This Senate bill is bad and there are many ways to improve it. Right now, it is not real reform–it is only a corporate giveaway that might trickle down to help a few Americans. The ideas listed here are a guide to transform this legislation into real reform.
- Add a robust public option open to all Americans.
- Remove the rollback of a woman’s right to choose.
- Repeal the anti-trust exemption for private insurance companies.
- Add early Medicare buy-in.
- Add a real employer mandate.
- Fix the excise tax that would reduce the quality of many Americans’ insurance. This can be done by properly indexing it so that it forever remains only a tax on “Cadillac” plans.
- Move up the start date of reform to as soon as possible. Three years is too long!
- Increase the affordability tax credits to individuals.
- Expand Medicaid to 150% of FPL.
- Reduce the maximum annual out-of-pocket limit to 5% of income.
- Move up state waiver for innovation to 2014 and add ERISA waiver. The state waiver for innovation is a good idea, but having it start in 2017 creates a bureaucratic nightmare of putting in place one reform only to replace it a few years later. We need to fix our system now, not have states start working toward a real solution a decade from now.
- Give states that set up “basic health programs” 100% of the money, and allow them to use the program for people above 200% of FPL.
- Allow for drug re-importation so Americans can get cheaper drugs from Canada or Europe.
- Give Medicare the power to directly negotiate for lower drug prices.
- Give the government the power to negotiate for lower drug prices on behalf of all Americans (like every other industrialized country does to bring down pharmaceutical prices).
- Create a national exchange with a strong regulation enforcer instead of state-based exchanges with weak local insurance commissioners.
- Force all non-HMO insurance plans on the exchange (or at least on the new OPM exchange) to work with the exchange commissioners to collectively negotiate a single provider reimbursement rate for all insurance plans (as it is in Switzerland, Belgium, and The Netherlands.)
- Add truly strong risk adjustment mechanisms to force competition based on quality instead of trying to dump sick customers (as is done in The Netherlands).
- Increase the actuarial value of the minimum qualified plans offered on the exchange and base subsidies on the gold level (80% actuarial value) instead of silver level plan (70% actuarial value).
- Force all insurance companies on the exchange to offer at least one precisely designed high quality insurance plan. This will allow true apple-to-apple comparisons, and make it harder for insurance companies to game the system.
- Greatly reduce the amount of plan design leeway given to insurance companies to reduce their ability to game the system.
- Make it illegal to sell basic health insurance for profit, like in almost every first-world country on Earth.
- At the least, allow only non-profit insurance plans to take part in the new exchanges (or OPM exchange).
- Reduce the community rating based on age to at most a 1:2 ratio with age rating bands. (one price for all 18-30 year olds, one price for 30-45 year olds, and one price for all 45-64 year olds).
- Make minimum medical loss ratio 92%. (Try to do this in way to get around the CBO.)
- At the very least, remove the MLR loophole for the individual market.
- Allow state and local governments to apply for grants from the CO-OP program.
- Allow the co-ops to sell insurance to anyone, not just the small group and individual markets.
- Allow undocumented immigrants to buy health insurance with their own money on the new exchange.
- Make all legal immigrants eligible for all public health care programs right away, instead of creating a five year wait.
- Eliminate direct-to-consumer advertising for prescription medication.
- Provide enough money to give every American access to a community health care center.
- Follow the FTC recommendations and create a real pathway for biosimilars to create generic forms of the most expensive medications in this country.
- Create a Government-run HMO option modeled on the VA system.
- Scrap the whole bill and replace it with a single payer “Medicare-for-all” system.
If they implement a vast majority of these reforms, progressives should only then embrace the individual mandate. Until the government takes real steps to ensure that people actually have access to high-quality, affordable health insurance it is immoral to force people to buy expensive, junk insurance from private corporations.
Right now, the bill is only a big corporate giveaway masquerading as reform–reform that will only enrich, empower, and entrench the enemies of real reform. Only if they add the bulk of these ideas could you ever honestly call the bill reform, and, so, make it worth passing.




79 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL Action
Excellent post as always, but this is not the time to negotiate with those who have rejected, lied to, or conned us all along the way this year.
It’s time to attack by demanding this bill be killed dead today.
I only mean to imply that there is a massive set of failures in the bill. It is not a good bill that happens to lack a public option. It is a bad unworkable bill that had one of the last workable pieces removed.
Jon, will you give a response back to Mr.Cohr’s post at TNR?
Mr. Walker:
This bill would not have been produced, with the assistance behind-the-scenes of former Senator now- President Obama, had it not been what the upper echelons of power in and around the Democratic Party wanted.
Talking about how to improve the legislation from the corrupt sham currently at hand (like “add a public alternative” … golly) is like talking about how to improve the Moon. The Moon is an airless, lifeless, uninhabitable rock. It always will be. Unlike the legislation at hand, the Moon does have the redeeming characteristics of a) looking pretty and b) causing tides here on Earth. But we do not talk of improving it.
The legislation that Obama will sign is going to be utterly corrupt and devoted towards the health insurance and pharmaceutical cartels … by design.
The topic at hand now is not “how to improve the bill” but is “how to sufficiently damage the Democratic Party establishment in order to teach them a lesson.”
Likewise, Mr. Walker … have you noticed that your “how to improve the bill” list basically amounts to “throw away the bill and try again with a different set of lawmakers in charge”?
I would even consider the bill if they only enacted one of the improvements you listed – #35.
Jon, Employers do NOT belong in the HealthCare business, PERIOD!
Grrrrr.
“So much of the commentary that I’ve heard has been really idiotic,” CNBC’s John Harwood said on MSNBC Monday. “Liberals who want universal health care ought to be thanking Harry Reid for getting this done rather than talking about what’s inadequate in the bill. I’m not saying the bill is a good bill. But if you’re a liberal and you want universal coverage in this country, and think that you can do better, that Harry Reid can do better than he’s done, or that the White House can do better, they ought to lay off the hallucinogenic drugs because we’ve had a vivid demonstration of the limits of political possibilities on this issue.”
Jon, thanks for the list, which make excellent specific talking points for LTE and communicating
with congressional offices. But I’m afraid that this bill is only going to get worse –
the only change the House will make will be to Stupakify it.
I agree. It makes our entire economy much less efficient and makes us way less competitive globally.
All good points. Medicare for all is the best one, of course. So simple, so direct, so necessary, so humane.
One of the things that I really appreciate about professionals is their ability to put together an excellent plan, and to reach upward for the highest, best possible solutions. An excellent plan always exposes the accommodators, the compromisers, and the cowards. Thanks for a great plan.
It would seem that the only way to fix anything in the Senate is to dispose of the super majority voting requirements of 60 votes but that takes 67 votes????????????????? The notion that Obama did not/does not want a strong public option is reactionary nonsense. Next time get a smarter stronger candidate than Lamont to run against Lieberman.
10.Reduce the maximum annual out-of-pocket limit to 5% of income.
It needs to be Free for a family to 100k then this OK with me. Yes this bill is more corp. health care welfare. If they do pass with the idea of fixing it later, the only that going to get fix is us the people of this nation. Stop a few wars and it’s easy to pay for every one like Europe.
Wow! Harwood’s a moron. The implication is that the Dem leadership did everything possible to get a good bill. On what planet? What drugs is HE on?
I’m good with that.
Totally agreed Jon. And the part that IMO the folks supporting it’s passage is missing (the regular folks, not the pols), is that probably the worst thing about passing this bill is with it’s years long wait to kick in, real reform will once again effectively be put off for another generation.
That’s it in a nutshell, IMO. They keep saying we should pass it and improve it. IMO, it’s clearly a bill that it’s passage will accomplish what’s always happened previously in our attempts to reform health care. It will ENSURE real reform doesn’t happen for another generation. For the first 5 years, pols will be able to say “This bill hasn’t kicked in all the way yet, give it time.” Then for 10 years after that they’ll say “Let’s give this new system more time and try to patch around the edges abit.” And once again, 25-35 years are gonna pass before the next real attempt at healthcare gets off the ground.
It’s no cooincidence health insurance stocks are at their highest levels ever. I get why the pols are trying to sell it. I don’t get why the regular folks that post on places like FDL are supporting it to the point of resorting to personal attacks against those that disagree.
Something smells funny, if you ask me.
Or just reduce them all down to:
Medicare for all. European style.
Or how about not take reconciliation off the table? Or make a strong unequivocal pitch to the American people for a good bill and apply pressure to conservadems? Seriously, WTF??? How can you even pretend with a straight face that Obama did everything he could for a good bill?
Jon, I am sure the measures you outline here are positive, but I think it would greatly help your case if you explicitly said whether you think this bill does more harm than good. Maybe you have already stated that, I don’t know. But I myself think it’s really difficult to establish that it does more harm than good. My view is instead that we can get a better bill through reconciliation, this bill still probably being better than nothing.
Nate Silver’s comment that if we used reconciliation, the non-reconciliation part of the bill would be struck down by an angry Lieberman, Nelson, etc. may well be true. But the good news is that the part we can pass is probably the best part, and the scenario of passing only the reconciled bill now still avoids a humiliating defeat for the Democrats while also preserving more chance for passing better provisions later.
I think you may have missed this argument and hope you will consider using it to reply to Nate.
Total agree with this:)
jo6pac
The thing that is so frustrating to me, is, IIRC, the Republicans rammed through some of the tax cuts for the rich by using reconciliation against a Democratic filibuster, but the Democrats refuse to do the same for healthcare.
So, let’s recap. Tax cuts for the rich, worth doing away with the filibuster. Real health care for all Americans, not worth doing away with the filibuster.
Assholes.
???
Reconciliation would get around the 60 vote requirement.
Having a progressive dig in his heels and vote against cloture would have changed the game.
And Obama has said that a public option was not crucial to the legislation.
But you knew all that. Didn’t you?
Yes, It would be comical if the subject was not so tragic. They have indeed managed to destroy anything that resembles common sense and care for those they really don’t represent.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9Ft9zJWNIg
Just say no. IRS as collection agency for private enterprise is bullshit.
motherfucker hey
I won’t pay
This the same joesixpack from SportsMogul forums?
Great list, too complicated.
Start anew: Medicare for all in 2010.
I lived in France for 7 years. The government had a system that was very much like Medicare, with 80% coverage for all (and it was affordable). Private insurance companies (mutuals) did a very fine business selling “top up” policies for the 20% that remained open, and covered things like dental and vision care. Their insurance industry, though regulated, does just fine. What’s the problem with Medicare for all? Why can’t we ever study the systems that work really well? Does the USA always have to invent?
#36 A pony
Sorry to be so cynical but 6 months ago I said this was going to happen
It is abundantly clear that the “fix” has already transpired. The fact that it is a formula for a one-term Obama Presidency and Democratic Party debacle next year has not been assimilated by the DNC and its affiliates. What is much more transparent is that they are committed to a course of selling healthcare reform as the best that could be done without allowing the ‘imperfect to become the enemy of the good’. This psychological tool, originally coined in the 1993 healthcare fight, empowers them to be devoid of the responsibility of cutting unconscionable deals with the worst of the worst within the healthcare industry.
While most of Jon’s comments are very astute, there are far more superficial and impotent elements in the legislation, which fail to improve ACCESS, control COSTS, enhance consistent QUALITY, improve PATIENT SAFETY, and guarantee ACCOUNTABILITY.
Broken promises, innuendos, glaring omissions, and inferences to date include, but are not limited to:
1. Obama et. al. promised to change the way business is done in Washington.
Instead, they cut deals with the most significant perpetrators of healthcare fraud and egregious business practices throughout the healthcare industry.
2. They took the public option off the table.
3. They abandoned the prospect of expanding Medicare to 55-64 y.o.
4. They failed to repair Medicare Part D — the ludicrous provision that prohibits CMS from negotiaing RX drug prices with manufacturers.
5. They failed to reverse the prohibition of reimportation of less expensive RX drugs from Canada and other countries, which they promised to do during the campaign of 2008 in no uncertain terms.
6. They failed to include the best, most objective, least tainted, and most experienced healthcare expertise in the analysis and evaluation of the various provisions of the proposed legislation. Instead, they relied on academicians, policy wonks, industry lobbyists and hacks, and corporate executives with a financial stake in the outcome.
7. They broke their promise of transparency and broadcasting the meetings on C-Span.
8. They excluded advocates of single-payer, Medicare-for-All in the most important dialogues at The White House and in Congress.
9. They omitted, ignored, and/or failed to invite input from public interest organizations including Common Cause, The Center for Public Integrity, Public Citizen, Consumers Union, and even MoveOn.org.
10. They failed to measure the impact of various provisions on healthcare consumers and providers.
11. They deferred many of the most important provisions of the legislation with the hope and the prayer that America will re-elect them to effect implementation in 2013 and 2014.
12. They have conciously or otherwise failed to explain how adding millions of Americans to Medicaid rolls improves access — when they know damn well that the vast majority of physicians will not accept Medicaid assignment. Hospitals accept it, but patients will be far more expensive to treat in those settings and receive second or third-class care in many instances.
13. They explain every deficiency and shortfall in the legislation as being the imperfect’s friend of the good. Therefore, anyone criticizing it is dismissed as being too idealistic or an enemy of the good. Very clever tactic.
14. The legislation has not been filtered for IMPACT. After all, only deliberate amnesiacs would lose sight of the purpose of all of this smoke, mirrors, angst, and deception.
An example. The top up policy in France for me, aged 65, was €80/month. I needed a hernia operation. Three days in hospital (the French don’t kick your ass out the next morning). Total cost on checkout? Zero. I argued that I had used my room color TV to watch the World Cup soccer finals and that I knew this was a €1/day charge. I was informed that the hospital had waved that as France was in the finals and what would you think of us if we asked you to pay for that? Civilization.
No, the only sport form I might comment is F1 racing.
nicely done jon…I’d be surprised if even a few of your suggestions become part of this law, one comment;
I would add “and unconscionable” but that’s just fine tuning
Excellent article that refutes the myth that progressives are against reform. They aren’t.
The Senate bill isn’t reform. It rearranges the deck chairs on the SS Insurester. Having hit a reform iceberg, the Senate bill spirits the first-class passengers into the financial lifeboats. But it locks the third-class passengers below decks, waiting for the economic waters to rush in, accompanied by the Great White banksters and the Mako money lenders.
This bill solidifies the power of insurance companies, and enriches them for the years of reform fights that lie ahead. Meanwhile, millions who need credible access to health care go begging. It may be the victory Mr. Obama wants, but for whom? (Someone should tell him, it won’t be Rahm, that declaring empty victory and quitting the field is what presidents do to end losing wars.)
Yeh wasn’t easy to say that with knowing everything they touch turns to S&@*. It’s amazing but corp. lackys they are.
this is because they have played obama like a cheap …errrr…whatever
it was either rush or steel but someone said;
“if we defeat health care we defeat obama”
obama bought that crap, now that he has the health care bill his handlers bought, obama is doomed
which is what I said about a month into his presidency and everyone said I was nutz
150% FPL and risk adjustment below 300% most important.
Dorgan was the one in the gang of ten who opposed 150% because of ND hospitals, but the “frontier state” adjustment now covers ND.
This would save $100 Billion over 133%FPL according to CBO and that could be used to subsidize risk as Europe does so that everyone’s premiums could be the same. Older people cannot often afford to pay 300% more for coverage, that’s ridiculous.
This would make up for the Medicare at 55 being taken out.And it would get families between $29K and $33K on Medicaid immediately instead of waiting for tax credits in future years.
Hopefully there would still be some of the $100Billion left over after risk subsidies to improve dental coverage in both Medicaid and Medicare.
Nice post, Jon. You’re becoming one of my favorite bloggers. But, do you really think that the insurance and Pharma industries would fight these reforms any less hard than they would fight passing HR 676, enhanced Medicare for All?
And, if not, why shouldn’t we, if we can get this bill killed, simply attempt to pass HR 676 under reconciliation?
Welcome to the HOPE A DOPE!!!
Barack Obama is no Progressive or Democrat!
The elites feared that a real progressive could win in 2008, so they rigged the game in their favor. They found an actor name Barack Obama, his job was to win an OSCAR for acting like a Progressive. (remember Ronald Reagan)
The SENATE BILL is the BILL BARACK OBAMA always wanted.
The SENATE BILL is a Republican Bill. (due to the Bush, the corporate elites knew Dems would win in 2008)
The MSM is trying to call this BILL a Progressive Bill, and they know it is a Republican Bill. (all you have to do is look at the stock market)
The OWNERSHIP CLASS LOVES THIS BILL! (they don’t vote progressive)
Progressives need to make sure that the MASSES know this is not a Progressive BILL! (Rush limbaugh is yelling all over the place how this is a liberal Bill, Rush works for the Ownership Class)
THE HOPE A DOPE!
Barack Obama is a ConserverDem/Republican so he can careless if Dems win 2010.
Progressives must work toward electing Real Progressives in 2010.
If not the ConserverDems & Rahm Emmanuel win.
Remember in 2011 the troops come home, and CANDIDATE OBAMA will RETURN and tell all PROGRESSIVES how he love US. He will shout about how he hates the Republicans, and they are holding him back from being a real Progressive.
Once re-elected in 2012 he will screw us again. (Barack Obama is betting that progressives will hate a GOP congress, Of course Barack Obama can care less, because he is a Republican)
Guess when the MANDATES become Law 2014! The elites hope the MANDATE will kill the chances of a REAL PROGRESSIVE GETTING ELECTED IN 2016.
Progressives need to ORGANIZED!
This is absolute BS…!
Lieberman: Obama Never Pressed Me On Public Option
I don’t know who I’m more pissed at… Obama, Rahm, Reid and/or HoJo…!
For anyone interested, below are selected excerpts from some Republican Senators’ floor speeches yesterday describing what they consider to be flaws in the bill and the new Reid managers’ amendment – and the abuse of legislative process that brought it to this stage – partially in response to praise of the bill by Democratic Senators:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2009_record&page=S13601&position=all
No worries. There’s no real need to pick one of them to be more pissed at, since they all played their bit parts in the Big Act to perfection.
With regards to number 35, I think the health care debate has become too nationally focused. I mean, here in Pennsylvania we’ve got a bill for single payer in the state legislature that’s got the governor’s support. Please check it out: http://healthcare4allpa.org
That is why I included number 11.
All worthy goals, I’m sure but none that are likely to appear any time soon. Instead some attempt needs to take place to present a common front on one or two issues regarding HCR on which the left can unite.
We don’t really need to dwell any further on the need to scuttle this Senate version of the bill. I think the point has been made.
We also need to move on and assure that private insurers do not assume a permanent hold on the way health insurance is afforded in this country. We need to make a clean break from that notion and instead argue for the need to exclude private insurers totally and extend Medicare in their place.
It is a mistake to cede to the position that the US should adopt a uniquuely American type of health insurance system that has to include private insurers. Why should it? Where is it preordained that in this country alone there always needs to be private ownership of everything. Either we believe in this or we don’t.
Those like Obama that peddle this crap may fervently believe it but most likely they only peddle it on behalf of large private firms. The left must be unapologetic that it beleives private insurance companies should not exist. It makes it a lot easier to argue for the Medicare for all alternative.
We don’t really need to dwell any further on the need to scuttle this Senate……. they need scuttling.
That sentence should stop there.
version of the bill. I think the point has been made…..would be superfluous.
My first comment after years of lurking at FDL ( one of my favorite stops of the day)… I worked for a Fortune 10 company for 10+ years in the Benefits Planning function where I had front row accountability for “rolling out managed healthcare” to salaried employees and then union employees. From my vantage point (as someone who has followed the Healthcare “reform” legislation minute by minute), Jon Walker’s analysis is right on the money. If you were to walk the policy analysis down one more layer and add the voice of practitioners like me (with experience translating complex healthcare policy into practice i.e. working advice for employers, employees, and others who must operate in the “individual or small group market), even the knowledgeable, “kill-the bill” policy wonks like Jon Walker would be shocked at how empty the senate bill provisions will be in practice.
every time someone tells you thay want the robust public option (but) and thay are not out there fighting for it there lieing Obama lied all the Senators lie.When there stepting on the middle class and telling you it’s good for you can you trust them.Ditto Eureka
Please summarize source material. Make your point with short quotes or excerpts. Apart from copyright issues, where they apply, it makes your contribution and the thread itself snappier and more flowing. Lots of people here drill down into cites and sources – and add their own in rebuttal – so no worries about being superficial or not sufficiently getting your point across. Thanks.
Great post. I think it’s important to keep in mind that if this bill passes without the improvements mentioned, single payer is off the table for a generation or more. As noted in the article, this legislation will cement insurers’ role as valueless middleman in health care delivery. We won’t have a chance to fix that for a long time.
I hardly think there are “copyright” issues with the Congressional Record, which is obviously what I’m quoting from in that comment.
And summarizing the words of Senators in this case was not my objective. I wasn’t trying to make a personal point in that comment, but rather attempting to enhance the impoverished debate on the substance of this legislation by letting people who don’t have the time to wade through 10 hours of floor speeches by Senators yesterday see what some of the opposition’s main points are. Points which, I think, complement Jon’s list of recommended bill improvements in this post.
Considering the ongoing railroading of this deal, a little less “snap and flow” – especially in what looked like a quiet post for people interested in the actual pros and cons of the legislation – is called for all around, in my opinion.
I would have been more inclined to WANT to read it, and understand it and why they were all important to ‘get’, had they been broken down into shorter pieces, with your comment about each and every one and how they are related and why they were important to you to share . . . .
I appreciate your effort and its intent, BTW, it’s fascinating to me to see what Senators have to say . . . so thanks.
You’ve posted diary’s and comments that have been quite enlightening over the time since I’ve come here.
please don’t ask pow wow do to that. i don’t want snappy. i want to be informed, and when it comes to this kind of analysis, including identifying key congressional quotes, pow wow is the very best — bar none.
please don’t stop. your efforts are very much appreciated.
You’re right.
I do beleive that recalling elected officials for cause should appear on every state ballot initiative this next election cycle. And then we can use that recall frequently.
A thorough going revamping of what it means to represent the interests of the people that elect you needs to happen.
Thanks, selise, that’s very kind, and good to know.
Thank you too, Larue @ 51. I understand what you’re saying, and as a rule would try to break such an excerpt into more manageable pieces, but I’m really not conversant enough with the details of the policy to do a very effective preview or recap of each assertion made by the Republicans. I just wanted to get their take on things a bit more out in the open and on the record – partly to see if anyone could effectively shoot down their arguments (other than by using “Republicans BAD, Democrats GOOD” talking points).
I know that every bit helps, but I wouldn’t overestimate the effects of that.
Here in Germany still patented pharmaceuticals have no price control, but EU re-import is allowed (there is even a mandatory 5% re-import share for the public system). Big Pharma has found ways to circumvent that, e.g. in Greece, the EU country with the strictest price controls and the biggest price differential, a large portion of the wholesale trade is under control of Big Pharma. Which means that it’s quite hard for re-importers to find big enough batches to make repackaging and quality control profitable.
The re-import market share here in Germany is still under 10%.
I think there’s a typo in #13.
It’s spelled “p-r-i-c-e c-o-n-t-r-o-l-s” not “drug re-importation.”
Let’s at least be honest amongst ourselves, no? What you are calling for is a legitimate policy proposal, but it’s price and/or profit controls you’re demanding here.
IMO, adding another layer of complexity to the delivery of American-made drugs to American consumers is the same type of health care policy shell game most FDL columnists decry daily. What’s patently obvious is that there’s a real desire on the left to take a pound of flesh from Pharma. That’s a perfectly legitimate stance, but at least acknowledge the potential long-term costs.
Gramma may think she’s getting a Sunday paper coupon-quality deal on those mystery pills from Ontario (or maybe Port-au-Prince?), but what you’re proposing is just a politically correct grade of pixie dust.
California legislature has passed single-payer health care twice, only to see the Governator veto it. Twice. Just like marriage equality!
Hey there, Crazytown! Jon is right on most of his points, but from here on in it becomes a question of strategy. Is there a constitutional provision I’ve overlooked which prohibits future legislation on health care? We need to pass insurance reform, and this does that more than anything we can hope to get if the bill dies. It’s not Health Care Reform, but so what? Thousands of people live when this bill is signed, and thousands die if it fails. Stop being sanctimonious.
We will get real reform only if we elect people who are committed to it. Staying home next year doesn’t get that done. Primary challenges to safe Blue Dogs will move them to the left, as the baggers will have money but won’t be able to win an election. Saving the D-bags will help with cloture votes, as unpalatable as that is. Rahm is right, even if you want to punch him in the face.
Did you read number 15 that is exactly what you are talking about.
Slavery, too. WAY better than death. I trust my gummint. We are on the right road. That’s what counts. Rahm is right, I forget why or about what he is right, but he is. This jibberjibberjibberjibber is going to save so many lives. I am so relieved at the progress that has finally been made. The dying of Americans like dropping flies stops now! Thank God we made it to Health care Reform, I mean Health Care CALLED Reform, it isn’t reform but so what? Thank God for it, that’s all.
That guy Howard Dean and that Wendell Potter (who does he think he’s kidding!) will soon be GONE from our teevees. That alone is a champagne popper.
No, it’s not. Using the power of volume purchasing (as I believe occurs today with the VA and Medicare formularies) is quite different from price controls. The latter, irrespective of it’s suitability or morality, carries with it significant costs not acknowledged in the discussion from the left, and would never fly in either chamber.
Calling for #15 is Quixotic, while #13 is hypocritical, disingenuous posturing.
I do not get your logic. That is by definition price control is. And if 15 is impossible it is wrong to pursue something which can pass?
This is what the Republicans are referring to, their plan to reform the healthcare system – The Patients’ Choice Act? Is that the same 13-page narrative that spends the majority of its verbiage on bitching about the current system, prescribes giving a $2300 “rebate” to individuals to buy private insurance ($5700 for families) and privatizes Medicare? Oh, and tort reform. By the way, those rebate numbers are the only numbers in the entire document.
Oh yes, that would certainly hold down costs and solve all the problems of the current “system.”
I really really don’t care what the Republicans say now. They had control of gov’t for some time and they ran the economy into the ground, ran up gov’t debt by trillions, took us to war illegitimately and blamed Bill Clinton. Somehow I just don’t care what they say now.
Dems are in control, though enough of them are noticably conservative. We’ll get the bill passed with some concessions, but the basic bill is written by the majority party…Dems. Elections matter.
Do I hear you saying the ends justify the means? Is it a good thing for our Democracy when a mantle of spurious intellectual honesty and morality is used to bludgeon dissent?
Legislative bait-an-switch seems to always come back to offer a good ass-biting. I believe this is the tactic being proposed in the OP, and I’m nauseated by it.
One of the things killing business in this country today is that employers even *have* to consider offering some sort of health insurance to employees.
Other countries with successful health care systems for its citizens do not allow this (?)
Did I understand correctly that GM or one of the major car companies determined that health care requirements added $1500 to their cost of each car?
I still think that the individual mandate is the killer. My libertarian-liberal streak says “hell no.” If the individual mandate stays in, then the insurance companies have us all over a barrel. Time will be against the consumer, as the deadline for the mandate to kick-in approaches. If the individual mandate goes out, then the insurance cartel will have to come to the people in order to get it removed, and the people should exact a price, namely the public option.
I for one do not necessarily see the public option as simply a way-station for single-payer. A truly robust public option (nation-wide with the power to negotiate provider and drug rates, among other things) could compete successfully with the privateers indefinitely.
The other key problem is that the “final form” of the legislation, as to be passed by the House of Lords, has, as I understand it , no effective cost-control mechanisms. So, this will be a “cost-plus” deal, in which the cartel will be free to pass all costs along to the consumer. So, health insurance for a family of four will soon cost $20K per year.
Terrible.
Alanhawaii
On edit of alanhawaii @68, I should have said, “If the individual mandate goes out, then the insurance cartel will have to come to the people in order to get it REINSTATED,and the people should exact a price, namely the public option.”
Spot-on, OldFatGuy! Those who call the congressional bills a pathway to further reform are either lying or lost in a fog. I’d take your point one step further.
Not only would the public be told to shut up and wait. During the transition to 2013/14, lobbyists will be all over Congress and the administration lobbying (or working through its moles) to scale back, repeal, or gut through HHS any features that cut into their profits under the business models taking shap around the pending regime.
They’d be successful. Even assuming an energized progressive base, we can’t spend all our time on this issue, and we couldn’t keep up with the industry even if we did. And the industry’s power will only grow thanks to these “reforms.”
What you do us use reconciliation where it works (for budgetary matters), and dare Republicans and Conservadems to vote down the rest (mostly the anti-Sicko reforms such as pre-existing conditions). Politically speaking, it was always a winning formula.
The other argument, “Senate comity,” ignores the Republicans’ flagrant abuse of the filibuster, which Sheldon Whitehouse has denounced on the Senate floor and is finally being widely discussed.
The reasons for the “60 vote” myth are coming out as well: money-driven politics.
Thanks for de-lurking. Do you have an example of how something in the Senate bill would play out in practice?
So let me see if I have this straight. Free trade across international borders is a price control mechanism?
This is a scandal! Tell the American Enterprise Institute, the CATO Institute, and the Heritage Foundation to push for the immediate repeal of NAFTA, which unbeknownst to them violates one of their core principles!
You can use your own line on them: “Let’s at least be honest amongst ourselves, no?” I’m sure these very words can be found on all the paperweights, rollerballs, and squeeze balls they get at those conferences of theirs.
No Public Option, NO MANDATE!!
It has been accomplished, finally. A Government for the lobbyists, of the Lobbyists and by the Lobbyists. Our entire government has clearly become a wholly owned subsidiary of Corporate special interests.
The Middle Class of America has no voice in todays administration, sadly, because we just can’t raise the huge amounts of cold, hard CASH required to compel our elected Representatives to work for us, the people.
We are doomed, doomed I tell you.
“Meet the new boss………Same as the old boss”
-the who
I like number 35 the best.
It’s obvious you and I have different definitions of free trade.
What you’re talking about is government-funded suppression of domestic profits via product re-importation. Presumably you would also press for “negotiated pricing” as in #15 above? Under that scenario, would you exclude the gov’t from buying re-imported drugs on your “free market?” That would be a fairly direst path to price controls as well, no?
The end result is that the US gov’t either mandates a futile economic cycle where US manufacturers produce a product for export to compete with their own domestic market. Alternately, overseas supplies (and US manufacturing jobs) would be slashed by companies to support domestic profits, thus denying even more of humanity its life-saving drugs.
I tried to think of another example where a US manufactured product was subject to this type of reverse tarriff, and a google search came up with this article. It may be worth a look.:
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/12/drug-reimportation.php
Jeezuz – All these “fixes” make my head hurt.
Just enact either Item 34 or 35 and be done with the whole issue already…
Your hair-on-fire rant about price controls only proves how empty your free market ideology is. I’d call it a set of principles except that principles are adhered to consistently whereas — this being my point — you’re just invoking them to boost ill-gotten gains.
It’s not just the government that can’t re-import. People can’t either, unless they get into buses and go north or, at greater risk, south. If I’d seen you storming the Bastille over that matter I might take you a little more seriously.
Rather than ask me for examples, why don’t you give me another case of a legal good manufactured abroad whose shipment to the US is made illegal. You can’t. There are none.
As for the government’s role in the purchasing of drugs, that has nothing to do with whether it’s free trade. If defense contractors build weapons parts made in other countries into their finished product and the government limits their ability to use intracorporate gimmicks to mark up prices for ultimate products supplied under cost-plus contracts, would you consider that a violation of free trade? Of course you wouldn’t. I dare say you’d scream bloody murder if you have the views I think you have. You’d probably do so in the name of the freedoms you mistakenly think you are defending.
The issue isn’t over the definition of free trade. Free trade is a myth, as capitalist countries around the world know. That’s why they have jobs and we are losing ours. It’s in large part thanks to nincompoops who press neoliberal myths, which are a good part of what’s destroying this country, with complicity from folks like you, though you may be well paid for what you say.
Of course we have a disagreement, only it’s not over the definition of free trade. It’s over what the government should be doing. Take my defense scenario. Now treat health like you treat defense – which is how the whole developed world – capitalist countries included – treat it. Treat health, that is, as a public function, something any decent nation would see to.
That is the simple answer to your gibberish. It’s so simple that it’s the world’s answer. Except this part of the world, thanks to people with heads in dark places. Pity this country if it doesn’t learn the lesson.
See my above comment, which I neglected to link to yours (and thanks for the response).
I read Yglesias. He’s at best superficial support for what you’re advocating. It’s true that there’s some irony in using free trade arguments since, as you can see, I don’t believe in them. It’s also true that it would be far more sensible to simply have domestic “price controls,” although I’d hasten to add that having the government negotiate drug prices, which Part D prevents it from doing, is merely meeting monopoly power with monopsony power. I can’t see any principled objection to that.
But as for letting Americans piggyback off of lower drug prices abroad, I stand by what I said about free trade. If other countries’ political economies are such that drug prices are lower, but not so low that drug makers don’t find it profitable to make or sell them there, then why in God’s name is there anything wrong with Americans getting benefits of that?
After all, it’s not as if neoliberals complain if TVs and whatnot are bought at low prices though they were made in countries without labor laws, or environmental laws, or who don’t make their employers pay for health care.
Which brings us full circle.
So I stand by everything I said.