So what's left? No public option, no Medicare buy-in, thanks to President Lieberman. The 90% medical loss ratio? That's dead, too. The Dorgan amendment on drug importation comes up for a vote today. Look for that to disappear as well. The ban on denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions and recission is still there so far, but then again President Lieberman isn't through making demands yet. Stay tuned.
But have no fear, the individual mandate lives. Where does that leave us? With 30 million new customers dropped into the laps of the private insurance companies. Even if they are forced to sell policies regardless of pre-existing conditions, what will that policy cost, and will there actually be coverage? Of course the Senate is promising "stringent new federal regulation" as part of the capitulation compromise in the Senate yesterday. If you believe that...
This all came about through an interesting, and telling, chain of events. Last week the Senate reached a "compromise" on the public option which included a Medicare buy-in for those between 55 and 64. Then on Sunday, Joe Lieberman said he would filibuster such a deal. Yesterday morning Politico ran a story that the "White House" sent Rahm Emanuel to talk to Harry Reid "encouraging" him to cut a deal with Lieberman. The White House denied it:
"The report is inaccurate. The White House is not pushing Senator Reid in any direction. We are working hand in hand with the Senate Leadership to work through the various issues and pass health reform as soon as possible."
Turned out the story was true, as the Huffington Post reported yesterday afternoon:
"Rahm Emanuel visited Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in his Capitol office on Sunday evening and personally urged him to cut a deal with recalcitrant Sen. Joe Lieberman, two Democratic sources familiar with the situation told the Huffington Post.
Emanuel, President Obama's chief of staff, has long been identified as leading a faction of White House advisers who have been pushing the Senate simply to pass any health care bill, no matter how weak.
His direct message to Reid (D-Nev.), according to a source close to the negotiations: "Get it done. Just get it done."
(Just as an aside here, if you think Emanuel did this on his own, wake up and smell the coffee. The chief of staff does what the chief tells him to do.)
Then, lo and behold, came the announcement last night that the Medicare buy-in and anything resembling a public option was gone with the wind. What a coincidence.
Change you can believe in? Not so you could notice it.
Thanks for the perspective and a little hope, Huey. Abject despair and anger is getting to be a bummer.
alienHunter yesterday even ed schultz was giving up his time to grudgingly acknowledge that the tea parties enjoy "large numbers" in the polls. wtf? anyone who calls attention to the tea party in resignation should be in the process of resignation! i'm not saying if the tea party has many members they don't deserve to be noticed, i am saying that not pointing out that they are modern KKK rallies held in broad daylight cannot be ignored. mccain was flailing his short arms around this morning on the house floor, reading the wall street journal and crowing that it proves that "america" likes the health care system as it is. this is essentially the problem, the voices of the few drowning out the dispair of the many.
I'll go ahead and dissent from popular opinion here and say that, not only should the bill NOT be killed, but it should be passed and hailed as a bold step in the right direction.
1st-Look at what SS was when FDR first passed it. It didn't cover all senior citizens. Millions of people were left out.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/12/AR2009081202575.html
" No self-respecting liberal today would support Franklin Roosevelt's original Social Security Act. It excluded agricultural workers -- a huge part of the economy in 1935, and one in which Latinos have traditionally worked. It excluded domestic workers, which included countless African Americans and immigrants. It did not cover the self-employed, or state and local government employees, or railroad employees, or federal employees or employees of nonprofits. It didn't even cover the clergy. FDR's Social Security Act did not have benefits for dependents or survivors. It did not have a cost-of-living increase. If you became disabled and couldn't work, you got nothing from Social Security.
If that version of Social Security were introduced today, progressives like me would call it cramped, parsimonious, mean-spirited and even racist. Perhaps it was all those things. But it was also a start. And for 74 years we have built on that start. We added more people to the winner's circle: farmworkers and domestic workers and government workers. We extended benefits to the children of working men and women who died. We granted benefits to the disabled. We mandated annual cost-of-living adjustments. And today Social Security is the bedrock of our progressive vision of the common good."
It should be noted FDR had 69 Dems in the Senate, yet he had to compromise on many of his signature issues.
2nd-I think that, even without the public option or the Medicare buy-in, it's still a good bill. It includes billions to help people purchase insurance, it includes billions for health clinics in poorer areas of the country that have been previously underserved. It also outlaws discriminating against people with pre-existing conditions.
3rd-Politically, I think it would be easier to pass an imperfect, but good, bill and then build political will to improve the system than to hold out for a perfect bill. There are too many dynamics at play to get a perfect bill, and no President for at least one generation would make another attempt to reform healthcare if it fails now.
I agree with the following columns by Ezra Klein and Paul Krugman.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/12/is_the_senate_health-care_refo.html
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/16/illusions-and-bitterness/
Absolutely. Anyone who thinks the bill's going to be significantly improved in conference needs to consider what'll happen when it gets back to the Senate. The most that we could hope for are stealth tweaks that make some small portion of it a tiny bit better. You'll pardon me if I don't get out my pom poms.
As for AH's comment, you'd have a point only if voting were mandatory in this country. The right is energized (or at least the loony far right is). The left - many of us will be staying home.
With all due respect, you’re dreaming. IF this steaming pile ever passes the Senate and goes to conference, what makes you think it will be strengthened there? After it leaves conference it has to go back to the Senate for final passage and if it’s any stronger than it is now Lieberman, Nelson, et al will filibuster it again.
In short, the fix is in. This is as good as it gets.
I agree with Carolsb and Howard Dean. Kill it start over and make sure we pass a bill that works.
Don't get so upset :-).
This is just part of the process to get a health care bill, any health care bill, passed by the Senate before Christmas.
Regardless of what is in or out of the Senate bill, it will still have to go to conference committee.
That is where all the debate and political maneuvering will take place.
Reid is just doing whatever he needs to do to get the bill passed out of the Senate. If people like Howard Dean want to fall on the sword now, when it really doesn't matter, so be it. Last I checked he is not in the legislature.
So, stay tuned for the real action after the first of the year.
Tragic,
I think you hit it...Dems retired to the couches. One simply can't underestimate the power of negative energy. All one needs is a mind disturbed enough to think the world SHOULD revolve around them to be driven to make it happen.
Here's the only thing that confuses me about the logic of 2010 political losses.
It should be obvious to all that the Republicans don't care how many Americans go to hell as long as they maintain power and the ability to say, "In your face, m*therf*cker." Why would voters think that it would be to their advantage to abandon the Democratic party and vote the right?
i can't decide if i would rather hear fox news defend lieberman and say dems are being mean to him or if i'd rather see them cackling with glee that NO bill is passed? the bill as it stands is unrecognizable, anti-reform and could cost obama all of his base. but as good as the republicans were with demint's "waterloo" plan of obstruction is equal in proportion to how good the democrats are at not being the party of yes. is the big tent so big that we never accomplish anything that can be measured beyond political score keeping? did voters pull the lever for obama, put him in the white house, and then retire to their couches until 2012? does the tea party represent "real america" because they can bring out live mouth breathers in droves while the anti tea party is conducted from behind the comfort and convenience of a computer screen? if no bill is passed would health care reform become taboo again for another decade or two, no matter how many seats were gained or lost? can we imagine what the tea party slogan would be if it read "health care bill defeated" instead of "watered down, useless govt takeover passes in hollow victory"? my opinion as of now is that any bill probably does qualify as a victory against the party of no. but i cannot understand how could it became such a loss for dems as well.
I agree with Howard Dean, too.
Miemaw is right, as usual.
Frankly, what was that quote from Palin, "spineless spinelessness"????? I think we've got an epidemic in the U.S. Senate. That yellow streak down the back makes green in my book.
I would add Grayson and a few others to the House list but you're right about the Senate. And a little spine growing at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue wouldn't hurt either.
It would be great if our congresscritters would grow collective spines and senses of social and national responsibility and take up the House bill and then pass what parts of it they could through reconciliation (many features would have to be jettisoned because they don't meet the rules). But short of about 10 million people marching on D.C. to demand it, I doubt it'll happen. The best bet would probably be to lean on the most liberal senators...but they're going to be more concerned about the fallout if something isn't passed at all than if they pass something plug-ugly. Kucinich has that kind of spine in the House, but I haven't seen it in the Senate.
Sounds like a plan to me.
Kill It! Go back to the House.
Salvage the best parts and pass them through reconciliation..... which only takes 51 votes in the Senate.
Render.... irrelevant.... Senators like Lieberman, and Nelson.
If all else fails.... attach parts of it to the next defense appropriation bill....
Reform is not the status quo -- with a mandate.
Keep in mind... 59% of the American people want a choice in health care.
Howard Dean is right!
I have to agree with Howard Dean. Kill it and do a better job of giving the country decent - and affordable - health care reform.
Let's get it right.
I think I would PREFER the democrats treat this like an small fish. If it's "under the limit", THROW IT BACK.
I've seen "Silver Streak" 7 times, "Cassandra Crossing" 5 times. I'm the man for the job.
Howard Dean says “Kill it”
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/health-care/howard-dean-kill-the-senate-bill/
An ineffective and costly plan will be worse than no plan at all because any future attempts to reform health care will have this albatross hanging around its neck. Can you imagine the crys from the extreme right in the future if we pass this skunk?
*sigh*
Carguy, ok, I won't throw the baby out with the bathwater - YET, but can we please throw the rat Lieberman from the train?
Don’t be too sure about what’s still in the bill. Lieberman isn’t finished gutting this fish yet.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/15/lieberman-closer-to-suppo_n_392693.html
I hear you all. And, although my situation is not as dire as some of yours, I'm still no Bruce Jenner when it comes to my health.
The ballgame is not over. I'll admit, we might be in the bottom of the eight, down 4 runs. But the fat lady ain't sung yet.
SSTM is right. She always lends a level head. Let's not "throw the baby out with the bathwater.".............YET.
God strike me dead for saying this, but it appears, at least this one time, that the teabaggers were right.
Their government (which of course, is ours too) doesn't give a shit about them. Not the Republicans in the Senate, nor apparently the Democrats who are in leadership positions. Lieberman, of course, is neither Republican nor Democrat and is, unfortunately, now a leader. Connecticut voters, thanks a lot.
Yes, there's the mandate, but in exchange there's (1) a prohibition on excluding pre-existing conditions; (2) guaranteed issue (in other words, they can't deny coverage to you); (3) modified community rating (in other words, everyone is charged the same premium except with respect to age and location (and maybe smoking status)); (4) guaranteed renewability (i.e., they have to renew your insurance if you want it renewed, even if you've just had hundreds of thousands of dollars in claims); (5) restrictions on lifetime maximum benefits (so you won't max out your policy if you get some awful, lingering cancer that keeps recurring); (6) premium subsidies for people who don't make much money (though they don't go far enough); and (7) caps on the amount of income you're expected to spend on premiums (though those aren't fabulous, either).
There's also going to be a way of pooling individuals and small businesses that was really desperately needed, though we'll see how that works out.
And Medicaid will be expanded to _everyone_ who earns less than 133% of the federal poverty level. That's a big deal in states with skimpy coverage like Texas.
Yes, I'm disappointed and disgusted too. But I'm not surprised, and I also think there's some treasure among the trash.
SSTM, if those that can't afford to purchase health insurance are forced to purchase it, then it will hurt.
I checked out the link that you provided (thank you for that) and I was more uncomfortable with these plans then before. Unless you are at the poverty level, the insurance will not be cheap - nor will it be subsidized.
I have already been down this road before with the High Risk pool, but at least I was able to drop it - without being fined - when it became too expensive.
This just disgusts me.
SSTMelon is correct: Obama wants to be a one-term president.
Mostly, SSTM, it will hand the health insurance industry about 30 million new customers, to charge outrageous premiums, and to whom they can deny payment,when a claim is made.
There is also "mandate" in this bill, that says people have to have health insurance, or they can be fined.
I don't think those provisions are going to help as many people, as they probably will hurt.
Why will it hurt more than it will help?
Glennkoks, you are quite correct in your assessment regarding passing a worthless plan.
As it stands now, this one will hurt more than it will help and to just get it passed - at all costs - so that the Administration can say that they got it passed, is foolish.
If we can't get an effective health care package passed we need to scrap it and start again at a later date. Passing a worthless plan will only hurt in the long run. The problem will not fix itself and as more people do without healthcare and the premiums continue to rise the voters will remember who eighty sixed the plan and the Republicans will continue to suffer in future elections. The health care problem will not fix itself nor will it go away.
Kaiser has a nifty little premium calculator tool: http://healthreform.kff.org/SubsidyCalculator.aspx
It's pretty depressing, though, to see how piddly the subsidies will be for lower middle-class people. Check it out.
Emanuel's just executing his marching orders.
Maybe it's time to put in my next email to the White House that it's time for Rahm to hit the door also.
Miemaw, my point exactly! I dropped out of the Texas High Risk pool in January of 2008 when my monthly premium was $950 per month with a $7,500 deductible and a $10,000 co-pay.
IF I could afford that, I would still have insurance. Now, I am going to be forced to buy insurance - and I am quite certain that the premiums will be that high - with what? My good looks?
This is complete bullshit!
So.... the "uninsured" will be mandated to buy insurance --- that they can't afford. Cost containment also seems to be missing.
OK -- I'm going out on a limb here.....If people could afford to pay the high premiums the insurance companies charge.... they wouldn't be "uninsured" .... now would they????
Ted Kennedy is rolling over in his grave.
Who is left of the Democratic Party base... to vote for these jokers in 2010 -- or 2012???
It would appear, that Rahm Emanuel has managed to not only kill health care "reform" but he's doing one heckava job of also bringing down the Democratic Party -- in the process. "Heckava Job Rahm!"
To say that I am disgusted would be the understatement of the year. If they keep this up, we may end up with a bill that will be worse than none at all...not a pleasant thought.
To "pass any health care bill, no matter how weak", is not what I voted for.
I want to believe that Obama was the right person for the job, but quite frankly - unless something changes fast - I will not vote for him again.
And yes, the Democrats are in for a world of hurt in the 2010 elections and deservedly so.
Obama's studied the Clinton playbook on health reform with considerable care, as a cautionary lesson. So it shouldn't come as any surprise that, at this point, he wants a deal at just about any cost. Clinton lost control of health reform, failed to get a deal, and had horrifying losses in Congress in 1994 - losses which many attribute in large part to his spectacular failure on health reform. Obama doesn't want a replay.
That being said, I don't know that he'll be able to stop huge Democratic losses in 2010, "health reform" or no "health reform". Energize the base? Hardly.
It seems that the President is not his own man and that the strong man in the administration is Emanuel. I don't remember voting for him and I don't think I will next time either. Probably not for a second term President either. Afghanistan, Iraq lobbyists and Medicare. Any more promises that will be broken ?