It is encouraging that Senator Reid respected the will of the American people and included a public option in the merged Senate bill. However, the addition of a state opt-out provision threatens to leave millions of Americans at the mercy of private insurance monopolies, with the federal government acting as enforcers for a product with no competition to keep prices down.
The President set an arbitrary $900 billion 10-year price tag for the final bill. In order to comply with this, the Senate bill delays the ban on excluding people from coverage for pre-existing conditions until 2014. According to a study by the Harvard Medical School, nearly 45,000 people die in the United States each year because they lack health insurance and can not get good care, and it is estimated that medical costs contribute to 62% of all bankruptcies. This is a callous decision that has an enormous cost in human lives and untold suffering.
Yet in the midst of quibbling about $90 billion a year for health care, the President just signed a one year $680 billion defense spending bill, which does not include the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. This represents a serious problem with the priorities of those in government.
But while people struggling with crippling health care costs and pre-existing conditions may have to wait until 2014 for relief, states can begin opting out immediately. That means for the next four years, health care will become a partisan football at the state level, easily gamed by the same insurance company lobbyist dollars that flooded on to Capitol Hill this year. And just as 42 members of the House did the bidding of PhRMA and inserted language into the Congressional Record in support of their endless monopolies on biologic “drugs of the future,” the Senate bill followed suit and included the Anna Eshoo-written language which prevents generic versions of vital lifesaving drugs from ever coming to market.
Seventy-two percent of Americans believe it is important to give people the choice of a public option when forcing them to buy insurance. They do not trust insurance companies. A clear majority of the Senate agrees with them, and would willingly pass a bill with an unfettered public option. But Harry Reid has capitulated to lobbyist money and has allowed the Senate to be held hostage by Senators like Blanche Lincoln and Ben Nelson, who have each received over half a million dollars in campaign donations from insurance companies.
It is time to acknowledge that the Senate process is broken and undemocratic, and is working against the interests of the American people. It is too easily gamed by lobbyist money and has become unresponsive to the needs of small businesses struggling to pay for the health care costs of their employees at a time when unemployment is skyrocketing. The Senate filibuster — and the ability of any one Senator to hold the entire body hostage on behalf of lobbying interests — must come to an end.
If Harry Reid truly cares about fighting for the good of the country over the good of Wellpoint, he will immediately dispense with the opt-out and move to reconciliation and allow a majority in the Senate to deliver to Americans what they want and desperately need.




131 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL Action
I do not agree with everything on this site but there fact sheet is quite helpful to see the impact of health care on small businesses in the US as well as what that will do to our GNP and employment figures.
I still do not understand where in the world corporations have gone IRT this issue. Companies would benefit so much from competition that would hold health care costs down. Their employees would be more productive because they would be in a better state of mental health when they do not have to show up to work worrying where the next meal will come from because they cannot afford all their family medical costs.
I hope more corps will cancel their membership to the US Chamber of Commerce.
My husband and I calculated what would happen to our finances if his company had to cap their contribution and make us pick up the rising % on care. We would be broke in 6 months.
“But while people struggling with crippling health care costs and pre-existing conditions may have to wait until 2014 for relief,…”
This may be incorrect. See section 1101, which states that people with preexisting conditions & without health insurance for 6 months will be able to sign up for a public option within 90 days (either of bill enactment or office established, can’t remember which & not looking at the bill at the moment)
Thank you, Jane
I was hoping this would get front-paged. Has it been distributed more widely, like a press release, too? Just curious.
FunnyWheelieDiva
Was it Senator Harkin on Rachel Maddow last night who described why reconciliation would not be the best plan because it would be written by the budget committee? I’m just curious what the take here at the Lake is on that.
Not sure but I don’t think I’ve ever really seen any indications that Harry Reid is willing to fight for anything, much less the good of the country.
AND THE KILLIN GOEZ ON AND ON AND…
Citizen Hamsher and the Firepup Freedom Fighters:
Thank you for the statement and for advancing a sound political solution to a couple of two hundred year old institutional roadblocks to democracy. But did you hear Senator Harkin last night when he dismantled the package that would come out of reconciliation? Is he correct that the problems with the product built this way would be more dangerous than a weak bill?
In my opinion, the biggest argument for reconcilliation is that it would require directly adressing the entire healthcare model every two year budget cycle and make Democrats politically responsible for makin’ it work. This thing that is comin’ out of the fight this year is a special needs child in need of long term rehabilitation and reconstructive surgery.
KEEP THE FAITH AND PASS THE AMMUNTION, NOW GET THE TROOPS HOME!!
Well said, Jane!
Good on ya!
Jane !
Thanks to you and many others who worked tirelessly, we have moved the debate from NO CHANGE, to NO PO, to PO FOR SOME. This is our beachhead and we must continue to push forcefully, until the final Bill contains PO for all, without an opt out.
Bluetoe2 wrote that Conyers appeared on Bill Press and said that single payer is gaining support in Congress
Have you been able to speak to Conyers about this ?
People are actually dying, how can doctors and hospitals let that happen?
If the Democrats really put off the effective date of the ban on exclusions for pre-existing conditions for five years, they might as well not bother to run candidates in the intervening years. The hope for such a ban is the only health care reform provision most people understand. The Democratic Party reveals itself a con game with that one.
Thanks for all your work here.
Reid was a boxer…allegedly.
Oh, I don’t know. He fought for retroactive immunity (while claiming to be against it) just as he now is fighting for Wellpoint and the other health insurers. He’s a disgrace to the party and to the country.
Jane: I agree that the Senate is broken and irrelevant. What is the answer? Some have called for a new constitutional convention. Others would say that once all funds in elections are public, much of the selling out would disappear. I see very little real hope for either approach gaining any traction. Our country has fallen and can’t get up…
Thank you once again, Jane.
Starts in 2014? My state can (and will) opt out? I agree with your assessment, the Senate process is broken.
It isn’t the doctors and hospitals that are letting people die. Once they get to them they get equal care. It is the corporate mind set of this government and the corporatiiztion as in insurance, pharmaceuticals, and appliance that are determining who and when sick people get to the doctors and hospitals.
We should recognize America is a corporate state: by the corporations, for the corporations, and of the corporations. If the people get something from the govt, it is only because the corporations see this to be in their long term interests. What did Mussolini say about fascism and the corporate state? Lets see…..
Still, lets be thankful for Jane.
Today I cancelled my “Deeluxxxxe Homeowner’s Insurance Policy”. It is the only private insurance the government allows me to say ‘no’ to. I was for HR3200 before I was against this mess. The loss of equity most people suffered in our latest depression is attributable to vague markets and OZ like oligarchs hiding behind curtains with names like the Fed and Wall ST. But this health care bill looks like a direct tap on most people’s income and for what? Not for an efficient, low-overhead, government-run, public-option. Oh No! Whatever you got left in your bank account, just make out the check to BC/BS, Aetna, United Health…Oh heck, just write it out to Chase, BankofAmerica, GoldmanSachs,…and don’t forget to save some in your mattress in case you need to pay for a mammogram, an abortion,…..oh wait a minute,….you already spent that on your Teeth!!!
But doesn’t public option kick in in 2013?
Yeah, my state will probably opt out too if it’s an option. Any thoughts on Sen. Harkin’s comments about reconciliation?
Thank you, Jane, for pointing out the armor-plated war elephant in the room. Defense spending is like a drug addiction that this nation makes sure to pay for every month before worrying about things like rent or bills or food for the kids.
I like to say, the reason the War in Iraq cost so much money wasn’t because our soldiers were shooting $100 bills out of their assault rifles. It was because of fat, bloated, wasteful, unregulated, unenforced, unsupervised defense contracts.
Every member of Congress vies for defense contract dollars for their state. The money comes from the taxpayers; some goes into the pockets of workers in their states, but plenty more goes into the pockets of the top 1%. In exchange, the contractors fund the incumbent’s endless re-election campaign and, when they finally become too embroiled in scandal to continue, hire them as lobbyists and consultants and pay them with more of our tax dollars. The Senators and Representatives profit while they cut services and lower taxes on the wealthy to show how fiscally conservative they are, the defense contractors get to throw $10 million bat mitzvahs for their kids, and the middle class slowly disappears.
But at least we peasants will be able to get free checkups.
People depending on emergency rooms don’t get equal care to those with insurance.
No offense Dr. Talkingstick, but that’s not true.
Uninsured trauma patients are much more likely to die
I’m guessing no economists in the Senate.
Excellent editorial, Jane. Thanks.
Hundreds of billions for wars, wars we fought for years and have already lost. But we can’t even spend $100 billion on healtthcare? Hundreds of billions to keep George’s pride.
I agree with most of your post, but I doubt we’ll actually get free checkups.
The Stupak amendment really got me thinking about defense spending. I am a Christian pacifist and something like 60% of my tax dollars go to pay for defense spending that is against my religious convictions.
Yet anti-abortion people insisted on the Stupak amendment because they could not tolerate the fact that some tiny fraction of one percent of their tax money would go toward providing health care that another small fraction of a percent might be able to use on an abortion. But congress capitulated to them. Where’s the justice in that?
Any odds on Harry reading some polls on his *victory* I think bad polling might be our only leverage now. But what Center Dem Moron thought this bill would satisfy anyone?
While I don’t agree with the current wars, the Constitution does require the government to provide defense.
Well done, Jane. Thank you for speaking for us.
I am especially glad that you contrasted the arbitrary $900B and the defense spending. What we should be hearing from our president is that these wars don’t add a dollar to our deficit and that we’re willing to spend what it takes for health care. Instead it’s the opposite. That fact is a good indicator of what is fundamentally wrong in this country right now.
Lastly, the paragraph about the Senate being broken and undemocratic — truer words could not be spoken. I have often said that the Senate is the ground zero of the problems in our government. It’s very interesting to read the Constitution about the formation and purpose of the Senate, and then to compare those words with the Senate that we know today.
The way that Article I Section 7 has been twisted by our current Senate is particularly bothersome to me:
“Defense” isn’t what it’s providing. These wars are making terrorism worse.
Iraq plus Afghanistan plus an additional $680 billion for general warmongering in one year is ok. And universal health care for all will destroy the America we all know and love.
Let me be clear: I, for one, no longer care to KNOW and most certainly do not LOVE the goddamned imperial fascist international ROGUE this country has become! “We the people”?? Right. The only thing that counts anymore in this contaminated desolation is greed: money and power. Screw everything else.
I feel sorry for Obama. Imagine, a principled man trying to reform, much less talk sense to, a den of rabid thieves.
The Constitution provides adequate protections against out-of-control majoritarianism. All of the extra-Constitutional anti-majoritarian features of the Senate and House rules should be stripped out: the filibuster, holds, seniority, and such delaying tactics as requiring a floor reading of a 1000 page bill.
The American government process is chock full of veto points allowing one or a few Congressmen to stop the progress of a bill. These veto points are toll booths for rent seekers and collectors of bribes and serve to make American government corrupt and its policies incoherent.
Conservatives tend to regard these veto points as holy, but I have no idea why. They do not prevent the growth of government (which I do not think is a valid goal anyway). What they do is allow for tradeoffs, logrolling, and backscratching between corrupt Senators. Every bill that’s passed will be carrying a heavy load of extraneous payoffs. This is the opposite of conservative government, except in one single respect: the system in place ensures domination by the big money players who can give bribes. That may be the actual conservative goal, but they never say so (except sometimes George Will, in a veiled way).
I have my doubts about the founders of the Constutition themselves. Why should rule by a venal minorities be superior to rule by venal majorities. Part of the idea was that minority vetoes slowed down the legislative process, make it more judicious, and stand in the way of big government, but there’s no evidence for that (quite the opposite).
Furthermore, there’s no way to protect minorities as such against the majority; with minority rule, not only does the majority lose, but every minority but one loses too. A case in point is the filibuster: the main accomplishment of the filibuster to day has been to deny the vote to black Southerners for five to seven decades. What kind of “minority protection” is that?
You know what is disconcerting? Sen. Harkin was praising this bill last night. “What’s not to like?” he said. Then we had Chuck Schumer cheerleading too.
Are they this far out of touch or do they just think we’re stupid? And this was coming from two of the supposed “good guys” on this issue.
#25 said:
As I said, I’m not talking about the current wars. Defense spending in general doesn’t make terrorism worse.
Good Morning Jane and Firedogs,
urging everyone to go over to FDL Action and read Jon Walker’s 2 posts about the Senate bill – very helpful, wonkier/weedier stuff made easy to understand for us non wonk types – more succinct than anything else I’ve seen on it elsewhere – we are fortunate to have him working for us here – thanks Jane.
Yep we put it out as a press release.
Jane,
While polls show Americans want the public option, most reply that
they would prefer to keep their current coverage,if given a choice.
The cost of this will far exceed the estimates as has been the
case with medicare and medicaid. This of course will result in
rationed care, as will be the job of a governmet task force.
The task force suggestion that mamagrams not be covered for
women prior to age 50 is portending what the future
holds.
The question we will be asking ourselves is how many people will
be dying under government run health care.
Oh I’m sure Bob McDonnell will trip over himself running to opt out Virginia. He has PRESIDENTIAL aspirations ya know.
What I keep asking is what happens to Virginians if he does opt out? We lose? We get zip of a po? Is that anywhere in the bill? Any fines or pulled fed. funding if states opt out?
Not sure how you can separate “defense” spending and spending on these particular wars, but I understand the point you’re making. My point however is that all the “defense spending” is going toward these particular wars at this particular time and it’s not helping to defend us.
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/renouncing-islamism-to-the-brink-and-back-again-1821215.html
Well if they are bought off they will keep smiling like their on happy pills. If they are Morons then over the weekend someone smart will explain the polls to them.
cobra–
harry seems to have dropped COBRA extension for all.
that is very bad.
can anyone tell me if sections 1101, or 2702 2704
are the equivalent of the HOUSE’s COBRA extension.
Yes, the damn Senate is undemocratic. It is that way by design.
The sweeping progressive change favored by most of the folks here, including me, is not possible with the constitutional system we have. A system designed to protect slavery is and has been the enemy of sweeping progressive change.
Given this, throughout our history it has generally been prudent to take the incremental progressive change the system allows and build on it.
Just to play devil’s advocate, what argument do we put forth when people ask what happens when the Republicans get a majority in the Senate again, and there’s no filibuster to stop them from ramming through whatever they want? I recognize it was poorly used during the Bush years, but still, even a barely-used brake is better than none at all, no?
I wonder why it took Decider Bush so long to figure out how to do a veto?
Jane, this sounds crazy, but would there be the possibility for an “individual opt in” and to handle it through Federal taxes?
You know the boxes we check to give an amount to National Parks on your taxes? Could there be boxes to check for additional contributions to a “National Health Care Bank” or a “I opt in” tax payment?
I know I would give a donation annually. I see it the same as a contribution to the health care fairs or a local free clinic.
Has any figured an estimated per citizen cost?
Well the founders were quite clear about not having standing armies. As long as we’re going back.
I agree with every word of this statement.
I see that Jane has put it out as a press release. Would it also be a good idea to set up a way for people to sign the statement? I’d sign it.
“Yet in the midst of quibbling about $90 billion a year for health care, the President just signed a one year $680 billion defense spending bill, which does not include the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. This represents a serious problem with the priorities of those in government.”
And then there is the rampant gangsterism on Wall Street…
Talk about priorities.
Hamsher/Warren, 2012
Trumka and AFL-CIO issue polite golf clap response
I saw that. They really think we are morons.
You want a friggin’ LIST of what’s not to like?
But hey, they have four years to pat themselves on the back and crow about how great they are since most of us will have no idea how this will work-or not work-til 2013.
Excellent, concise, and timely statement. Well done, Jane.
We can influence public opinion on this more than the media. The media kept saying no Public Option was politically possible we bloggers said otherwise.
Before this debate started I had no idea what a public option was I assume I was like most Americans now the public option polls better than the democrats do.
However to kill this bill or change it we need more time.
Bush got low taxes and a permanent state of war. The other stuff wasn’t important to him. (His only concern regarding abortion, for example, was making sure that it would be available his daughters personally if required, whether in the US or elsewhere)
Now wait a minute, the article also says, “The types of injuries may differ too, Zwemer said. Gunshot and stabbing victims — frequently younger people involved in crime — were much more likely to die from their wounds than other trauma patients tracked in the study. These people are generally uninsured, but the type of injury — not insurance status — is the reason for their higher fatality rates, he said.”
In the ER of a public hospital, and trauma centers, insurance is not even addressed when a patient is brought in. They do everything, for everyone. The uninsured, in addition to including legions of young individuals engaging in higher risk activities, tend to have untreated, chronic conditions. I would guess this is a big factor in the survival rate.
Certainly insurance is going to be an issue during the recovery process, but that goes both ways. I have seen insurance companies inform physicians that their patients must be discharged — regardless of if the physician feels the patient is ready. I have seen physicians confront the patient, and explain to them what it will cost to stay, leaving the choice to patient… …most people opt to leave rather than knowingly bankrupt themselves.
The bill now belongs to the Dems. If we kill it – which I don’t think is possible – we will take the blame and that’s not going to be nice at all.
As a single payer advocate, I keep seeing supporters of a public option getting screwed at every turn. Obama bailed, House Democrats bailed, Pelosi bailed, heck even House progressives bailed, now we see Harry Reid in the process of bailing and Democratic Senators following him. The public option, what’s left of it, is small, hobbled, and delayed. That Democratic politicians are going to screw you over on this to the very end is eminently predictable. What I don’t understand is why public option supporters will not move into opposition on a healthcare bill that promises to slash Medicare, enrich insurance and drug companies, leave costs uncontained, and force millions to buy junk insurance they can’t afford to use, all this for a public option that has been repeatedly and systematically gutted.
They say every Senator thinks he should be President. Every Senator thinks we are serfs and that they are the Straussian Elite.
http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=drury_24_4
My bold the Straussian Elite thinks they are superior but they are actually a protected class that isn’t allowed to fail.
My only thoughts right now are in the vein of “Damned if we do, damned if we don’t”. We’ve been screwed.
I realize that most of us have seen many citations for this assertion, but here’s a citation for those who may not have seen earlier ones.
From HarvardScience (September 17, 2009), quoting David Himmelstein, study co-author, associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, and a primary care physician at Cambridge Health Alliance:
Under the Senate bill, state’s would be able to opt out. Doesn’t that just shift the lobbying full force onto the state legislatures? There are states with medical insurance companies that have no competition. That will continue under the opt-out scenario. No change you can believe in.
Michael Whitney has a fresh cross-post available: “Richard Trumka, Andy Stern accuse Fed of massive secret bailouts and cronyism”
We can change things. Harry is the third most likely to lose his senate seat according to fivethirtyeight blog the only senate seats more likely to change are Open seats. Also Harry has a son who wants to run for office. Harry thinks this bill will boost his polls and help his son get elected Bwahahaha!
Right now we see for sure is the Senate bought or stupid.
Citizen alan1tx:
“Defense spending in general doesn’t make terrorism worse.”
Yes it does, citizen, and if you were familiar with the shared understandings of our “Founding Fathers” and 17th century Enlightenment political thought you would know why. But since you aren’t, I will educate you. First of all for our founders, “standing armies” were anethema to democracy and to individual liberty. In fact, the history of Europe in the 200 years prior to what I like to call “the revolutions of enlightenment” (French and American) had taught everyone that if a state created an army then it had to be used or it would devour the state economically, socially and politically. That is why even after the terrible experience of the Civil War and the drafting of a civilian army, we never established a standing army that would be capable of responding immediately to an attack on the nation. Instead we relied on the shell of cadres and small contingents to train drafted civilian forces in the event of attack. Remember that the shared understanding of massive military was that it was to respond to an attack and the wisdom of this understanding was that in order to go to war in a democracy with a drafted civilian force, the government would have to have the support of the people. Now if we jump forward to the 20th century, we see the establishment of a permanent and professional military to allow the government to use it in protection of “national interests” that were NOT shared by a majority of the nation, that is the military could now be mobilized to advance the interests of the corporation with the resources of the nation without the consent of the people. The reason that we are waging unpopular, expensive and criminal wars against two countries is that we can…that is, we wage the wars we wage on behalf of our corporate intersts because we have a standing army and it must be used. Now to say that that doesn’t create the conditions for terrorism against us by those we are attacking is an expression not of reason but stupidity.
Stop with the arguments about color contrast by blind men in an art gallery. It is your right to be stupid and ignorant but it is not ok for you to advance this stupidity to the point that other people’s children die.
I know a lot doctors and I don’t think this can be laid at there door. Most doctors work hard and are not nearly as well compensated for their time as we think or as they once were. Most of them do it because it matters to them, but they are confronted with so much, I couldn’t do it. Most of the doctors I know support massive healthcare reform, notwithstanding a few knuckleheads in Congress who clearly have never practiced in an urban trauma center or a low income neighborhood.
Yes. This latest morph has all the virtues of the despised co-ops: state by state coverage, no bargaining powers, isolated small risk groups; and, they put the ‘public option’ name on it like lipstick on a pig.
Jane is right about the system being broken. Reps and Senators take legal bribes because there is no political price to pay. The country is so corrupted by corporate money at this point, when voters go to the polls, they vote for THEIR crook and don’t demand anything in return. Until they start turning out the crooks nothing will change. Congress will never change campaign finance in a meaningfull way. The people will have to create their own national ballot initiative to outlaw corporate money despite Congress, and it will have to be born from the grassroots.
We should start memorializing the “health care” dead like people do with auto accident victims. We could put up shrines on insurance company properties. We could have memorial services with urns of ashes on the steps of congress. We could do this everyday. Everyday. We need visible evidence of the murders taking place in the name of profit.
There are all kinds of games that go on with uninsured patients. They may be steered to the lowest common denominator hospital. ER docs may seek to treat and release. Drug regimens will be chosen according to one’s ability to pay.
That’s a very good idea. People could lay one flower for each death on the steps of the Capitol every day. I’ll bet even the dumb media couldn’t ignore that.
Why can’t we find some way to remove the healthcare coverage that Congress enjoys?
Well done Norske!
Citizen OldFatGuy:
Thanx Citizen but it is depressing and disappointing that I need to do that to thoughtless and ignorant people in a forum like this…I hate it when I do that (NOT).
As I understand it the public option will not kick in for another 5 years; and it will be an option for all of 2% of the population. And now it seems that the *preexisting conditions* language will have to wait 5 years in turn.
This is about as far removed from *the audacity of change* and *change we can believe in* as one can imagine. It is a moral travesty that both the Democrats and Republicans concocted. It is the very essense of crony capitalism—the insidious and incestuous relationship emanating from the revolving doors that attach Washington and New York at the hip.
Consider:
Since 1990 the insurance industry has contributed $324,658,744 to candidates running in Congressional elections.
The pharmaceutical industry: $177,030,005
The health professional industry: $477,990,286
Hospitals/nursing homes: $117,806,579
That totals $1,097,485,614. Over a billion dollars.
Now compare that with the dollars contributed by folks like you and I. How blind is the American electorate to the manner in which political and economic power converge to perpetuate fraudulent *democracy* on such a massive scale. All perfectly legal of course. Inherent corruption as national policy.
In America, healthcare is just one more component of the marketplace. Like buying shoes or DVDs your health becomes intertwined in the world of commodities. You get what you can afford to get. If you can afford to get anything at all.
Now, every other nation in the industrialized world has chosen to treat its citizens healthcare as something no civilized people would put on the same level as purchasing a pair of shoes or a DVD. Instead, citizens are presumed to be eligible for decent medical care….simply because they are citizens.
Absolutely. BC/BS will be camped out at the governor’s mansion. And state legislators can be bought off a whole lot cheaper than Congress.
It will be a mass cluster—- in Richmond.
Personal experience here: the hospitals are over charging the uninsured. If they are participants in medicare/medicaid, federal laws and states statutes prohibit what they can charge and receive above and beyond medicare/medicaid reimbursement amounts. But that doesn’t stop them. A uninsured family member’s bill which if the laws were followed would have been about $4000.00 was squared…. twice. When a letter was written to the hospital by the family member that pointed out the federal and state statutes, the hospital responded by adding another days charges for the room, and upped their threats of legal action. Currently, this family member has had to secure the services of a lawyer in order to simply get the hospital to follow the law. According to the legal nurse consultant I worked with, hospitals, whether for profit or not, make anywhere from 70% to 90% of there profits on the backs of the uninsured. Nice. Really nice.
I’m there. Have contacted both of my Senators twice so far, urging them to block the bill. Also had contacts from another action I was doing call and urge them to block it.
There are quite a few of us who have moved into opposition. Not as many as I would’ve hoped given these bills, but it’s more than a couple. I sense even Jane is conflicted about the whole thing, although that’s just a feeling I get. I have no idea if that’s the case.
I’d love to see the bill die, then nationalize next year’s midterm around single payer and see what happens. Pie in the sky of course, cause that ain’t happening.
What is going to happen is some form of this monster will be signed into law, and it will do exactly what you laid out in that sentence, enrich insurance companies further, mandate we purchase insurance that quite possibly may be worthless, etc. etc. etc. And it will include some form of The Stupid Amendment with language that they’ll say waters it down but in reality does little. And the worst part of it all is with the delay in kicking in and even starting, this will ensure that real health care reform is done for another generation.
And on we go. Teddy Roosevelt (I think) first proposed health care for all. That’s how long already we’ve been going. 3 or 4 generations so far. What’s another 1 or 2 dealing with death by spreadsheet?
I submit that there’s not even a single modern, civilized country in the world (except this one) that would even consider a system that leaves millions uninsured and thousands dying annually as a valid point worth even debating.
But when it’s funding for the MIC or tax cuts for the wealthiest, you can rest assured they’ll find a way to do that right.
Wouldn’t reconcilliation leave the bill in the hands of Max Baucus’s committee?
John Emerson@31 & NorskeFlamethrower@62:
Ok,ok so the Senate is a clogged sewer and the founders never intended us to roam about the world blowing people up for fun and profit. But locking suspects up and using special techniques to get them to say the things we want them to say is ok, right. C’mon, give me something here. My daughter’s talkshow future depends on it. How ’bout if we let them (the suspects) enroll in the public option? Damn, what if Gitmo opts out.
Deadeye Dick
Because that would take an act of congress, I’d guess.
I was going to put up a diary on Seminal yesterday called “This is what ‘lose-lose’ looks like.” [Yard work got the better of me.]
Here we are, as democrats or progressives, and these are our rotten choices:
** defeat this [whatever Frankenstein emerges] bill, and we’ll be blamed for “can’t get anything done.” [More accurately, Obama FEARS that HE'LL be tagged with that. That's why SNL's "he'll sign anything. Just give him a stack of papers with 'health care' written on top. He'll sign it." was so spot on.]
** support this, and live with the blame for the thousand rotten things it imposes [mandates, no cost controls, extending PhARMA patents, etc.] and even more thousand issues it doesn’t deal with. The mandates to pay for ever-escalating insurance premiums, while getting worse care with higher deductibles are going to KILL Democrats!!
Republicans have been quite smart in all this: they’ve managed to get Democrats to water down any legislation, in exchange for . . . . crickets . . . not a single Repub vote. Dems have been incredibly stupid in agreeing to do so. [Gee, thanks, Mr. Bi-partisanship.]
If Dems were really smart, they’d let this monster die and blame it all on the Republicans. This little skirmish has smoked out who the enemy is and where they hide. A better battle plan can be formulated for “next time.”
Oh, and what “letsgetitdone” said yesterday about “action” on this piece of crap forestalling future moves to stick fingers in the very leaky dikes for many years.
And while we’re talking numbers [a very good approach], I think it would be effective
a) to contrast how much PhARMA and the insurers are paying EACH DAY to lobby, vs. what we could fund in free clinics with that money; and
b) to point out that lobbying money is coming from PhARMA and health insurance coffers, the same coffers that they have to replenish with higher premiums, denials of service and cut-offs, because they’re “not making enough money.”
A final note: I nearly fell off my chair as I listened to the 10,000th repeat of the ad the Chamber of Commerce is running opposing legislation. One of their “gripes” is that “the current bill does nothing to contain health care costs.” Say, that would require a public option or single payer, non? Can we sign you up for support?
I think it’s important we inside the blogs do take pause and credit Jane and ourselves for moving the debate against all odds and huge amounts of money. However I think what progressives in the House have done demonstrates we have all failed this time around.
If we support this version of the bill, particularly this poor excuse of a PO (so far from robust I can barely type the word anymore).. We simply have no credibility as activists… and our Caucus in the House is less than worthless.
This bill is a sham. We have opinion on our side and we have solutions which are so much better. All of which means nothing for years to come if we support this bill.
We absolutely should yell “Kill This Bill” and be very simple and clear as to the reasons why.
I would be willing for them to kill the bill IF the Progressives would issue statements and have press conferences or whatever is needed to make sure that the public knows that this was a really bad bill. I think we Progressives have done a good job trying to get a good bill but I’m not sure that most people will understand why it was killed and that’s important.
I don’t understand the purpose of the Senate. The protection against “tyranny of the majority” is the Judiciary and the Constitution. The Senate is a completely anti-democratic institution, a kind of Nobility for the New World.
Though for that matter I completely fail to understand the point of representative democracy, other than as a means to have some people dealing with day to day drafting of legislation. The vote should always go to the people directly. The argument is always that people aren’t often fit to make complex decisions about the nuance of any particular policy, but that somehow they are fit to choose suitable proxies to do that on their behalf. It’s absurd. As a case in point, I give you the current political landscape of the United States of America.
We’re no more fit to be selecting our government than governing ourselves, and considering the effects of careerism; we’re probably worse off.
I also hold that representative democracy, by design, puts utterly unexceptional people into leadership positions.
We need more progressives and progressives need to be more active. People in Congress pay attention to us to the extent that they fear and respect us.
This is the first time in a long time when progressives have been serious players, and the most progressive measure that’s been proposed in decades.
You seldom win rightff at the beginning.
Well, as mentioned above.. six or eight months ago virtually no one knew what a P.O. was… now it garners 70 percent approval.
If we don’t hold our elected progressives feet to the fire here.. when and what cause will we ever hold them accountable.
Something along the line of.. We wanted something like Medicaid for all, were willing to begin with a public option for all… the only things which would bring down cost and care for all like 35 other nations do. But what we have now does not begin to move the ball in that direction. Not nearly enough.
Why is that so hard? Given what the bills do now are so awful and begin so far down the road?
This is a huge opportunity to continue defining ourselves, moving the overton window, while fighting to save lives and treasure. We cede all of that if we compromise here. We will be no better than the GOP sycophants who swallowed whatever the lunatic GOP shoveled the countries way.
I think Jane’s still looking for realistic ways to make this legislation better, and I agree with her. If that effort doesn’t lead to results, then I think the next best thing is to watch the Democratic leadership hang themselves politically for having failed so badly.
As I commented last night on letsgetitdone’s diary:
“And now it seems that the *preexisting conditions* language will have to wait 5 years in turn. ”
Section 1101 says 90 days from the bill’s enactment.
Subtitle B—Immediate Actions to
9 Preserve and Expand Coverage
10 SEC. 1101. IMMEDIATE ACCESS TO INSURANCE FOR UNIN
11SURED INDIVIDUALS WITH A PREEXISTING
12 CONDITION.
13 (a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 90 days after the
14 date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall establish
15 a temporary high risk health insurance pool program to
16 provide health insurance coverage for eligible individuals
17 during the period beginning on the date on which such
18 program is established and ending on January 1, 2014.
Page 44 defines the eligible individuals:
7 (d) ELIGIBLE INDIVIDUAL.—An individual shall be
8 deemed to be an eligible individual for purposes of this
9 section if such individual—
10 (1) is a citizen or national of the United States
11 or is lawfully present in the United States (as deter
12mined in accordance with section 1411);
13 (2) has not been covered under creditable cov
14erage (as defined in section 2701(c)(1) of the Public
15 Health Service Act as in effect on the date of enact
16ment of this Act) during the 6-month period prior
17 to the date on which such individual is applying for
18 coverage through the high risk pool; and
19 (3) has a pre-existing condition, as determined
20 in a manner consistent with guidance issued by the
21 Secretary.
This whole piece about the public option opt-out is a moot point, because their are several Democrats who quite simply not vote for cloture on any public option.
And it is fucking pathetic that you would mention giving what the public wants in discussing the public option. If you really believed in giving the public what it wants, you would have them drop this reform bid entirely, because EVERY SINGLE POLL shows that more people are opposed to it than support it. Even more fucking pathetic is that you have a piece on the terror trials and discuss how the Republicans are politicizing it by opposing the trials in NY, even though MULTIPLE POLLS HAVE SHOWN ALMOST 2/3s OF AMERICANS DISAGREE WITH THE HOLDER DECISION. It is amazing the capacity the left has for ignoring polls if they don’t have the results the left wants to see.
nm. not worth it.
I don’t disagree with you. I want to make sure that for once the blame is placed exactly where it should be.
On Republicans, Blue Dogs and assorted other people who have been bribed to undermine the good of the people. The Dems are so afraid to hurt the Rs feelings that they usually just take the blame, slink away and try to ignore the whole thing. I’m not willing for that to happen this time. If they hadn’t bargained away single payer we probably wouldn’t be in this mess.
This whole piece about the public option opt-out is a moot point, because their are several Democrats who quite simply not vote for cloture on any public option.
That’s what they say, but arms can be twisted and heads can be broken. You play the game even when the other team is favored. If nI didn’t realize that you were being malicious, I’d say that you were being incredibly silly in a way characteristic of weenie liberals.
Some people oppose the reform bid because it’s too strong, some because it’s too weak. You can cherry pick your polls and USE LOTS OF CAPITAL LETTERS, but that doesn’t make what you’re saying true.
Geez. Trolling in 2 threads at the same time.
Already am signed up.
Getting paid to troll is a good motivator. It’s especially fun when you can just make shit up out of thin air. Just like the Republicans do every day on every issue. Guess it’s in their genes now.
Harry Reid must believe what he sees on TV, like the business sponsored ad that portrays a small business owner, on a rainy morning, letting go his dozen workers, all of whom he knows personally, likes and admires – because Democrats passed a health care bill that will give them coverage the owner can’t or won’t pay for.
What we are not meant to consider, Mr. Reid, apart from the blatant lies in that narrative, includes this. That small business owner might be a rabid Republican, who would provide health care insurance just after he allowed a union to be formed around his cold, dead body. He treats those employees like fungible, disposable wipes about most things. They tried to form a union, and the guy giving them their pink slips isn’t the owner, he’s a big business-subsidized union buster.
More generously, that fictional small business owner might have let his people go because banksters yanked his working capital loan. His customers and suppliers, in the same boat, can no longer afford to pay him on time or extend him their usual credit terms. Or, he sells to predatory customers like Walmart, who drive down his prices and drive him out of business, or they have resourced to suppliers in Indonesia and Vietnam.
Alternatively, that owner is closing his doors because he can’t afford insurance himself and is about to go bankrupt because he has prostate cancer and his wife has a lump in her breast.
The business groups sponsoring such anti-health care (and vehement anti-union) ads don’t want you to know how businesses sometimes run and what that proverbial small business owner really has to deal with. They just want you to hunker down in fear, and keep piling up credit you can no longer get or afford, so that they can stay in business. Health care? If you have to wait five years to get insurance that is barred from rescinding your contract or excluding pre-existing conditions, you’ll be on a slab in the morgue or bankruptcy court before you have to worry about that.
I am not talking about Reid and centrist Dems. I am talking about progressives. They sold us out just as much as any “centrist” (I hate that forking word).
The House Bill by and large was a Blue Dog bill. Hell even Mike Ross didn’t vote for his bill… but our guys and gals did! And many of our folks took a pledge not to do so! ***crickets****
I know they were pushed aside from the beginning… but we still have the countries support for what we propose. Our silent complicity now belittles everything we have done this year.
Jane:
Admittedly, I tend towards a rather cynical point of view when it comes to the kowtowing done in Congress in the abject presense of the healthcare industry.
I hope it is 90 days. I really, really do.
But everyday I think: Thank goodness I am an Army vet. Which means I already partake of the public option. And almost all preexisting conditions are disregarded.
The Senate is the Founder’s more democratic version of England’s House of Lords, the still very powerful upper chamber of Parliament at the end of the eighteenth century. The Founders envisaged it filled with similar characters – landed gentry or their educated sons – lacking only the noble titles they prohibited the federal government from offering. It was intentionally a smaller, more deliberative body, a cautious brake on the speeding, raucous House.
That might have been useful in an era that moved more slowly, where caution could mean stability (always, for those that already have, not the have nots). It was also an era only a small remove from using leeches to mend patients and the burning of witches to save men’s minds.
The Senate has become a den of
thieveslobbyists’ creatures, a few saints, and a handful of independents who cry in the wilderness. It has passed its usefulness to all but the businessmen who pay its members’ way.I’m familiar with the framers’ intent, and I simply disagree with it. When I re-read the Federalist Papers (picked up a very old Library of Congress version for cheap :-), I found myself again finding the justifications to be completely logically incoherent.
I agree. Last night on letsgetitdone’s diary, I commented:
That comment was based on what I believe will be coming out of this process.
I think that Jane’s right to say that killing the legislation isn’t possible. And I think she’s right to want to speak in a way that can still be constructive. What’s left for us to do now is to try to make this legislation better.
But, as I said above, if this legislation isn’t made better, then we need to make very sure that they know that they will not be getting any support from us – indeed, from millions of Americans – next year because of their pathetic failure to achieve real reform.
historically it was to give equal representation to smaller states and originally it also enshrined state-legislator-based selection of representatives to the national legislative branch, as opposed to the direct election, which was in the House.
This is THE most critical part of this legislation, as far as I am concerned. Sick people have to wait for 5 years. Hmmm…let me think about that. And this legislation is supposed to help the weak, the infirm, the poor. Oh, I get it: the insurance industry and big Pharma…
While helping desperate, frequently out of work Americans, well, that’s got to take a back seat to the business of geopolitics, right? Much more interesting for those in power to watch drones bomb villages on the big screen.
And the po? Which doesn’t have anyone enrolled yet, doesn’t have any assured network of providers, can’t negotiate for bulk purchases of drugs with Pharma, isn’t secured with a reliable risk adjuster mechanism, and has to make a profit for the first 10 years of its existence to pay off its seed money, and doesn’t get off the ground until 2014…why are we going to the wall for such a soupy, untested, belated policy?
We should be reforming insurance now (preexisting conditions language, rescission, nullifying antitrust legislation)…and that means now, effective upon passage of this bill…and ditching the mandate/insurance industry bailout and the eviscerated po. Turn our attention to single payer next year.
Replace with “neoliberal,” it’s more accurate anyhow.
Trolls? Must be time for Troll Bingo.
That is shocking. Do you have any analysis of why that is?
It is unethical to not make equal effort for pay and non-pay patients and most increased morbidity and mortality in uninsured should be explicable on the basis of how advanced the illness is at first contact. Of course that could not likely apply to any significant degree to trauma.
If an inferior quality of care is being offered the uninsured then the corruption is even worse than I have perceived.
I’ve got to run..
But I think we can and should push for any improvements.. while simultaneously rejecting this bill.
Everyone else does it with great success. (See my mention of Blue Dog Mike Ross above).
I don’t understand this. I bow to Jane’s superior knowledge, but . .
With the Dems trolling the gutters for every vote to pass this thing, can’t some Dems just have a dentist appointment on the day of the vote, or vote “present” like the Dear Leader?
Again, if the Dems were smart, they’d just continue this kabuki, but behind the scenes say to the folks “pledging” their votes for even more evisceration, “fuck you. We’re not gonna do it. Go ahead, vote against the bill,” and then let it happen.
Of course a strange result might be that if they stood up to this blackmail [like they should have 8 months ago], ConservaDems would say, “y’know what, I’m gonna get killed in my district if I don’t support this. I’ll vote for it.”
One element that I think the “good guys” haven’t exploited enough [although Jane's done most of the "exploiting" that's happened], is that many ConservaDems are caught between their loyalty to their Corporate Sponsors and the will of their constituents.
All this time that the public was uninformed and stupid, ConservaDems could come up with some bullshit argument put forth by their Corporate Sponsors that they thought would “fly” with constituents. As long as “constituents” were envisioned to be the wack jobs at the Town Halls, that seemed like an okay strategy. But as there’s been more “education” about the public option and other elements, public opinion in favor of it has grown, pitting the public against the Corporate Sponsors.
I also think we should distinguish among the wavering Dem [aka the ones who demanded item after item of watering down] between the “Rahm Dems — the conservatives that Rahm recruited to slap a “D” next to their name, but who are true DINOs, and the “corporate Dems”.
The former might have an argument that it’s political suicide to vote for health care reform [although Jane's use of polling has shown that's not true]. The latter — see Blanche Lincoln, for example — have constituents who wouldn’t turn them out for a “yea” vote, but their Corporate Sponsors would be pissed.
I also think that Dems [good Dems] need to take a look at the “aftermath” of a vote on this bill, and where blame can be placed. If the bill doesn’t pass, Dems can pile on the Repubs as a bunch of do-nothing obstructionists, whose influence needs to be reduced by kicking them out. “We tried, but those goddamm ‘Party of No’ folks . . . .”
If the bill does pass, it’s NOT going to bring real reform AND it’s going to bring a bunch of really bad stuff. ALL of that is going to be on Dems shoulders, and you can be sure Repubs will bash them eight ways from Sunday on it.
I find this “it’s terrific. We’ve really solved the problem” prancing by the Dems to be sowing the seeds of their own destruction in 2010. I just haven’t been convinced that whatever the “good” is that’s purportedly coming out of this bill is greater than the “bad” it’s gonna bring.
I also don’t think Dems have to “fight to defeat” the bill. There can just be an unusually large number of cases of swine flu on the day of the vote.
I’ve written to Bernie Sanders on that point, hoping maybe (holding his nose) he’d gang up with Lieberman to filibuster/vote no on cloture. Maybe Rockefeller would, too…dunno. I admit, it would take guts, but the more I learn about this, the worse it looks to me. Maybe I’m not seeing the big picture, but I don’t see how this works to make health care affordable…and thus available.
I am from rural Texas and have lived in Manhattan for many years. I have no doubt but that Texas will “opt out” and that all those poor people in the country will be left out again, as that is what Texas does. My main concern about the opt out and the lagtime before implimentation is that the insurance companies, the pharmaceuticals, all the interested parties will have plenty of time to fix prices and figure out how to work the system to ensure that the same people being left out now will be left out then. It’s not that I don’t understand the administration compulsion to negotiate and find compromise and in the best of all worlds it would be admireable. But it is not the best of all worlds, it is a world where these opportunists need much firmer boundaries as to what is acceptable and what is expected by the architects of Healthcare Reform. Because the special do not care; they are going to be as brutal as they can get away with. The President and Harry Reid should go to the mat. If they lose, well at least you know what they stand for. This bull**** may or may not get them re-elected but it won’t make a difference to the people who need the most help.
That’s way off topic, but interesting! Representative democracy is not really better than what came before, just more rational. Transfer of power is generally peaceful. All your criticism is on the money.
I’m not sure direct voting is such a good idea. Look at California and their initiatives.
I do think major reform’s in order. Abolish the Senate or make it proportionally representative. Rewrite all legislation to an 8th grade reading level (RI has just stipulated that for insurance policy contracts). Capped federal funding for Presidential and Congressional contests. And keep the amounts modest, forcing those who want to run for office to meet people rather than paying megabucks for studies and slick teevee advertising. Term limits would be nice…I’ll get back to you on Christmas eve…
Exactly. It’s just business to them. Industry is responsible to their shareholders, not to to their patients. They’ll continue to cherry pick. As I’ve written elsewhere, they should pass the guaranteed issue language (forcing them to take all comers), end rescission and overturn the the McCarran–Ferguson Act which exempts insurers from anti-trust legislation. Forget the individual mandate and the po. This sets everything up for (1)huge prices gouging by insurers, and (2)a progressive movement for single payer. Insurers are inside players. Do you want them with all the money mandates would provide making campaign contributions? Think they’re powerful now? Just wait until they have millions of new, mostly young and healthy customers to gouge. What a field day! They’ll game any PO language, sending all their sick patients to the po. They’re old hands at this.
I say it’s worth a shot at writing to progressive Senators asking them to vote no on cloture, and teaming up with Republicans and Lieberman (and any conservadems that care to join in) to strip the bill of any health care reform language, keeping health insurance reform…appealing to progressive Senators to do so with a view to working on single payer (HR 676 or S 703) starting next year.
You’re damn right it is, kyeo. And you’re not just playing “devil’s advocate” here, you’re IN THE MINORITY bravely speaking up against a tide of majority opinion. I join you in the minority and happen to think your position is right.
As Jim White first pointed out @ 12, the real problem we face is the private (corporate) financing of campaigns for federal office. The abuse of the filibuster of late by the Republican Party is another symptom, not the cause of the lack of responsiveness to the American people the Senate evinces. Their non-responsiveness is not just a function of their 6-year terms, it is a direct result of the profound corruption of the campaign financing system for public office. But recklessly discarding the filibuster, because that corruption is frustrating passage of a particular bill, is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. [For those who've come to despise the filibuster, a 1996 book by Gregory J. Wawro and Eric Schickler called FILIBUSTER: OBSTRUCTION AND LAWMAKING IN THE U.S. SENATE, briefly overviewed here, sounds like recommended reading.]
That lack of responsiveness to the will of the people (in both the House and Senate) has nothing to do with the “system” being incapable today of anything but “incremental” change, as made clear, to give just a few recent egregious examples, by the lightning speed with which this Congress committed our troops to a war of total folly in Iraq, enacted a repeal of the millenia-old right of habeas corpus via the 2006 MCA, and hastily passed first the Protect America Act, and then a shrouded-in-secrecy gift of immunity from the law for some of their and the Parties’ biggest (lawbreaking telecommunications company) campaign funders.
On the contrary, the Parties have so consolidated supposedly-distributed Congressional power into the hands of the few who compose their leadership, especially in the House, that our “system” is far less deliberative and slow than it was designed to, and should, be. Actual, deliberative floor debate (as opposed to canned speeches), for example, rarely occurs anymore in either body, and almost never in the House.
IF Senator Harkin’s words in his radio interview Monday come to pass, we may just be treated to the sight of a Senate overcoming the bad faith filibuster to improve this legislation on the Senate floor. That would be an enormous victory both for the people, and for the institution of the Senate. We’ll see if Harry Reid follows through. Unfortunately, the amount of unqualifed praise the Party leadership – including Harkin – are already giving this base bill does seem to raise doubts that they have any intention of letting the Senate work its democratic will to, for example, broaden eligibility for the public option (Wyden amendment), or speed the implementation of the bill up in any way. But if not, it’s not the structure of the Senate that’s at fault, it’s the corrupt incentives and character of the people serving in it.
Far from being locked on and rusted tight, the Congressional brake on the Executive Branch has long since been almost-fully released, to disastrous consequence, evidenced by an Executive Branch that’s run amok – and is now overriding Congressional prerogative to the extent that the President and his corporate friends have been secretly and undemocratically dictating many of the most important components of this legislation to the House and Senate.
UPDATE; the traitor, Senator Harry Reid says he won’t use reconciliation. Let’s plan on helping his successor become the new Senator from Nevada, and let’s start right now. How did President Cheney get lucky enough to have a milquetoast piece of dustball like Reid as the opposition?
This is sickening and we know now that the fight has just begun. They are trying to kill the very chickenshit they wrang out of the blue dogs to use for ink. The senate is a piece of work that needs to be removed from our government. Too few have far too much power. Time to end this nonsense and have a representative government.
To the late eighteenth century mind, the utility of the senate made a lot of sense. It was also novel. England’s house of lords remains even less representative, though its powers were drastically reduced in 1911 (125 years after we adopted our present Constitution). But I agree, in its present form, it has outlived its usefulness and become the poster child of a lobbyist, private corporation dominated government. It represents interests almost as narrow as its Gilded Age predecessor.
I appreciate your thoughts, but it really sounds like you see the option as starting over and pursuing a radically different path to reform. I would merely like to see all the implimentation deadlines radically expedites so special interests just don’t have time to adjust. I actually think this bill could get the job done if it all became effective on say January 1, 2010. That’s all I’m saying. Get it done.
You hit the nail on the head with the observation that there is never a problem with military spending. In fact, the latest polls I see are that the vast majority of Americans agree with the current military spending.
To me, it is outrageous that there is all this “debate” about how much it will COST to have universal healthcare, but NEVER a peep about how much money is being spent on the military. Never.
Of course, the politicians love this, but it just shows that the majority of Americans never THINK. The blogs MUST start addressing this issue. And, by the way, the cowardice of refusing to support a cut in military spending (or better spending) because Americans “will think they hate the troops” is 3rd grade “thinking.” How ANY adult could think this way, much less verbalize it, is depressing.
If Harry had a backbone he could assemble the caucus and restructure the Finance/Budget Committee (is this the same committee or are they separate?) to reflect a more liberal composition and replace the chairmanship with someone from the HELP committee. Then we could go to reconciliation and get a much better bill. Harkin may be right, however, as currently constituted the committees of last resort would probably do even worse. But, restructuring could only happen if Harry really cared enough to make waves, a somewhat improbable story line.
Isn’t it just amazing how the country seems to have lost the important historical link of understanding about the relationship of corporations and war as was taught to us so effectively by VietNam? Hey, 700 billion one year and 700 billion another year, all of a sudden the military industrial complex is adding up to money. Lets see, that must be about 7 trillion over 10 years, not counting inflation. We really ought to be ashamed to spend as much as 900 billion in that amount of time on the health of the American people.
The only way to get a better bill than what the Senators are willing to stick their necks out for would be to talk a few ultra-liberal senators into slowing things down. For the life of me, why do not the progressives in the Senate realize that their political survival is not tied to this bill, only the lives of Obama-Rahma and conservative Dems are threatened? The latter ones would like to end this torture as soon as they can and direct the nation’s attention to other matters long before the 2010 elections. These folks would be much easier to deal with as the elections approach, not now while they still have breathing room. Can’t you just see Jane going after the conservaDems as they run for re-election? That would be a sight worth paying for and I would pay my share for sure. Until progressives in congress learn how to say no, they’ll be walked over and disrespected every time they try to get more liberal results. The last 25 years should be instructive enough for the progressives, but I fear they won’t take the necessary political steps to get a better bill. The Democratic party as presently constituted is antithetical to badly needed change in this country.
I could join the “universal access to moon pies” movement too, but that’s not going to happen in this bill either.
The Senate will pass a bill with a public option, or one without it. Those are the only two non-fantasy options at the moment. Which do you think is better?
And yet you link to none of the polls that support your contentions. Why would that be?
The extent to which the provisions in this Senate bill benefit the insurers and Phrma and do so little to help retain cost and provide a menaingful PO for people that need and want an affordable insurance option, is a reflection of how compromised legislators in the Senate are.
When they talk about the need to compromise in the crafting of legislation they are speaking of needing to compromise the public’s needs in favor of the gain for private monied interests.
It is dreadful to consider what will happen if the balance of power in Congress moves further to the right in the next 20010 and 20012 elections. I suppose that we will need to be mindful of that and not increase the likelihood of that happening. But I am now convinced that this HCR legislation is not worth supporting as is, for all the reasons that have bee sited.
What is the most effective way to proceed is now the question. Our only remaining hope for obtaining meaningful reform now lies with the House as the Senate is too heavily compromised with big business to produce anything of value. The goal must be meaningful reform now or nothing this go round.
A sufficient number of Democrats in the House who voted to pass the recent House version of the bill must be willing to vote against the final product after conference if it does not contain meaningful reform as we underatand that to mean. No Stupid ammendment, No Eschoo provision and a wide access to a viable PO beginning upon passage of the bill.
The required number of these House Democrats according to Jane I believe is a total of 40 and if those 40 are not attainable I don’t see what other options remain to prevent the worst case scenario that looms ahead, where a compromised piece of worthless reform is passed where even the modest beneficial provisions are delayed and the right stands a good chance of making gains in Congress.
Very true. The Dems won’t only have Repubs bashing them. I went to a local meeting of Knox county’s 5th district this week and had the opportunity to convince the people there that Democratic Party leaders have failed us on health care reform. I was surprised by how many of them were not aware that Rep. Jim Cooper (D-TN) voted ‘yea’ on the Stupak Amendment just before he voted in favor of H R 3962.
The morning after the vote in the House, I was more worried about them doing victory dances than I am now. That morning, I wrote H.R. 3962: Everybody won. (And nobody did.), 11/8/09.
But I agree with you that they’re sowing the seeds of their own destruction in 2010. No one will be buying their victory dances (especially if they don’t get the stupak out), as I wrote last night in comment to letsgetitdone’s diary:
pow wow, i have no legal or constitutional argument, but my preference is to “fix” not “nix” the filibuster. i’d like to see a formal process, one that draws public attention to the issue at hand (maybe even an actual floor debate?), to provide a temporary delay in the senate process. is such a thing possible?
I intended to respond to masan whose repeating lies are quoted abouve.
See
New England Journal of Medicine Nov. 4, 2009
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/NEJMp0906394v2
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/SunMo_poll_0209.pdf CBS News
Others may have already commented (I didn’t read all the 100+ comments), but doesn’t Reid also keep the anti-trust exemption for the insurance companies.
Right on, Jane! Absolutely. I’d only add that it’s not just a “serious problem” of priorities, it’s a criminal obscenity!
The difference is after 2014, the uninsured can go onto the exchange and choose among private insurers and the PO without the privates or the PO being able to turn them down for a pre-existing condition. In contrast, the high-risk pool is a place where the uninsured can immediately go, and then get randomly assigned to one of the privates. No choice involved here. Another important difference is that there will be no subsidies until 2014 and the opening of the exchange. So people who can go into the high-risk pool may very well not be able to afford the insurance randomly made available to them. Especially because the insurance companies will be able to charge 25% more than regular rates to those entering the pool. Yes, Virginia, the high-risk pool is only for well-off people who happen to have been turned down by insurance companies, and who can afford to pay the freight. Working people won’t have the money to afford that kind of coverage.
Hi gamd521, There’s a diary and a vigorous discussion of what we ought to do now and how here. Comments are still open on this post entitled: “Kill It, It’s the Enemy of the Good.”
In addition, there a new one on a closely related theme, here.
Lot’s of places have initiative and referendum systems. Many States, and many countries (it’s how Switzerland was finally able to overcome the entrenched political opposition to substantive healthcare reform back in ’94).
California’s problem with their system is the imbalance. It requires a simple majority to spend money, and a super majority to raise money. It’s ridiculous on its face.
Hi,
I had always held out some hope for the PO as a viable stepping stone toward a single payer system, but it was a naive expectation and it never had a realistic chance. Due primarily to the extent that the Senate especially is so thoroughly compromised.
It is amazing how they go on about the great, monumental, once in a generation accomplishment they claim to have achieved in this bill. They are truly deluded and belie their cynicism with every word they utter. It is impossible to take them seriously or believe a word they say.
The gaping disconnect between what they claim and what is actually being proposed is so profound that it shows that they are in a very real sense far removed from reality, or else they really could care less. Their instutional betrayal of the public good makes it impossible to see how a single payer plan would stand a chance as long as the Congress is so thoroughly corrupted by legal bribery.
One mistake that really can not be made is to give the right any further electoral gains. That would be a disaster. I am of the belief that we should target Reid firstly for a defeat in 2010 right now as the only way to change their behaviour is to threaten them with a credible challenge to their seat. Also I agree that half measures to a single payer system are a pipe dream, at least as the Senate is currently constituted.
The two bills seem like a betrayal of nearly everything that we elected Obama for.
I believe that we should encourage our elected leaders to vote AGAINST any forms of these bills. We should take Kucinich’s advice, and start over again from scratch…
I’m not for passing something just to say something was passed. Why pass a bad bill?
Jane, I admire your efforts…
I could perhaps support the bill if the Kucinich amendment allowing states to establish single-payer systems was included. But what is going to result is a lot of hoopla/propaganda from the democrats about what a great effort this was and how it’s a monumental change in healthcare, when the reality is that it’s a massive giveaway to the insurance companies.
The democrats are playing a game – the “elect-more-state-representatives-and-governors game”. When the republican governors elect to opt-out, well the democrats will come to us and say things will change if only you elect more democrats to state offices. Weren’t “things suppose to change” when we elected a democratic president and majorities in both houses?
Until we liberals insist on 100% publically-funded elections, and until we can convince enough of the ignorant republican voters that this too is in their best interests, I have to conclude that placing too much emotional capital in electing democrats (and especially the more evil republicans) is a waste of time – the 2008 election bears the proof of that.