Here are the questions. View the tape an let me know in the comments section if Carper’s responses pass the smell test.
MSNBC GUY: Why shouldn’t people believe that your (health care reform vote) has been influenced by the money you’ve gotten from Insurance companies?
MSNBC Guy: But Senator you are under a lot of pressure, would you acknowledge, from the Insurance companies with all the money they’ve given you?
Paul Krugman lays it out.
So what are the objections of the Blue Dogs?
Well, they talk a lot about fiscal responsibility, which basically boils down to worrying about the cost of those subsidies. And it’s tempting to stop right there, and cry foul. After all, where were those concerns about fiscal responsibility back in 2001, when most conservative Democrats voted enthusiastically for that year’s big Bush tax cut — a tax cut that added $1.35 trillion to the deficit?
But it’s actually much worse than that — because even as they complain about the plan’s cost, the Blue Dogs are making demands that would greatly increase that cost.
There has been a lot of publicity about Blue Dog opposition to the public option, and rightly so: a plan without a public option to hold down insurance premiums would cost taxpayers more than a plan with such an option.
But Blue Dogs have also been complaining about the employer mandate, which is even more at odds with their supposed concern about spending. The Congressional Budget Office has already weighed in on this issue: without an employer mandate, health care reform would be undermined as many companies dropped their existing insurance plans, forcing workers to seek federal aid — and causing the cost of subsidies to balloon. It makes no sense at all to complain about the cost of subsidies and at the same time oppose an employer mandate.
I’m as confused as Krugman. The changes they are promoting seem only to result in a self-fulfilling prophecy. They are beyond conflicted. It’s as if they are stuck between a rock and a hard place. If they kill health care their political career (as Democrats) is in jeopardy. I mean, why vote for a Dem who acts like a Republican. I’m beginning to think their stance on health care is all political show – a way to hedge their bets.
Krugman finishes with this thought:
Now, however, they face their moment of truth. For they can’t extract major concessions on the shape of health care reform without dooming the whole project: knock away any of the four main pillars of reform, and the whole thing will collapse — and probably take the Obama presidency down with it.
Is that what the Blue Dogs really want to see happen? We’ll soon find out.
So, any ideas of what the Blue Dogs are playing at? I’m a little… conflicted.
One thing I really like about President Obama is that he recognizes the long view and knows you have to lay groundwork to get things done. I’ve been amazed that time and time again his foes will take the bait in his carefully laid traps. One of the traps that he set was his talk about finding “common ground” on abortion and defining that common ground as preventing abortion and helping women who are pregnant. The best way to reduce abortion is to reduce unintended pregnancy. So, you would think increased access to contraception is a good thing, right?
Who could have guessed that the first group to set off the trap is a group called “Democrats for Life of America.” Democrats for Life removed pro-life rising star Congressman Tim Ryan (D-OH) from its advisory board because of his sponsorship of a bill called the Preventing Unintended Pregnancies, Reducing the Need for Abortion and Supporting Parents Act. The bill increases funding for contraception, improves access to health care for pregnant women and increases funding for adoption services. The cause of the rift was Ryan’s support of increased access to contraception.
“We’re working in Congress with groups that agree with preventative options while [the DFLA] is getting left behind,” Ryan said. “I can’t figure out for the life of me how to stop pregnancies without contraception. Don’t be mad at me for wanting to solve the problem.”
–snip–
Ryan said he tried to convince officials with Democrats For Life of America, which he referred to Monday as a “fringe group,” that the use of contraception is needed as part of any plan to reduce unintended pregnancies but that failed.
So Democrats for Life are not interested in any kind of compromise, along as it allows women to use contraception. I’m not sure what their idea of reducing abortion is besides forced childbirth and the DFLA was not interested in any kind of compromise.
Here is a summary of the bill:
Reducing the Need for Abortion and Supporting Parents Act – Requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to make grants to provide education on preventing teen pregnancies.
Provides for: (1) grants to prevent teen pregnancy; and (2) a national center for parents of adolescents to support parents in preventing teen pregnancy. Amends title XIX (Medicaid) of Social Security Act to expand coverage of family planning services. Sets forth requirements for primary care clinics that receive federal financial assistance and provide abortion services. Expands state options to provide health care coverage to low-income pregnant women. Title X Family Planning Services Act of 2007 – Authorizes appropriations for voluntary family planning projects. Amends the Public Health Service Act to prohibit individual health insurance coverage from excluding pregnancy as a preexisting condition. Provides for: (1) grants for ultrasound equipment and prenatal testing for pregnant women; and (2) programs to better identify and treat pregnant women and mothers who are victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking. Allows the Secretary to make grants to public institutions of higher education to assist students who have decided to carry their pregnancies to term and parenting students in continuing their studies and graduating. Requires the Secretary to require that federally funded group homes for pregnant and parenting women provide, upon request, adoption counseling and counseling on parenting skills. Amends the Internal Revenue Code to: (1) increase the tax credit for adoption expenses; (2) make such tax credit refundable; and (3) increase the exclusion from gross income for employer-paid adoption expenses. Provides for: (1) education of teen and first-time mothers through home visits by registered nurses; and (2) the collection and reporting of abortion surveillance data.
Read this story of lost insurance and then answer the following: What would you do? I would try moving to England.
Health reform, remember, is a long game. The Senate Finance Committee will not write the health reform bill. They will just write their version of it. Then it will merge with the HELP Committee’s version. Then it will be amended on the floor of the Senate. Then it will be merged with the House’s health reform bill in a process called “conference committee.” Then that bill will return for a final vote.
So here’s a question that few have asked, and that virtually no one knows the answer to: How important is conference committee to the way the White House is looking at health care? I’ve heard it’s pretty important. Heard the same thing about Harry Reid, actually. If that’s true, then this is what the Democratic leadership is thinking: The overriding imperative right now is to keep health reform alive. That’s all that matters. Get it out of the Finance Committee. Get it off the Senate floor. If it’s cut down to half a loaf, fine. You don’t fix it now. You fix it in conference. Or you let Henry Waxman do it for you.
…
It passed because it’s hard to filibuster bills emerging from conference. You can’t change them, for one thing. No amendments are allowed. Nor is there time for debate. You vote for the bill, you vote against the bill, or you filibuster the bill. Those are your options. Democrats are likely to walk out of conference committee with 60 senators in their party. Ben Nelson will not be able to ask to change this bit he doesn’t like, and Evan Bayh will not be allowed to offer an amendment weakening that piece. They stand with the White House or against it. And it is, in the estimation of most observers I’ve talked to, hard to imagine them literally filibustering the final vote on health reform. The White House would torture them until they lost reelection. And if no Democrats are willing to filibuster, then the White House could lose as many as 10 of them and still pass the bill.
Count me as one of the people who thinks that there will be health care reform this year. Obama knows that this will be his legacy, this will be what he is judged on. It’s in his best interest to get the best bill possible. The process of making legislation is very messy, as we’ve seen before. I think that Obama is just beginning to up the pressure on lawmakers, so we’ll see what happens.
Health Care facts and figures, from HealthReform.gov (thanks, HHS Secretary Sebelius!)
DELAWAREANS CAN’T AFFORD THE STATUS QUO
Roughly 575,000 people in Delaware get health insurance on the job, where family premiums average $14,579, about the annual earning of a full-time minimum wage job.
Since 2000 alone, average family premiums have increased by 108 percent in Delaware.
Household budgets are strained by high costs: 24 percent of middle-income Delaware families spend more than 10 percent of their income on health care.
High costs block access to care: 11 percent of people in Delaware report not visiting a doctor due to high costs.
Delaware businesses and families shoulder a hidden health tax of roughly $1,000 per year on premiums as a direct result of subsidizing the costs of the uninsured.AFFORDABLE HEALTH COVERAGE IS INCREASINGLY OUT OF REACH IN DELAWARE
12 percent of people in Delaware are uninsured, and 69 percent of them are in families with at least one full-time worker.
The percent of Delawareans with employer coverage is declining: from 73 to 67 percent between 2000 and 2007.
Much of the decline is among workers in small businesses. While small businesses make up 70 percent of Delaware businesses, only 45 percent of them offered health coverage benefits in 2006.
Choice of health insurance is limited in Delaware. CareFirst Blue Cross Blue Shield alone constitutes 42 percent of the health insurance market share in Delaware, with the top two insurance providers accounting for 65 percent.
Choice is even more limited for people with pre-existing conditions. In Delaware, premiums can vary based on demographic factors and health status, and coverage can exclude pre-existing conditions or even be denied completely in some cases.
(h/t DKos)
Mike Castle, of course, gets his health insurance via single-payer public option. And so do 9.2 million Americans through the Department of Defense. And yet, Republicans insist the system that serves our nations troops is too terrible to inflict on ordinary Americans. Ask a veteran – such as our own Donviti – and they’ll likely tell you that they much prefer the public option.
Jay Rockefeller is “getting it.”
On Thursday, Rockefeller admitted he expects little bipartisan support.
“There is a very small chance any Republicans will vote for this health-care plan. They were against Medicare and Medicaid [created in the 1960s]. They voted against children’s health insurance.
“We have a moral choice. This is a classic case of the good guys versus the bad guys. I know it is not political for me to say that,” Rockefeller added.
“But do you want to be non-partisan and get nothing? Or do you want to be partisan and end up with a good health- care plan? That is the choice.”
Yes, that’s really what’s happening. Jay, do you remember the stimulus package? Do you remember the party of “no?” That’s not just a slogan, that’s reality. I’m really glad you understand this now. Democrats are going to have to take the risks on themselves. I don’t care how much you say “60 votes,” the American people expect you to get this done. Jay, could you convince a few other senators, enough to make 51? Thanks!
Truly shocking news.
Health insurers have forced consumers to pay billions of dollars in medical bills that the insurers themselves should have paid, according to a report released yesterday by the staff of the Senate Commerce Committee.
And health insurance companies claim they can’t compete with a public option… seems to me they can’t compete without cheating.
This has to hurt. But I guess having your own words used against you never feels good.
Why would it drive private insurance out of business? If private insurers say that the marketplace provides the best quality health care; if they tell us that they’re offering a good deal, then why is it that the government, which they say can’t run anything, suddenly is going to drive them out of business? That’s not logical.
It shouldn’t drive them out of business unless their product is crap. That said, there are industries that are thriving along side a public competition… FedEx and UPS come to mind.
EDIT: by cassandra DKosTV has the video:
Via Balloon Juice.
Yes, the Congressional Budget Office’s preliminary cost estimates for Senate plans were higher than expected, and caused considerable consternation last week. But the fundamental fact is that we can afford universal health insurance — even those high estimates were less than the $1.8 trillion cost of the Bush tax cuts.
Krugman
And then there’s this: “The CBO numbers ($1.6 trillion) were also about half of the estimated long-range costs of the Iraq war.”
Money for war and tax cuts for the rich = Hell yeah!
Money for health care = Irresponsible spending
I don’t want to hear another word about what we can afford, because when it comes to what Republicans want… money’s no option and “fiscal responsibility” is just a cute little phrase uttered when they’re out of power.
There are new polling results out from the New York Times that show an overwhelming majority of Americans support a public, Medicare-like option for health care reform. In bad news for Republicans, only 18% trust Republicans to reform health care while 57% trust Democrats. According to this poll even a majority of Republicans want a public option. What are we waiting for?
Americans overwhelmingly support substantial changes to the health care system and are strongly behind one of the most contentious proposals Congress is considering, a government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurers, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.
The poll found that most Americans would be willing to pay higher taxes so everyone could have health insurance and that they said the government could do a better job of holding down health-care costs than the private sector.
The question was worded “Would you favor or oppose the government’s offering everyone a government-administered health insurance plan like Medicare that would compete with private insurance plans?”
All: 72% favor, 20% oppose, 7% undecided
Republicans: 50% favor, 39% oppose, 11% undecided
Democrats: 87% favor, 9% oppose, 4% undecided
Independents: 73% favor, 22% oppose, 4% undecided
This is a huge majority of people. I sure hope Democrats can find a spine to get real health care reform. I’m getting a bit tired of the Congress thwarting the will of the people. A public option for health care is not controversial! People are not buying the status quo defenders scare tactics about wait times and protecting the profits of those poor, put-upon health insurance executives.
Just a reminder to please contact your friendly local Congressional representatives and let them know you want real health care reform. Continue reading
See the details here. Make sure to look at the entire thing — there are great spreadsheets and other data here.
But as you listen to the back and forth of the health care discussion, be familiar with the Bought Off and treat their commentary accordingly:
TOP 10 SENATE RECIPIENTS:
McCain, John (R-AZ) $251,834
McConnell, Mitch (R-KY) $200,200
Baucus, Max (D-MT) $183,750
Lieberman, Joe (I-CT) $101,400
Chambliss, Saxby (R-GA) $98,600
Collins, Susan (R-ME) $96,500
Kyl, Jon (R-AZ) $90,450
Warner, Mark (D-VA) $89,700
Hatch, Orrin (R-UT) $85,903
Nelson, Ben (D-NE) $83,300
TOP 10 HOUSE RECIPIENTS:
Cantor, Eric (R-VA) $113,850
Camp, Dave (R-MI) $112,923
Pomeroy, Earl (D-ND) $104,500
Boehner, John (R-OH) $101,200
Deal, Nathan (R-GA) $100,000
Towns, Edolphus (D-NY) $87,750
Rogers, Mike (R-AL) $74,000
Blunt, Roy (R-MO) $72,800
Ryan, Paul (R-WI) $69,000
Tanner, John (D-TN) $68,500
Even better is a longer look at Max Baucus’ contributions. The Chairman of the Finance Committee in the Senate has been getting about $1500 per day in contributions from the insurance industry.
$1500 per day.
Friday, Geezer asked a very good question that I didn’t have time to get to in the Frank Luntz thread. His question: Why should we be for a non-single-payer “reform” plan?
Before I get to that and ask you guys to weigh in, I want to put up some resources to look at and to think about. These are mostly comparisons of health care systems from industrial countries (and none will take much time to review):
I include all of this (and these are worthy descriptions and comparisons — no system is perfect and I remind everyone that anecdotes are not data) to broaden abit the scope of the conversation.
Part of the problem in listening to either advocates or critics of single-payer is figuring out what they are talking about. Are we talking about recreating the entire system as single payer or just the portions that will cover the uninsured or underinsured? Does that leave for profit insurance companies in place or does if make all of them move to not-for-profit status? Critics of single payer frequently invoke the UK system as the single payer that advocates want, while spinning out their scary tales of the day. Advocates almost never make clear the scope of their thinking — especially (as you can see from the resources above) single payer can take multiple forms.
The Public Option that was proposed by the House on Friday is essentially a Medicare for All program. It would be paid for by premiums from its users, with the government subsidizing premiums for poorer people and families. This part of the proposal is basically single payer, paid for by premiums. It will offer insurance to those who don’t have it now and will provide a competitive choice for the rest of us.