago. It doesn’t matter though. Liberals expressed cautious support of the idea so Lieberman had to tank the deal (his ego is still mad about 2006). Ezra Klein discusses how the Romneycare is working in Massachusetts, since it looks like that’s what we’ll be getting. Hey, we’ll probably get Olympia Snowe too, so it will be a tri-partisan bill!
Moments ago, Democratic Senators told reporters that the caucus yielded to Sen. Joe Lieberman’s (I-CT) demands and dropped the Medicare buy-in provision from the Senate health care bill, leaving only a network of nonprofits to stand in for the public health insurance option. While Senators stressed that a final decision would be made tomorrow, after the Democratic caucus meets with President Obama, most agreed that the fate of the Medicare buy-in was all but certain.
“The general consensus was that we shouldn’t make the perfect the enemy of the good and if we’re going to get all the insurance reforms accomplished and a number of other things [and] dropping the Medicare expansion was necessary, well then that’s what should be done and it appeared that would be necessary to get the 60 votes,” Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN) told the Hill. “At some point you have to switch from the sentiment, the emotion of the words, to the facts,” said Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV). “And then you’ve got to decide if I didn’t get what I want, in the form that I wanted it, am I willing to cashier 31 million Americans? I want a bill.”
Tags: Health Care Reform
So Obama is failing to get health care done, just like Clinton before him. That’s OK, like Clinton he can still go on to have a successful administration. Just don’t claim victory on health care reform.
Well, some reform is getting passed. It’s incrementalist and incomplete, but it’s the biggest change we’ve ever gotten. I know this is not the end for reform but I fear that this year was the only time we would have to do it, with big majorities.
If the 90% cost ratio is dropped Dems should just kill the bill.
Lieberman was for the medicare buy-in before he was against it.
So Lieberman has basically been flip flopping and dealing in very bad faith with the Senate Dems. But today, the only scorn to be had here is pointed at Obama who certainly did not direct Lieberman to be so completely dickish. Amazing.
I don’t know Cass. People dream that Obama can call Lieberman into his office, give him a talking to and turn Lieberman into less of a dick. I don’t know where they got this idea. Lieberman was a dick way before Obama joined the Senate. Lieberman is acting completely consistently with his sanctimonious blowhard personality.
I don’t think Lieberman is planning on running in 2012. I don’t think there is really much leverage we have over him.
I’d like to say I’m surprised, but as my reality check engine lights starts flickering, I should have known better than to think these guys really are any different than the GOP
This is sad, and the rationalization stage will set in soon. This is a loss, no matter how amazingly progressive it is compared to other attempts. If accepted it will be murder getting it back on the table in the future. Kill the bill, do it right and come back. Screw the HC lobby and Big PhARMA. While I di not vote for Obama, I am with him on HCR, do not take a watered down version and claim victory, that is for sycophants like Cheney and Bush. LEAD, Barack, LEAD. Kill this bill and get ‘er done right!
That’s quite a leap, DV.
Question. Is it too late to vote for Senator Clinton in the primary?
wow Jason, I can’t tell if that is real or not. I will be honest and was wondering why oh why so much health care money went Obama’s way during the primary fight. It sure makes sense to me now. Not having a clear understanding of history at the time and fully understanding Health Care it makes sense today why big Pharma and Health Co’s would rather have had Obama in office that is for sure.
And Pandora, maybe I should clarify a little. I mean they are no different when it comes to answering to corporate lobbyists and interests. NO they aren’t neocons or flat earth global warming deniers. I don’t mean in that way.
Not real. Not really real anyway. Perhaps somewhat real. anyway, I know you’ll view this as a cop out but HOLY CHRIST!! THE DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS IS SOOO INCOMPETENT!! What a bunch of douche bags.
Thanks, Harry Reid.
Obama is going to rue the day he saved Joe Lieberman’s ass and chairmanship.
If he torpedoes this, kick him out of the caucus.
JY,
I ain’t gonna happen. This is the chance we got and this is the bill we’re getting. The problem the Democrats have is there are 45 million uninsured in this country. The bill will help many of them. There are subsidies to help people buy insurance, out of pocket spending caps, closing the donut hole in Medicare Part D, the end to recission and the end to the pre-existing condition. I think many Democrats (as do I) think the status quo is unsustainable, unacceptable and is hurting our economy. If we pass nothing, we keep the status quo. If we pass this bill, at least we get a 1/4 loaf.
I think it’s disappointing that with huge majorities in the House and the Senate we get a fairly weak bill. We really need to turn our eyes to the Senate and the rules of the Senate. As it currently stands, corporate-owned Dems have the controlling votes. They are certainly happy with the status quo and were willing to kill the bill to get what they wanted.
I don’t think it’s a sure thing that this bill will get through the House. I think the House feels very resentful at the process. We shall see what happens but I wouldn’t be surprised if Obama tells the progressives to shut up and pass the Senate bill.
Seriously Jason, what could Hillary Clinton have done to wrangle Nelson, Landrieu, Lincoln and Lieberman? Bill Clinton has been the main voice saying “just pass something you can call reform.” I believe we would have had the same outcome. The bill actually looks pretty similar to the one she proposed during the primary fight.
Thank you for the crumbs, sir. Please wish Ebenezer Lieberman a Happy Hanukah and Jacob Obomba a Merry Christmas. Tiny Tim died because we couldn’t get insurance for his operation, and his brother was killed in Afghanistan fighting for Kharzid. I guess that is hope and change.
UI wrote:“I wouldn’t be surprised if Obama tells the progressives to shut up…”
That about sums up Obomba so far.
I’m terribly disappointed, and completely confused as to how a handful of senators could derail this bill. But I don’t plan to wallow in my disappointment. I plan to keep on fighting for healthcare – which, when you think about it, is something a lot of liberals/progressives aren’t very good at. Oh, we’re all there for the initial battle, but let us lose one round and suddenly we’re “betrayed” and “defeated.” No wonder we don’t get things done. We (not all) jump ship at the first sign of trouble, and then wonder why we can’t win or have any influence from our dinghy.
And who the hell thought passing healthcare reform was going to be easy? And while I’m not happy, there is a part of me amazed we’re getting anything at all. There are more battles ahead. I plan on fighting them, and using this watered down bill as a “foot in the door” moment.
The way I see it… we can do what we’ve done in the past – I didn’t get what I wanted so I’m washing my hands of the entire process and everybody who doesn’t agree with me is a sellout and sucks – or we can keep fighting for what we want.
Frankly, the purist role is getting old, and it’s not very effective, but we do excel at it. Sometimes the standards we place on politicians we support is laughable, especially when you consider that if we applied the same standards to our loved ones we’d be alone.
So, the choice, to me, is clear. We can either keep fighting, or we can throw the baby out with the bath water, embrace defeat – with a healthy dose of “I told you so” – and wallow in our disappointment.
I know what I’m doing.
I hate to say it, Pandora, but I think our system is far too profit based, individualistic, and corrupt for anything like Health-care reform.
It seems to me that the big busisness owns the politicians. And healthcare IS big business. At the risk of soundng like a disillusioned, burned-out, cynic: I don’t think that this can be accomplished in our country, at this point in time.
Too much well-heeled, greedy interest to be satisfied.
I’m totally with you pandora. I share everyone’s disappointment with what has happened in Congress so far but I’m quite disappointed in the “I quit” people. We elected a president because we wanted change. He’s trying to bring it (we can argue it’s too slow, it’s not enough whatever) but he can not do it alone. He has to get it through Congress and we’re seeing that the Senate is completely dysfunctional and now basically run by Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson. So should we throw up our hands and say I guess this means everyone’s screwed? I think it means we need to work harder and that it’s going to take a lot more work to make Congress truly the people’s body – and we may never succeed. So what’s left is either try or don’t try. We know what can happen if everyone gives up, we’ll get a Sarah Palin presidency.
Read Nate Silver take “Why Progressives Are Batshit Crazy to Oppose the Senate Bill”
Silver’s take: there is still some good stuff in the bill and it will help a lot of people.
I trust Nate Silver because he predicted the outcome all along. He predicted the conservative Dems would have a lot more leverage because they were willing to get no bill while progressives weren’t. And he was right.
How can the fight go on if a bill is passed, no matter how awful and counterproductive? It will be another FIFTY YEARS before we can “try again” and end up giving MORE money to insurance companies. you KNOW the dem-rats will declare victory and try and paint this shitsandwich as a major victory. Leiberman will KEEP his committee chairs and we will be able to turn our attentions to “save the energy crisis” probably by outlawing wind power and giving tax cuts to oil companies…… I may be disappointed that Obama couldn’t control the jackasses in the senate, but after a lot of thought, i place the blame right at Harry Reid’s inept feet. He is either the worst leader in the history of the senate, or is actually an agent for the enemy.
Tell me again how having the government force people to buy insurance without any real controls on the insurance industry is a good thing.
This bill is worse than nothing. Obomba is selling us out for the insurance industry. He could veto it. Reid and the Dems could make Lieberman’s senate life miserable. He could take away party campaign money. There are so many things this loser President could do, but he is selling America out to the insurance industry and Joe Lieberman.
Don’t forget that your beloved Obomba endorsed and campaigned for LIEberman.
I hope the house kills this bill.
It will only be another FIFTY years if we let it. We really need to stop walking away and licking our wounds for decades. We need to keep chipping away – see gay activists and “pro-lifers” for what that battle looks like.
Another good take, from a Daily Kos diarist:
Exactly pandora.
Look at successful interest groups: the NRA, anti-abortion activists and gay rights activists. Do they give up after a defeat? They just get more mad, and keep going and going and going.
Killing this bill is not a defeat. This bill is a simply windfall for private insurance companies. Kill it and start over.
Kill it and start over.
The cheap rallying cry of someone who already has insurance, no doubt.
If we kill it, we kill it. There will be no starting over.
What bill are you going to choose to pay, cassandra_m: food, shelter, fuel, clothes, or your health insurance premium?
Under this bill, the government is going to make that choice for you.
Maybe you should step down from your sanctimonious pony and look at what this bill really is: It is healthcare for the profits of private insurance companies.
Really, pandora? Didn’t you just say we should fight on? There is always starting over. Look, I’ll take good when I can’t have perfect, but why should we take something that makes the situation worse?
Yes, I wish we had single payer. It’s not going to happen unless we have 60 progressive senators, 218 progressive representatives and a progressive president. That’s the system we have now. I think we need to fix the system. We probably have the House and president covered but we don’t have 60 progressive senators and reconciliation will not give you the bill you want.
There’s no way the Congress is going to start over. This process has been going on for almost a year – no way they are starting over. And starting over will not change the make-up of the House and Senate. There will still be Blue Dogs and Joe Lieberman will still be a jerk.
For those that argue nothing is better than something, go read the links I provided and tell me if you still think that after reading them.
A1 you should step down off of your utterly self-centered pony and know that alot of the 46 million people who don’t have insurance now will at least have choices for insurance that they do not have now.
You should make the case why you — with your insurance — think that all of the rest of these people should not. Because your insurance enriches those same insurance companies too.
And this is for everyone in the kill it and start over crowd. make your case why 46 million people without insurance now should have to give up the chance at insurance, expanded Medicaid, or subsides that help them get insurance.
“We probably have the House and president covered…”
f you think that this President is anything else other than a gutless sell-out to corporate interests, then you’re kidding yourself. All you have to do is look at how hard he has fought for the public option, the HCR bill, and his economic advisors to see what he truly is.
I’d be more than happy to be wrong, but I don’t see any evidence that I am. The sooner that liberals and progressives wake up to the fact that the person in the White House is no friend of ours, the sooner we can organize and fight.
I think Obama is governing pretty much as he ran (with the big exception of some transparency). Those who don’t know that have been fooling themselves. Obama ran as a pragmatic centrist – what do you think all the talk of “bipartisanship” was about?
Anyone who says that Obama didn’t fight for the public option is wrong. If he wasn’t – we could have just passed the Baucus bill in August.
Anyone who says Rs and Ds are the same is smoking something. Does anyone remember the huge financial crisis caused by Bush and his policies?
“And this is for everyone in the kill it and start over crowd. make your case why 46 million people without insurance now should have to give up the chance at insurance, expanded Medicaid, or subsides that help them get insurance.”
That’s easy. The government should not be forcing people to give money to for-profit private insurance companies without providing a non-profit government-run alternative or at least a regulated non-profit alternative. Unfortunately, thanks to Obomba and the Senate, those 46 million people without insurance now will have to wait.
“Anyone who says that Obama didn’t fight for the public option is wrong.”
No, anyone who says he did is deluded.
Lip service isn’t fighting. A veto threat is fighting. A refusal to back down is fighting. A little hardball politics is fighting. A relentless and unwavering stand is fighting.
What did you hear from the White House last summer? All I heard were crickets.
And do you remember his strong endorsement of the public option is his speech to the joint session? Yeah, I don’t either.
You are deluded, A1.
And it is astonishing that you would think that the status quo for 46 million people is infinitely better that many of them getting a chance at health care and health insurance.
People die every day from not being able to access health care. Condemning more of them to die just because no one delivered your single-payer pony is as close to an immoral liberal caricature that I’ve ever personally seen. You’ve got yours, but you will be goddamn sure that no one else gets theirs until it is absolutely in the form you approve.
In this, you can count yourself with the wingnuts who are perfectly fine with the status quo — a status quo that is killing people.
And UI provided a link to a very good — and data rich, naturally — post from Nate Silver on why this is still worthwhile. You should read that post, A1, in some detail.
Unless, like the wingnuts, you really refuse to let something that may challenge your preconceived notions into your orbit.
That is just stupid, CM. I never said that I was “perfectly fine with the status quo.” Don’t make stuff up and expect to be taken seriously.
No, CM, I count myself among the clear-eyed progressives like Darcy Burner:
“If the Senate bill is the final bill, Darcy Burner, the Executive Director of the ProgressiveCongress.org, says kill it:
‘The first rule of medicine is, “Do no harm.” The post-Joe Lieberman version of the Senate healthcare bill fails that basic criterion. Unless Democratic leadership steps up to fix this misguided proposal, our only recourse will be to kill it.
The fundamental failing of the newest Senate proposal is that it requires individuals to purchase health insurance, but does nothing to rein in what insurance companies charge. There is nothing to stop spiraling health costs from eating up an ever-increasing percentage of our national productivity.
The House bill has two major cost-control mechanisms: the public option and the 85% medical-loss ratio requirement. The Senate bill is on track to have neither, and nothing new to replace them. The Senate bill is a recipe for national disaster. If it’s that bill or nothing, I prefer nothing.'”
http://www.americablog.com/2009/12/darcy-burner-senate-bill-is-recipe-for.html
Don’t you be stupid, A1 — we can read exactly what you wrote. You did say you wanted to kill the bill.
That makes you fine with the status quo. Because there is nothing that backfills that and there won’t be.
But those of you who want the perfect rather than something you can build on are objectively for the status quo — because if this bill goes away there will not be another. Not with this Congress.
… And not after the press proclaims it dead and buried.
So, CM, you’d prefer that people be forced to go without food or shelter so the government can force them to pay a health insurance premium to a for-profit company? Sweet. I guess in your world, they can eat eat the paper that their insurance policy is printed on when they can’t afford food.
Yes, kill the bill.
“Because there is nothing that backfills that and there won’t be.”
And you know this how?
Don’t be a drama queen A1 — what is left in the bill is an expansion of Medicaid, help for states to pay for that, subsides for lower income people to help pay for insurance.
And — if you are someone who does not have insurance now, can’t pay the premiums of the off the rack policies now, you’d probably be really interested in at least having the chance at stretching to pay for some insurance at all. People who don’t have insurance but can pay something are not likely bypassing this chance while waiting for single payer.
And this is how you know an idiot in the wild:
And you know this how?
THEY COULD NOT GET 60 VOTES FOR THE WEAK BILL THEY HAVE NOW!
And there are not 60 votes for single payer. There probably are not even 50 votes for single payer.
You have no room to tell me not to be a “drama queen.”
CM, why don’t you read what Burner said and maybe you might possibly understand that one does not need to be “perfectly fine with the status quo” if they want this bill killed. Let me repeat part of what she said for emphasis:
“The Senate bill is a recipe for national disaster. If it’s that bill or nothing, I prefer nothing.”
This bill is the insurance industry’s wet dream: MaKe the government force people to pay for health insurance with no cost controls or non-profit competition. Why you think that is a good thing is beyond me.
That’s my question Cass. How exactly would we expect a different outcome starting out with same cast of characters and worse conditions for Democrats? How is that going to make senators more bold and progressive? That’s why the options are this bill and the status quo. Killing it preserves the status quo but doesn’t change the reasons why we need health care reform.
I’m sorry but Democrats aren’t going to start over and I don’t necessarily want them to. There are other big issues to tackle – jobs, unemployment, financial reform, cap & trade, repeal of DADT, and many others that have been waiting for this bill to get passed. It’s time to address those issues too.
“And this is how you know an idiot in the wild”
Nice to see that the strength of your argument has been reduced to name-calling.
There is nothing to prevent a new plan from being introduced in 2010 or 2012 under a new Congress or administration.
Bob Cesca weighs in:
“We move to kill the bill at our own peril — and the peril of the middle class. And history proves that if healthcare reform dies today, it won’t be back for a long time. So what do we get with the Senate bill? An admittedly weakened bill, but one that not only sets up a foundation for further reforms, but one that will save lives and save money. Killing the bill will give us NOTHING.”
He cites Nate, as well.
More from Balloon Juice:
“Ezra Klein points out that reconciliation will only allow the Senate to pass all the things that Lieberman hates, like the Public Option, but we cannot use it to pass insurance and other regulatory reforms that are still in the bill.
I say pass the Liebermanized bill and let the President sign it. Then use reconciliation to get the rest.”
Worth thinking about…
There’s nothing to prevent Congress from sending you your pony in 2010 or 2012, either. But that isn’t very likely.
And speaking of strength of one’s argument — when do you actually engage with mine? Just having on about the bad old insurance companies isn’t an argument here. I’m talking about people being able to get insurance who do not have it now. I want to know why you think that it is AOK for more people to die, for more kids to not have health care just so that you can stick it to insurance companies?
I read Darcy’s post (and it is a shame you can’t argue your own immoral positions) and while I agree that there is something better to be had, getting this bill means that you now have something to build from. You will not get better by just demanding more perfection. If you won’t get that from this Congress, you won’t get it in your lifetime.
Well, yes, P, it is worth thinking about.
But this is the nut of our problem here. We have people here who have latched onto the path to their own miracle without understanding how reconciliation works, without knowing what is in any of these bills, without remembering how hard it was to get here — with a crappy bill.
There are no solutions with this bunch — just a repetition of wanting their Oompa Loompas Now.
Forcing impoverished people who can’t now pay for food or shelter to buy health insurance from for-profit companies is not reform, cassandra. I think that is immoral from many different perspectives. I am surprised that you can’t see that.
I don’t buy the poor people get the shaft argument. Analysis has shown that 93% of people get premium reductions. Medicaid is expanded to cover more people and people are given subsidies up to 400% of poverty to pay for coverage.
If you have analysis A1, showing that more people will pay more unless we get the extremely weak public option that was proposed, I’d love to see it.
I’m definitely in favor of trying to pass a public option through reconciliation, if they think this a fight that can be won.
You suffer from an abundance of stereotypes, A1. Not all of the 46M without insurance now are “impoverished” — they can’t afford the off the rack price of insurance. Medicaid, and SCHIP still provide coverage to the poor and at least Medicaid coverage expands under this bill. A thing you still have not made a case for killing. Families meeting certain income criteria who do not qualify for Medicaid may qualify for reasonably generous subsidies to help them purchase insurance. A thing that you have not made a case for killing.
Killing this bill means that none of those things happen, some big portion of the people to be covered still don’t get coverage.
Why should anyone prioritize not adding to insurance company profits over getting additional people insured?
And if not adding to insurance company profits is crucial, perhaps you’ll confirm to the rest of us that you are walking the walk here, by refusing to buy any insurance for you or your family.
UI, people who aren’t paying premiums today won’t see a reduction. They will be forced to pay insurance premiums by the government to private insurance companies with no cost controls or non-profit competition. Any subsidies paid for by taxpayers will be going directly to the insurance companies’ profits.
We already pay twice as much on healthcare as the rest of the industrialized world – this bill does nothing to curb those costs or stop their upward trajectory. There is nothing to control the cost of premiums. Nothing. In 5 or 10 years, people will be asking “what were we thinking?” but by then it will be too late.
This bill is just another slant of the table to redistribute the wealth and assets of the middle and lower classes and small businesses into the control of “too big to fail” corporations.
If healthcare is a right, then it shouldn’t be controlled entirely by private corporations.
cassandra, keep lobbying for insurance companies. I understand that you think it is the best use of healthcare and taxpayer dollars to line their pockets, regardless of the cost and quality of the services. All you really care about is that some bill called “Health Care Reform” gets passed quickly, regardless of its actual “reform” merits. It is pretty clear that there is nothing more important to you than lining the pockets of insurance companies regardless of the ultimate long-term costs to families, the economy, and other social programs.
“It will only be another FIFTY years if we let it. We really need to stop walking away and licking our wounds for decades. We need to keep chipping away – see gay activists and “pro-lifers” for what that battle looks like.”
And look how much THEY have accomplished. the anti-choice crowd has only LOST ground and it is still apparent how homophobic this country really is. The thing that is different about health care is that it is a national issue. you can fight the equality and anti choice fights on a state or even local level, but to stop the insurance companies from raping us, we need senators and house members with backbones. and THAT wont happen until the Nelsons and Lincolns and Leiberams and Reids are GONE. I still plan on fighting the fight, but we need ot look at reality and ask if the government is ever going to actually take up the cause of the people who gave them jobs….
i think the answer is no
A1 — way to not even answer the questions I keep posing to you. By trying to attribute words to me that I never said and that misrepresent what I’ve said you’ve made it completely plain that you can’t even explain your ground. You just need the stuff you’ve made up to argue against. But there is a whole thread here that is a monument to your intellectual dishonesty.
And the fact that you can’t explain to anyone here why people without insurance now should not be allowed to get it because insurance companies may benefit is a pretty big indicator of your immorality here. An immorality that is absolutely on par with the wingnuts who are fighting tooth and nail to make sure that no one else gets covered.
So do you contribute to insurance companies profits or no?
cass, i am uninsured and it makes me sick (no pun intended) that the very companies that raised my rates then ultimately dropped me… the same ones who denied me coverage for anything less than 600 dollars a month will now get rewarded for their greed. Sure, i may get some from of watered down token “coverage”.. mostly because it is mandated, but I would be kidding myself to think that it will be anything more than the very least they are legally allowed to give more for the very most they are allowed to charge.
I am making no claims that the insurance that will be available will be gold plated. Far from it.
Would you prefer to have no options at all for any insurance? Even insurance that can no longer subject you to recissions?
“Why should anyone prioritize not adding to insurance company profits over getting additional people insured?”
Because using the law to force people to buy services from for-profit private corporations is wrong and immoral. And using taxpayers dollars to subsidize the profits of private healthcare insurers is wrong when those dollars could actually be used by the taxpayer to pay for things like actual healthcare.
I pay for my insurance because it is my choice in a free market, not because the government forces me to. I believe healthcare should be a right and that is why I support real healthcare reform with a public option, not the current “welfare for insurance companies” bill.
Does that answer your questions?
thats my point. it is a lose lose. I NEED health insurance. So do a lot of people. But having to kneel before the robber barons who put us in this situation to have them generously bestow upon me the right to get healthy with going broke? SCREW THAT. It makes me furious that every single time the fat cats win. They are NEVER held to account for their actions that hurt the American people and soulless bastards in the form of “progressive” senators and house reps keep letting them operate. When the mob gets too loud, there is some sort of double switch back room deal to make us FEEL like we are winning, but it actually jsut increases the Robber Baron’s profit and power. Dont you see what this bill is now? we are being FORCED to support private sector fat cats. That is what a mandate without a public option is, and if Obama signs it i cant help but see it as tantamount to a betrayal of everyone who supported him from the beginning.
that is what our glorious democratic revolution has yielded. THAT is the Change.
Not really.
Once the bill passes you too will be paying for health insurance because you have to. So after this bill passes, will you stop paying for your insurance because you are then required to fund health company profits?
Even with a public option, people would still be free to buy the private insurance options on the exchange.
But just to be clear here — you would rather starve insurance companies of their profits than see the currently uninsured have a chance at it.
Which is a choice that only someone with insurance could make, really. Because you suffer no harm from all of that purity.
This government buys a very great many services that contribute to the profits of various companies.
Insurance Coverage Status Affects Mortality Rate in Pediatric Trauma Patients
This is real and abiding harm from kids not having insurance. This even notes that outcomes are not as robust for kids covered with government insurance.
Not contributing to insurance company profits is more important than fixing this?
People Without Insurance Don’t Get Timely Cancer Diagnoses
Not contributing to insurance company profits is more important than fixing this?
We pay twice as much for healthcare than any other industrialized nation. TWICE AS MUCH!
Does this bill even start to fix that? No.
You wanna fix those problems that you just wrote about? Address the costs. This bill doesn’t do that.
“This government buys a very great many services that contribute to the profits of various companies.
I really know you’re not this dense. The government doesn’t yet force individual people to buy services from private for-profit companies.
But I am sure that it will warm your heart when people are in court paying $3,800 fines for not paying their health insurance premiums.
I think we all agree that the bill doesn’t do nearly enough, but it does something. Let’s take it from there.
Didn’t we have to wait for the Bill Of Rights?
“But just to be clear here — you would rather starve insurance companies of their profits than see the currently uninsured have a chance at it.”
AS ive said before. I dont have insurance. I will end up growing their profits because the government will give me no choice. Either giv emore money to the fat cats, or break the law. This health care debate when from making it fair and trying to insure all americans to making it the law of the land that people can profit off of other people’s illness. that is the reality.
There is no point in arguing honestly. It is what it is, and what it is sucks. Is it better than no change at all? we will have to see. I’ll let you know in a year. If my health insurance situation has imporved because of this bill, i’ll eat my words. I’ll still be pissed off that that Aetna and Blue Cross were able to get EVEN RICHER off their scam, but maybe that is just the way the world works. The bag guys always win and sometimes they let the good guys FEEL like they win.
The government doesn’t yet force individual people to buy services from private for-profit companies.
Plenty of governments require you to have auto insurance to drive.
but you also have to earn the privledge to drive. you can choose not to drive and thus not to need car insurance. you cant choose whether or not you are going to need neath insurance.
This bill doesn’t do that.
Now who is being dense? There is some possibility for slowing down the rates of cost growth here, but this bill — in either chamber — has been specifically about drastically reducing the overall costs of health care here.
So I’m back to the question that no one will say yes or no to. Is it better walk away from a bill that does not control costs as well as it could (even though there was never a bill in play that did that) than to let some of the uninsured get some chance at some coverage for health care?
There is no point in arguing honestly.
I don’t see why not. The question is a basic yes or no. The honesty starts there. Either you are acting like Joe Lieberman (without Lieberman’s leverage) or you take what is available and work on fixing that.
but you also have to earn the privledge to drive.
You do. And you have no entitlements to health insurance or to health care (except in catastrophic circumstances).
And creating health care as a right was also never on the table for this effort, either.
That doesn’t change the fact that the government makes you buy auto insurance if you want to drive — a thing that in many places in the US you probably need to be an entitlement since you’re alternatives are very slim.
but you can still survive without driving. I know lots of people who have moved into cities to escape the need for a car. you cant escape the need for health care… unless you decide you will let your natural healing powers handle everything and live to be a ripe old 25. everyone NEEDS to be able to get healthy because everyone gets sick. I reject the comparison to auto insurance. Health insurance is FAR more important and is FAR more corrupted.
Which is an easy thing for you to reject since you think you can get a life arranged around no driving.
Tell that to a rancher in Wyoming, or a long distance truck driver, or a taxi driver in NYC.
And much like being willing to condemn people with no insurance to the lesser access to health care that it brings because you don’t want an insurance company to profit, presuming that people can profitably restrict their employment opportunities by not having insurance is nothing less than hubris.
i dont have a life arranged around not driving. I also need to drive. therefor i have auto insurance. We can get into a discussion any day about how an accident that wasnt my fault doubled my rates when i was 18 and despite a perfect driving record (not even a speeding ticket) since, they still go up every year because of that one accident…. total scam.
I will agree that a good 80% of americans need auto insurance. but 100% of us need health insurance and it isnt something that should be compromised on.
Bribes and Blackmail to pass this “great” bill:
Source: Dems Threaten Nelson In Pursuit of 60 weeklystandard.com/weblogs ^ | Dec 15 2009 | Michael Goldfarb
While the Democrats appease Senator Lieberman, they still have to worry about other recalcitrant Democrats including Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson. Though Lieberman has been out front in the fight against the public option and the Medicare buy-in, Nelson was critical of both. Now that those provisions appear to have been stripped from the bill, Lieberman may get on board, but Nelson’s demand that taxpayer money not be used to fund abortion has still not been met. According to a Senate aide, the White House is now threatening to put Nebraska’s Offutt Air Force Base on the BRAC list if Nelson doesn’t fall into line.
Offutt Air Force Base employs some 10,000 military and federal employees in Southeastern Nebraska. As our source put it, this is a “naked effort by Rahm Emanuel and the White House to extort Nelson’s vote.” They are “threatening to close a base vital to national security for what?” asked the Senate staffer.
“according to a senate aide”
Give me a break.
What senate aide, and how did they get this remarakable content?
WHat is the context?
Lizard – you are talking out of your LIzard brain.
This is like saying ‘some guy on the bus said….’
Really. Burden of proof.
What a waste of blogspace that post was, Lizard. YOu should write for Fox News. This is about their ‘high standard of journalism’.
Michael Goldfarb is a known GOP shill too.
The last BRAC round was 2005 and they aren’t finished with that. That will be done (supposedly in 2011). If there is supposed to be deficit reductions, I don’t seem them doing another round of BRAC for a few years yet.
I trust Howard Dean, and he came out today and said KILL THE SENATE BILL.
Liberman is truly flexing his mussles. The Dems are crying, yet they did all they could to derail him. but he fooled them and won as an Independent. Pay back is a bitch–that’s part of it and why he is the Repubs best buddy? 🙂 Political reality?
Lieberman has a brain and he is using it to keep the Democrats from completely imploding. The reward he gets is an attack on his wife. I hope that he learns that his old party isn’t worth the proverbial bucket of warm spit anymore. It was a once great institution before being hijacked by the secular progressives.
It was a once great institution before being hijacked by the secular progressives.
You mean those Dem civil rights loonies back in the 60s, with their hero JFK who refused to take orders from the Pope?
Lieberman is nothing but a greasy pimp for the insurance industry.He’s had a case of the ass against Democrats since he lost the primary in Conn.I look forward to going to Washington and spitting a huge bacteria filled lunger into his Howdy-Doodie face.Treasonous blowhard.
Lieberman will be Lieberman. I blame Harry Reid and Obama for not finding a path around Lieberman.
Uh Oh…..here comes Burris, to the rescue?
The backlash has begun.
Senator Roland W. Burris, Democrat of Illinois, has vowed that he will not vote for a health care bill that does not include a government-run insurance plan, or public option.
And on Monday, after Democrats indicated that they were prepared to meet the demands of Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, independent of Connecticut, and strip the last vestige of a public option from their bill, Mr. Burris went to the Senate floor to warn that he had not committed to vote for the legislation.
Mr. Burris, however, did calibrate his language: “I am committed to voting for a bill that achieves the goals of a public option: competition, cost savings and accountability,” he said. “I will not be able to vote for lesser legislation that ignores those fundamentals.”
Full text here: http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/15/burris-pushes-back/
Yes, John I think this is an issue and Burris is someone else that the president or Harry Reid has very little leverage over. We should also see what happens with a House/Senate conference.
Ben Nelson has also not committed to voting for the bill, so that’s still just 58 votes.
I blame Harry Reid and Obama for not finding a path around Lieberman.
Care to show that path?
strip him of his chairmanships, stop being nice to him in public, have democratic senators remind every single newsperson they meet how much money Lieberman gets from insurance ponsi-scams. drag him through the Fckin Mud. THATS how.
He is a whore for the insurance companies and the lack of action by the democratic leadership to end him (politically) amounts to tacit support of his whorishness
The interesting twist is that Burris is threatening to vote no if the Caucus surrenders to Lieberman. This is high Drama!
THATS how.
And exactly how does this get 60 votes?
“And exactly how does this get 60 votes?”
Ah yes, the Manifold Mantra. As if getting 60 votes, rather than a decent bill, were the actual goal here. For some, apparently, it is.
“make your case why 46 million people without insurance now should have to give up the chance at insurance, expanded Medicaid, or subsides that help them get insurance.”
So you’re OK with the idea that, in order to get those people insurance, we must pay billions of pieces of silver to the insurance industry?
I’m not interested in giving people insurance, because insurance is the problem here, not the solution. I’m interested in giving them health care, and it’s beginning to look like Superdome-style cattle calls might be the most efficient way to do it.
1. This is how badly Dems have screwed the pooch on health care: Unless there is a miracle in reconciliation, Mike Castle will now be casting the progressive vote for Delaware.
2. Americans aren’t supporting progressives because they aren’t yet hungry enough. Things might have to get far worse before they get better. The New Deal wasn’t passed until people had been starving for five years. We might have to elect another Hoover in 2012 until we can get an FDR in 2016.
3. Without public health care, the only thing that can save Obama and the Dems is a major jobs boom. Without that, there will be a Republican “Class of 2010” right-wing Congresscritters that will be with us for a decade.
4. Darcy Burner via dKos lays out the case for why the Senate bill sucks and should be killed (read both links):
No. Americans aren’t supporting progressives because they don’t share the same views.
And your, “Lets fuck everyone so they have no choice ” philosiphy in #2 won’t work either.
And your, “Lets fuck everyone so they have no choice ” philosiphy in #2 won’t work either.
uhh, I am postulating that the president doing the f***ing will be a Republican like Hoover. And yes, that worked just fine – we got the New Deal and sixty year of prosperity.
palin 2012? then Obama can come back in 2016 like Cleavland.
No, Geezer. Learn to read. I didn’t say any of those things. I asked a question. Nate and Kevin give some answers:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/12/why-progressives-are-batshit-crazy-to.html
http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2009/12/starting-over
Geezer, I usually agree with most of what you say, but I really can’t follow your logic here. “I’m not interested in giving people insurance…I’m interested in giving them health care.” A noble sentiment, and one with which I agree in principle. In a perfect world, we’d blow up the current system and have a single-payer or nationalized-type system. “Insurance” would be an unnecessary and resource-sucking middle-man. Unfortunately, in our world, in order for people to get health care, they need to be insured. Like it or not, that’s how it is. Noble goals married with unattainable paths don’t help anyone.
If you can come up with a way to eliminate insurance in one step, I’ll be right there with you. The only way I see is through an incrementalist approach — step by step. The imperfect, but likely passable, bill sitting in congress now needs to be the first of those steps.
This is so exhausting, and while I understand the sentiment behind “killing” the bill, can anyone explain to me how it gets reborn? I think dead is dead, and it’s dead for a loooonnngg time. Is that preferable?
Kos suggest stripping the individual mandate. Occurred to me too, just didn’t get around to saying it. Not a bad middle ground short of killing the bill.
while I understand the sentiment behind “killing” the bill, can anyone explain to me how it gets reborn?
Doesn’t matter if it gets reborn or not. Nice if it does, but by killing the bill the point is to avoid creating a privatized system.
Like I said before, imagine if we had dried to implement Social Security by requiring every worker to prove they had an account with JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, Merrill, etc.
pandora,
Bills are vetoed and then resubmitted regularly. The “this is our last chance” meme is an unsupportable lie. Healthcare is in a crisis. If this bill is killed, healthcare will be addressed again soon.
Killing the bill is out of the question. Won’t happen. Under the senate version, not even the Republicans really want it killed.
Because…
… the careers of many fine Democratic Congresspeople who supported the public option in the house version are probably being killed by the bill. They stood up for an affordable version of health reform and will end up having to vote for — and be blamed for — a version that charges average Americans whatever the local insurance monopoly demands and offers the minimum coverages possible.
They’ll be out of office in 2012.
By 2014, there probably won’t be a not for profit health insurer left in the country, except for the tiny ones now that exist to serve places like Watts in LA, inner city Detroit and parts of Texas. (and maybe not even Texas)
And there will be no changes to this bill for the foreseeable future, because the insurers will make so much money the Republicans won’t have the stomach to stop it.
We, the people, will be forced by our government to support the lifestyles of the health insurance industry, creating another industry that will be deemed to big to fail.
Whether this or the status quo is preferable depends, I suppose, on whose ox is being gored. I guess the good news is that under this bill, the middle and lower economic classes all share the burden of getting screwed, instead of it just falling on one group of people — the currently uninsured.
…BTW, have you noticed how no one is talking about the “underinsured” anymore? That’s because the uninsured, and some of the insureds, are about to become underinsured. It will be interesting.
I agree, Pandora. There is just no way that you can scrap what you have now and have any hope of coming back with anything, let alone something better. If HCR dies now, it won’t come back for a decade at least, and it will come back weaker. That is what the past 60 years of history tells us. Anonone’s statement is 100% false when talking about health care reform.
On the other hand, history also tells us that if you pass some sort of social legislation, even if it’s not perfect or what you ideally want at first, you can make it better. It’s a bit disheartening that that is where we are, but that is where we are.
Actually I would be quite happy if they stripped the individual mandate but I do understand why it’s there. I think we need to flex some muscle here and ask for something in return. The question is whether Presidents Nelson and Lieberman will allow it. They won’t be in favor of changing the measure to help people and not insurance companies.
I agree that Democrats have screwed themselves – or allowed themselves to be screwed by the Senate a&%hole caucus.
Hey, I’m all for single payer, but nobody ran on that. Sorry, A1, I just don’t see HCR being reborn, given this congress. You still have to deal with Lieberman, Nelson, Stupak (sp?) etc. And 2010? *shudder*
The “kill it now and try again later” idea is great if you want something a lot smaller and less progressive. If, however, you don’t like this bill because it’s not progressive enough, then quiting now doesn’t help you. Obviously congress is not progressive enough to pass anything bigger. Therefore, the only way to pass a bigger, stronger HCR bill is to make congress more progressive. The catch-22 is, if this bill dies now, congress will almost certainly get less progressive, not more.
Again, if someone can show me how to get something better with the situation as it is, I’ll be happy to listen. I just don’t see it. To paraphrase a really bad man, “You go to legislate with the congress you have, not with the congress you want.” The key is to pass what you can now, then keep fighting to improve it around the edges where you can, through reconciliation if you have to.
The good parts of the Senate bill can be snuck into other bills over time. Worst case is Dems pass this POS and declare victory on health care.
Clinton’s hcr died in 1993 and was not taken up again until 2009. The Congress started working on this in January. Do you really think they’re all going to say screw it and start over? No way. It’s now or it’s dead for a while. Electing more teabagging Republicans is not going to make it more likely that we’ll get better hcr and starting over now we start with the same people we’ve got. I’m sorry you don’t see this A1, but these are the facts. We can only tinker with the bill we have now.
I hope we pass the good parts of the Lieberman-approved bill and pursue reconciliation for Medicare buy-in and public option. I doubt this will happen because the Congress wants to move on to financial reform, cap & trade and hopefully DADT repeal.
Clinton’s hcr died in 1993…
And Clinton went on to have a successful administration. Remember the other way to attack the health care problem is with a broad and general prosperity. That will be the next battle – to rebalance the tax structure.
Worst case is Dems pass this POS and declare victory on health care.
Close, anon. It’s not the worst case (that would be not passing anything), but it would be a pretty crappy case. What we need to do is pass this bill and declare “Good first step”. As I said, we then need to keep working. “Health care reform” is not one thing, it’s a lot of little things. We can get a bunch of them passed now, then, over time, work on the rest. For some, there might be easier methods or more opportune times. Either way, accomplishing nothing now will, well, accomplish nothing.
What we need to do is pass this bill and declare “Good first step”.
If the individual mandate is included without competition, it is a step backward.
But… but… but… don’t we have time to improve it since it doesn’t take effect immediately? Isn’t Mass. fighting this fight right now?
I don’t completely disagree with you, anon. But it’s a step backward in one respect. The bill does many other very good things, which I don’t think are worth killing. And as far as that’s concerned, I could be wrong, but I think a public option or something along those lines is just the sort of thing that could be done through reconciliation. I’m not 100% convinced that the testicular fortitude to do that is present right now, but that’s where the “I won’t give up until I get what I want” idealists come in. It’ll be a lot easier to add things here and there than to start over again and come out with something better.
The Democratic party got slaughtered in 1994 and Clinton spent the rest of his administration doing incrementalist approaches. If that’s what you want, kill health care reform. I feel crazy for saying it but the Gingrich Republicans were much more reasonable than the Republicans now. At least Gingrich’s Republicans were interested in governing and had ideas other than oppose.
Losing Democrats in Congress will not get us more progressive legislation.
Exactly, UI. CLinton did go on to have a successful administration in many respects. Health care reform was not one of them. And as you alluded, the HCR defeat led directly to the rise of The Gingrich. I personally don’t want to see McConnell and Cantor in charge of an increasingly teabaggish congress.
Ezra Klein and Nate Silver have a couple posts saying what I’m trying to. Ezra’s explains why the individual mandate is needed.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/12/draft_1.html
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/12/20-questions-for-bill-killers.html
Democrats will lose many seats in 2010 no matter what happens with health care unless there is a major jobs boom and a general prosperity. It better start happening soon.
If the individual mandate passes, the profits from those 30 million new customers will flow to Republican and Conservadem candidates, cementing the corporate coalition and airing attack ads against progressives.
If you support this bill, than you’re supporting Joe LIEberman. This bill is worse than nothing. Anybody who thinks it is OK for the Federal government to fine people or send them to jail for not paying to line the pockets of private insurers is simply out-of-their mind. It isn’t about healthcare reform anymore at all; it is about increasing the profits of the insurance companies – nothing more. Kill it.
Passing a terrible horrible bill just to say that you’ve passed something is insane.
I wish I lived in your black and white world. Tell me why we can’t build on this? Tell me how, if we kill it, we put forth something better? I’m all ears.
Joe Lieberman will be perfectly happy with the status quo, too. Tell me how getting subsidies for low income people to buy insurance is worse than the status quo?
We already have Medicare Part C and D, which funnel federal health care dollars to private insurers and pharma for higher costs and worse results. When are we going to get around to fixing those?
For Medicare Part D we bought the argument that it was OK to give up negotiated drug prices, because the subsidies would “help so many people.”
Now we are being told it’s OK to give up the public option because the subsidies to private plans will “help so many people” and … “we can fix it later.”
Well when are we going to fix Medicare Part C and D? Those are huge parts of the current health care cost crisis, and we aren’t even talking about fixing those.
How come each time Dems help people, soul-sucking corporations gain more money and power?
pandora, this is just like the rush to war in Iraq. The reason that it is bad is because it is sucking up desperately needed money to pay for private insurance profits and then fining or jailing people if they can’t pay. There is no HCR in this bill. No cost control. No public option. No real insurance company regulations. Nothing.
UI, As far as low income subsidies go, tell me that you can’t think of better uses for tax dollars than lining the pockets of fat-cat insurance executives? Like, how about direct health care rebates?
People who think this is HCR are being utterly bamboozled. And you don’t need to listen to me; just listen to Howard Dean. This is all about the government extorting money for the insurance companies. That is why LIEberman is for it. And it is why you shouldn’t be.
There is as much HCR in this bill as there were WMD in Iraq. It is a bad, bad bill. Listen to Dean. He was right about Iraq and he is right about this.
A modest proposal: Institute universal military service, then cover everyone under the VA. You know, to support the troops.
This discussion indicates why Ted Kennedy was a Senator and anonone is not.
John, tell me about Ted Kennedy’s health care reform bill again.
Like McLuhan in Annie Hall, Mrs. Kennedy steps up:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/18/AR2009121803506.html