By FireDogLake's Knoxville FDL
During this last week before President Obama’s Bipartisan Summit on Health Care, which will be held on Feb 25, too many Senate Democrats are still insisting that the message from the MA special election last month is that Americans want bipartisanship.
The only message that voters are sending is that they want to see Democrats deliver on change, that they want to see Democrats advance real reform any way they can.
In an effort to push and/or shame Senate Democrats to do the right thing, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC), Democracy for America (DFA) and Credo are asking Americans to sign the letter that Senator Mike Bennet (D-CO) sent to Majority Leader Harry Reid telling him to pass the public health insurance option through "reconciliation," which only needs a simple majority in the Senate.
Click here to become a citizen signer of the Bennet letter for the public option.
So far, 20 Senators have signed the letter and seven more are expressing their willingness to support creating a public option through reconciliation. Apparently, the members of the Senate Democratic Caucus need to be pushed into doing the right thing.
Click to see which Senate Democrats have signed the letter and which Senate Democrats are still unwilling to do the right thing for the American people.
The claim that Americans want bipartisanship rather than real leadership in fixing our broken health care system appears to be the latest excuse of too many Senate Democrats, who want to avoid doing the right thing for the American people by creating a public health insurance option. Our health care system is broken, and Republicans are not going to help us fix it. No more excuses.
By now, you might think that Democrats are either unable or unwilling to lead. You’re probably right to think so if you do. But that doesn’t change the fact that you need to speak loudly and often and make your voice heard.
Click here to contact your members of Congress and tell them that you want real health care reform, which must include nothing less than a public health insurance option.
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Newsweek Poll: Americans Still Favor Public Option, Still Oppose Excise Tax
By TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat TL
Newsweek poll:
Creating a government-administered public health insurance option to compete with private plans
50 APPROVE 42 OPPOSE 8 DK
Imposing a tax on insurers who offer the most expensive health plans, the so-called Cadillac plans, to help pay for health care reform
34 APPROVE 55 DISAPPROVE 11 DK
To be clear, this is the lowest approval for the public option I have seen. Perhaps because it was perceived as dead. No party breakdowns on that finding. But the excise tax has always polled badly and will continue to. There was a good reason Obama pilloried McCain's plan to tax health insurance plans - because it is a terribly unpopular idea.
Speaking for me only
Newsweek poll:
Creating a government-administered public health insurance option to compete with private plans
50 APPROVE 42 OPPOSE 8 DK
Imposing a tax on insurers who offer the most expensive health plans, the so-called Cadillac plans, to help pay for health care reform
34 APPROVE 55 DISAPPROVE 11 DK
To be clear, this is the lowest approval for the public option I have seen. Perhaps because it was perceived as dead. No party breakdowns on that finding. But the excise tax has always polled badly and will continue to. There was a good reason Obama pilloried McCain's plan to tax health insurance plans - because it is a terribly unpopular idea.
Speaking for me only
Why Won't Durbin Sign On To PO Through Reconciliation Push?
By TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat TL
On Thursday, when asked about the Bennett letter pushing Senate Leader Harry Reid to offer the public option through reconciliation, Senate Whip Dick Durbin's office told the Huffington Post that Durbin "has a policy of not signing on to letters sent to leadership since, after all, he's a member of leadership." However, Senator Charles Schumer, who is also in the Senate Leadership, and the Majority leader himself have come out in support of the Bennett letter. Reid released this statement:
"If a decision is made to use reconciliation to advance health care, Senator Reid will work with the White House, the House, and members of his caucus in an effort to craft a public option that can overcome procedural obstacles and secure enough votes."
What explains Durbin's reluctance to publically support the public option through reconciliation? Cynical minds will note that Durbin is especially close to the White House, and will further note that the White House will not include the public option in its proposal to be unveiled next week. Since I only possess a cynical mind, I do not know what an uncynical mind might think.
Speaking for me only
On Thursday, when asked about the Bennett letter pushing Senate Leader Harry Reid to offer the public option through reconciliation, Senate Whip Dick Durbin's office told the Huffington Post that Durbin "has a policy of not signing on to letters sent to leadership since, after all, he's a member of leadership." However, Senator Charles Schumer, who is also in the Senate Leadership, and the Majority leader himself have come out in support of the Bennett letter. Reid released this statement:
"If a decision is made to use reconciliation to advance health care, Senator Reid will work with the White House, the House, and members of his caucus in an effort to craft a public option that can overcome procedural obstacles and secure enough votes."
What explains Durbin's reluctance to publically support the public option through reconciliation? Cynical minds will note that Durbin is especially close to the White House, and will further note that the White House will not include the public option in its proposal to be unveiled next week. Since I only possess a cynical mind, I do not know what an uncynical mind might think.
Speaking for me only
Specter Joins Call For Public Option Through Reconciliation
By TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat TL
Senator Specter's folks sent out an e-mail last night that said:
Senator Specter announced today that he will sign Sen. Bennet's letter supporting a public option through the use of reconciliation.
I do not know what that brings the number to, but there must be at least 30 sure votes for this in the Senate. Are there 50 votes? I have no idea. But I think it will get interesting if the number on the record exceeds the 41 GOP votes in the Senate. I'll be curious how the "bipartisanship" argument works when you have an objective that over 70% of Democrats in Congress want ignored in favor of the desire of 41 GOP Senators. Another flash point is what the White House will put in its proposal next week. They'll definitely take some heat when the public option is not included and the excise tax is.
Speaking for me only
Senator Specter's folks sent out an e-mail last night that said:
Senator Specter announced today that he will sign Sen. Bennet's letter supporting a public option through the use of reconciliation.
I do not know what that brings the number to, but there must be at least 30 sure votes for this in the Senate. Are there 50 votes? I have no idea. But I think it will get interesting if the number on the record exceeds the 41 GOP votes in the Senate. I'll be curious how the "bipartisanship" argument works when you have an objective that over 70% of Democrats in Congress want ignored in favor of the desire of 41 GOP Senators. Another flash point is what the White House will put in its proposal next week. They'll definitely take some heat when the public option is not included and the excise tax is.
Speaking for me only
Now Reid Jumps Aboard Public Option/Reconciliation Train; But Can This Happen Mechanically?
By FireDogLake's David Dayen FDL
You may have seen this, but Harry Reid sent out this statement:
Senator Reid has always and continues to support the public option as a way to drive down costs and create competition. That is why he included the measure in his original health care proposal. If a decision is made to use reconciliation to advance health care, Senator Reid will work with the White House, the House, and members of his caucus in an effort to craft a public option that can overcome procedural obstacles and secure enough votes.”
Basically, he’s saying that he’ll put the public option up to a vote if he uses reconciliation. And the going belief is that they’re using reconciliation.
But I want to tease out the one clause here: “that can overcome procedural obstacles.” Greg Sargent alludes to this in his write-up of this development: “senior Senate aides still think there’s a procedural obstacle in their path: They insist that in order for them to pass a fix to their bill via reconciliation, the House must pass it first — something House leaders oppose.”
Let me try to explain why this could be a problem. A reconciliation sidecar would attempt to basically amend the Senate’s health care bill with a series of fixes to allow it to pass in the House. The initial reconciliation instructions for any health care bill require that whatever comes through reduces the deficit by $1 billion. And of course, all elements have to have a budgetary impact.
Here’s where it gets interesting. If the Senate tries to pass the reconciliation bill first, they would be making changes relative to current law, rather than relative to their own Senate bill. You cannot amend something that doesn’t exist as a law yet. So if they, for example, want to raise the affordability credits in the bill, which the House is asking for, CBO would treat those credits as a whole, and all of them would have to be offset in the reconciliation bill. In other words, instead of raising the credits by, say $20 billion, and having to offset that, you would have to offset the entire $300 billion or so of credits. And that’s nearly impossible, without a financial transactions tax or some new pot of money.
Some parliamentary experts say that the House could just pass the reconciliation bill first, with instructions that basically say “treat this as if the Senate bill has passed,” what could be called a “self-executing” provision. But the House may not be willing to do that, mindful of their lack of trust in the Senate to do the right thing. If they refuse, you can’t do a heck of a lot in reconciliation, at least the way some on the Senate side see it.
And that would include the design of the insurance exchanges, along with the public option which currently does not exist therein. Even though the public option is a net cost reducer, it would mean changing the exchanges, and until the Senate bill passes there are no exchanges.
Now, none of this is definitive. With parliamentary rules like these, where there’s a will, there’s a way. But this would explain some of the reticence on the part of the Senate, which Reid appears to have waved away with this announcement. What this signals more than anything is that he’s willing to have staff and parliamentarians work hard to figure out a solution. Until now, the Senate had been relying on the difficulty of doing just that to try and force the House to pass the Senate bill and get things over with. But that’s not going to happen. (It may not even after the fixes.) And so more than anything, this shows resolve on the part of the Senate leadership to find a solution.
As for how this reflects on the public option, I think Ezra Klein’s reporting is probably accurate. The letter is excellent politics, putting Senators in an impossible position; they almost have to sign on publicly. But they feel free to do so as long as the total number never hits 50. At that point, it becomes a political problem, not least of which because the House may not have the numbers to pass a bill with it even though they did the last time. The answer to why is simply “Because of Bart Stupak.” His 10-12 votes that he would take on the abortion funding question, which cannot be fixed through reconciliation, cannot be won back with members who voted no before if they include a public option.
So I don’t know what this means for the future of health care reform; but certainly, momentum has its own way of rolling forward, and getting every Senator – and eventually, every House member – on the record is a positive thing.
UPDATE: Arlen Specter has now signed the Bennet letter, putting the number in favor of the public option at 21. 34 have agreed to use reconciliation, with 5 maybes.
You may have seen this, but Harry Reid sent out this statement:
Senator Reid has always and continues to support the public option as a way to drive down costs and create competition. That is why he included the measure in his original health care proposal. If a decision is made to use reconciliation to advance health care, Senator Reid will work with the White House, the House, and members of his caucus in an effort to craft a public option that can overcome procedural obstacles and secure enough votes.”
Basically, he’s saying that he’ll put the public option up to a vote if he uses reconciliation. And the going belief is that they’re using reconciliation.
But I want to tease out the one clause here: “that can overcome procedural obstacles.” Greg Sargent alludes to this in his write-up of this development: “senior Senate aides still think there’s a procedural obstacle in their path: They insist that in order for them to pass a fix to their bill via reconciliation, the House must pass it first — something House leaders oppose.”
Let me try to explain why this could be a problem. A reconciliation sidecar would attempt to basically amend the Senate’s health care bill with a series of fixes to allow it to pass in the House. The initial reconciliation instructions for any health care bill require that whatever comes through reduces the deficit by $1 billion. And of course, all elements have to have a budgetary impact.
Here’s where it gets interesting. If the Senate tries to pass the reconciliation bill first, they would be making changes relative to current law, rather than relative to their own Senate bill. You cannot amend something that doesn’t exist as a law yet. So if they, for example, want to raise the affordability credits in the bill, which the House is asking for, CBO would treat those credits as a whole, and all of them would have to be offset in the reconciliation bill. In other words, instead of raising the credits by, say $20 billion, and having to offset that, you would have to offset the entire $300 billion or so of credits. And that’s nearly impossible, without a financial transactions tax or some new pot of money.
Some parliamentary experts say that the House could just pass the reconciliation bill first, with instructions that basically say “treat this as if the Senate bill has passed,” what could be called a “self-executing” provision. But the House may not be willing to do that, mindful of their lack of trust in the Senate to do the right thing. If they refuse, you can’t do a heck of a lot in reconciliation, at least the way some on the Senate side see it.
And that would include the design of the insurance exchanges, along with the public option which currently does not exist therein. Even though the public option is a net cost reducer, it would mean changing the exchanges, and until the Senate bill passes there are no exchanges.
Now, none of this is definitive. With parliamentary rules like these, where there’s a will, there’s a way. But this would explain some of the reticence on the part of the Senate, which Reid appears to have waved away with this announcement. What this signals more than anything is that he’s willing to have staff and parliamentarians work hard to figure out a solution. Until now, the Senate had been relying on the difficulty of doing just that to try and force the House to pass the Senate bill and get things over with. But that’s not going to happen. (It may not even after the fixes.) And so more than anything, this shows resolve on the part of the Senate leadership to find a solution.
As for how this reflects on the public option, I think Ezra Klein’s reporting is probably accurate. The letter is excellent politics, putting Senators in an impossible position; they almost have to sign on publicly. But they feel free to do so as long as the total number never hits 50. At that point, it becomes a political problem, not least of which because the House may not have the numbers to pass a bill with it even though they did the last time. The answer to why is simply “Because of Bart Stupak.” His 10-12 votes that he would take on the abortion funding question, which cannot be fixed through reconciliation, cannot be won back with members who voted no before if they include a public option.
So I don’t know what this means for the future of health care reform; but certainly, momentum has its own way of rolling forward, and getting every Senator – and eventually, every House member – on the record is a positive thing.
UPDATE: Arlen Specter has now signed the Bennet letter, putting the number in favor of the public option at 21. 34 have agreed to use reconciliation, with 5 maybes.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Public Option Support Surging In Senate
By Huffington Post's Sam Stein and Ryan Grim Huff Post
UPDATE: Thursday, 5:26 PM -- Joe Shoemaker, a spokesman for Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the second-ranking Democrat, said that the Majority Whip has a policy of not signing on to letters sent to leadership since, after all, he's a member of leadership. "That would be like sending a letter to himself," said Shoemaker, adding, "Durbin has a pretty clear record on his support for a public option."
He said that Durbin has yet to take a public position on whether the bill should be moved through reconciliation and wasn't immediately available. He has been traveling in Sudan and elsewhere in Africa for the last several days.
UPDATE: Thursday, 4:56 PM -- The White House is declining to comment on the push to reinsert the public option into the debate.
UPDATE: Thursday, 4:44 PM -- Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), a fairly conservative member, has signed the letter, according to organizers and to a spokesperson for Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), who's leading the charge.
UPDATE: Thursday, 4:40 PM -- Sen. Chris Dodd's (D-Conn.) office released a statement today that reiterates the senator's support for a public option for insurance coverage but doesn't touch the issue of whether he'd like to see the proposal passed using reconciliation.
"Senator Dodd is and always has been a strong supporter of the public option," the statement reads. "It was under his leadership that the HELP committee passed a bill with a strong public option last summer. And he will continue his work to get comprehensive health care reform passed."
It seems likely that the senator doesn't want to get ahead of the process. An upcoming health care summit with the White House and ongoing health care negotiations between Democratic leadership make discussion of reintroducing the public plan slightly premature. But it would be bizarre, if not highly unthinkable, to see Dodd oppose reconciliation to pass the provision after pushing it through committee and restating his support.
UPDATE: Thursday, 3:15 PM -- Sen. Charles Schumer (N.Y.), the third-ranking Democrat in the Senate, is backing the effort. Schumer's re-entry into the public option fight gives it a major boost. Schumer, as head of the party's campaign efforts in 2006 and 2008, elected one in six of those now in the caucus and is trusted for his political judgment. If Schumer thinks the public option effort is a political winner, his colleagues will take note.
Schumer made his announcement in a message to his supporters, obtained by HuffPost.
Dear XX,
As you know, I've been committed to a strong public option throughout the entire health care reform process.
First it was in the Senate bill, then it was out. But now, thanks to the tenacity of a group of four Democratic Senators -- Michael Bennet (CO), Sherrod Brown (OH), Kirsten Gillibrand (NY), and Jeff Merkley (OR) -- there is a renewed push to create a public option as part of health care reform.
I just added my name to their effort to pass a public option through the reconciliation process, and I wanted you to be the first to know.
This is far from a done deal, but it's an opportunity to break through the obstructionism Republicans have pushed for the past year.
Let's keep fighting,
Chuck Schumer
UPDATE: Thursday, 2:49 PM -- For leading the public option effort, Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) is under attack from conservative editorial boards and Republicans in Colorado.
In response, the groups helping organize outside support for the effort released a poll showing support for the public option in Colorado and asked local residents to write Bennet and thank him for the effort.
UPDATE: Thursday, 12:23 PM -- The Las Vegas Sun reports that while Nevada voters are opposed to the previous health care bill, they support moving it through by using reconciliation.
UPDATE: Thursday, 11:43 AM -- Adrianne Marsh, a spokesperson for Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), who is leading the effort, says that there are now 16 signatures on the letter calling for the public option to be moved through the Senate under reconciliation. The most recent to sign, said Marsh, is Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.).
UPDATE: Thursday, 11:21 AM -- "Senator Mikulski has signed on to that letter," says Rachel MacKnight, a spokeswoman to Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.), up for reelection in 2010. Mikulski is a veteran lawmaker and chairwoman of a HELP subcommittee.
UPDATE: Thursday, 10:05 AM -- Organizers of the effort say that Sens. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) and Tom Udall (D-N.M.) have now signed on, bringing the number to 13.
UPDATE: Wednesday, 9:39 PM -- Sens. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) and Ben Cardin (D-Md.) are the latest to indicate support for the use of reconciliation to pass health care reform legislation that includes a public option.
The Minnesota Independent published part of a prepared statement from Klobuchar:
I would want to make sure that the bill contains the Medicare care cost reform measures included in the existing bill. I am also supportive of the President's efforts to forge a bipartisan agreement. We must reduce health care costs for the people of this country.
I support the House bill version of the public option which is based on negotiated rates. I do not support a public option based on Medicare rates because it exacerbates geographic disparities that already hurt Minnesota.
Susan Sullam, a spokeswoman for Sen. Cardin said Wednesday that "Senator Cardin has always been for a strong public option. He also has long thought reconciliation was a viable option for passing strong health care reform."
Neither Klobuchar nor Cardin appear ready to sign a letter penned by by four other senators endorsing both the public option and the use of reconciliation. Eleven senators have signed the the letter.
----
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) became the 11th Senator to sign on to a new effort by Democrats to press Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to pass a public option for insurance coverage using reconciliation, her office confirmed to the Huffington Post on Wednesday.
The California Democrat joins a list of mostly progressive members to offer her late-stage support for the government run plan. In a letter to Reid on Tuesday a quartet of Democrats penned urged Reid to pass the proposal through parliamentary procedures that allow a simple up-or-down vote.
The senators outlined their rationale for supporting the public option in their letter:
We respectfully ask that you bring for a vote before the full Senate a public health insurance option under budget reconciliation rules.
There are four fundamental reasons why we support this approach - its potential for billions of dollars in cost savings; the growing need to increase competition and lower costs for the consumer; the history of using reconciliation for significant pieces of health care legislation; and the continued public support for a public option.
In putting her name among the signatories Feinstein expands the pool of senators pushing for a public plan beyond the progressive wing and those lawmakers facing primary challenges in the 2010 midterm elections. The California Democrat has been a supporter of the proposal from the start, though not a particularly vocal one. The recent news that the largest insurer in her home state, Anthem Blue Cross, was raising premiums on its customers by as much as 39 percent played a role in her decision.
"I can think of no better example of why we need health insurance reform," she said of the rate-hike news, "and this kind of behavior is a stark reminder of why any reform plan should establish a rate authority to keep insurance rates affordable."
The list of Senators currently signing the letter includes Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), Michael Bennet (D-Col.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Al Franken (D-Minn.), Pat Leahy (D-VT), Roland Burris (D-Ill.), John Kerry (D-Mass.), and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI).
Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), chairman of the Senate health committee, isn't yet signing on to the effort, but said through a spokeswoman that he "has always strongly supported the public option and will continue to fight for comprehensive health care reform."
UPDATE: Thursday, 5:26 PM -- Joe Shoemaker, a spokesman for Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the second-ranking Democrat, said that the Majority Whip has a policy of not signing on to letters sent to leadership since, after all, he's a member of leadership. "That would be like sending a letter to himself," said Shoemaker, adding, "Durbin has a pretty clear record on his support for a public option."
He said that Durbin has yet to take a public position on whether the bill should be moved through reconciliation and wasn't immediately available. He has been traveling in Sudan and elsewhere in Africa for the last several days.
UPDATE: Thursday, 4:56 PM -- The White House is declining to comment on the push to reinsert the public option into the debate.
UPDATE: Thursday, 4:44 PM -- Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), a fairly conservative member, has signed the letter, according to organizers and to a spokesperson for Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), who's leading the charge.
UPDATE: Thursday, 4:40 PM -- Sen. Chris Dodd's (D-Conn.) office released a statement today that reiterates the senator's support for a public option for insurance coverage but doesn't touch the issue of whether he'd like to see the proposal passed using reconciliation.
"Senator Dodd is and always has been a strong supporter of the public option," the statement reads. "It was under his leadership that the HELP committee passed a bill with a strong public option last summer. And he will continue his work to get comprehensive health care reform passed."
It seems likely that the senator doesn't want to get ahead of the process. An upcoming health care summit with the White House and ongoing health care negotiations between Democratic leadership make discussion of reintroducing the public plan slightly premature. But it would be bizarre, if not highly unthinkable, to see Dodd oppose reconciliation to pass the provision after pushing it through committee and restating his support.
UPDATE: Thursday, 3:15 PM -- Sen. Charles Schumer (N.Y.), the third-ranking Democrat in the Senate, is backing the effort. Schumer's re-entry into the public option fight gives it a major boost. Schumer, as head of the party's campaign efforts in 2006 and 2008, elected one in six of those now in the caucus and is trusted for his political judgment. If Schumer thinks the public option effort is a political winner, his colleagues will take note.
Schumer made his announcement in a message to his supporters, obtained by HuffPost.
Dear XX,
As you know, I've been committed to a strong public option throughout the entire health care reform process.
First it was in the Senate bill, then it was out. But now, thanks to the tenacity of a group of four Democratic Senators -- Michael Bennet (CO), Sherrod Brown (OH), Kirsten Gillibrand (NY), and Jeff Merkley (OR) -- there is a renewed push to create a public option as part of health care reform.
I just added my name to their effort to pass a public option through the reconciliation process, and I wanted you to be the first to know.
This is far from a done deal, but it's an opportunity to break through the obstructionism Republicans have pushed for the past year.
Let's keep fighting,
Chuck Schumer
UPDATE: Thursday, 2:49 PM -- For leading the public option effort, Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) is under attack from conservative editorial boards and Republicans in Colorado.
In response, the groups helping organize outside support for the effort released a poll showing support for the public option in Colorado and asked local residents to write Bennet and thank him for the effort.
UPDATE: Thursday, 12:23 PM -- The Las Vegas Sun reports that while Nevada voters are opposed to the previous health care bill, they support moving it through by using reconciliation.
UPDATE: Thursday, 11:43 AM -- Adrianne Marsh, a spokesperson for Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), who is leading the effort, says that there are now 16 signatures on the letter calling for the public option to be moved through the Senate under reconciliation. The most recent to sign, said Marsh, is Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.).
UPDATE: Thursday, 11:21 AM -- "Senator Mikulski has signed on to that letter," says Rachel MacKnight, a spokeswoman to Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.), up for reelection in 2010. Mikulski is a veteran lawmaker and chairwoman of a HELP subcommittee.
UPDATE: Thursday, 10:05 AM -- Organizers of the effort say that Sens. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) and Tom Udall (D-N.M.) have now signed on, bringing the number to 13.
UPDATE: Wednesday, 9:39 PM -- Sens. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) and Ben Cardin (D-Md.) are the latest to indicate support for the use of reconciliation to pass health care reform legislation that includes a public option.
The Minnesota Independent published part of a prepared statement from Klobuchar:
I would want to make sure that the bill contains the Medicare care cost reform measures included in the existing bill. I am also supportive of the President's efforts to forge a bipartisan agreement. We must reduce health care costs for the people of this country.
I support the House bill version of the public option which is based on negotiated rates. I do not support a public option based on Medicare rates because it exacerbates geographic disparities that already hurt Minnesota.
Susan Sullam, a spokeswoman for Sen. Cardin said Wednesday that "Senator Cardin has always been for a strong public option. He also has long thought reconciliation was a viable option for passing strong health care reform."
Neither Klobuchar nor Cardin appear ready to sign a letter penned by by four other senators endorsing both the public option and the use of reconciliation. Eleven senators have signed the the letter.
----
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) became the 11th Senator to sign on to a new effort by Democrats to press Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to pass a public option for insurance coverage using reconciliation, her office confirmed to the Huffington Post on Wednesday.
The California Democrat joins a list of mostly progressive members to offer her late-stage support for the government run plan. In a letter to Reid on Tuesday a quartet of Democrats penned urged Reid to pass the proposal through parliamentary procedures that allow a simple up-or-down vote.
The senators outlined their rationale for supporting the public option in their letter:
We respectfully ask that you bring for a vote before the full Senate a public health insurance option under budget reconciliation rules.
There are four fundamental reasons why we support this approach - its potential for billions of dollars in cost savings; the growing need to increase competition and lower costs for the consumer; the history of using reconciliation for significant pieces of health care legislation; and the continued public support for a public option.
In putting her name among the signatories Feinstein expands the pool of senators pushing for a public plan beyond the progressive wing and those lawmakers facing primary challenges in the 2010 midterm elections. The California Democrat has been a supporter of the proposal from the start, though not a particularly vocal one. The recent news that the largest insurer in her home state, Anthem Blue Cross, was raising premiums on its customers by as much as 39 percent played a role in her decision.
"I can think of no better example of why we need health insurance reform," she said of the rate-hike news, "and this kind of behavior is a stark reminder of why any reform plan should establish a rate authority to keep insurance rates affordable."
The list of Senators currently signing the letter includes Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), Michael Bennet (D-Col.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Al Franken (D-Minn.), Pat Leahy (D-VT), Roland Burris (D-Ill.), John Kerry (D-Mass.), and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI).
Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), chairman of the Senate health committee, isn't yet signing on to the effort, but said through a spokeswoman that he "has always strongly supported the public option and will continue to fight for comprehensive health care reform."
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Senator Michael Bennet's (D-CO) Letter on the public option
By Senator Michael Bennet (D-CO), co-signed by Senators Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), and Sherrod Brown (D-OH)PCCC
LETTER FROM SENATE DEMOCRATS TO LEADER REID
Dear Leader Reid:
We respectfully ask that you bring for a vote before the full Senate a public health insurance option under budget reconciliation rules.
There are four fundamental reasons why we support this approach – its potential for billions of dollars in cost savings; the growing need to increase competition and lower costs for the consumer; the history of using reconciliation for significant pieces of health care legislation; and the continued public support for a public option.
A Public Option Is an Important Tool for Restoring Fiscal Discipline.
As Democrats, we pledged that the Senate health care reform package would address skyrocketing health care costs and relieve overburdened American families and small businesses from annual double-digit health care cost increases. And that it would do so without adding a dime to the national debt.
The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) determined that the Senate health reform bill is actually better than deficit neutral. It would reduce the deficit by over $130 billion in the first ten years and up to $1 trillion in the first 20 years.
These cost savings are an important start. But a strong public option can be the centerpiece of an even better package of cost saving measures. CBO estimated that various public option proposals in the House save at least $25 billion. Even $1 billion in savings would qualify it for consideration under reconciliation.
Put simply, including a strong public option is one of the best, most fiscally responsible ways to reform our health insurance system.
A Public Option Would Provide Americans with a Low-Cost Alternative and Improve Market Competitiveness.
A strong public option would create better competition in our health insurance markets. Many Americans have no or little real choice of health insurance provider. Far too often, it’s “take it or leave it” for families and small businesses. This lack of competition drives up costs and leaves private health insurance companies with little incentive to provide quality customer service.
A recent Health Care for America Now report on private insurance companies found that the largest five for-profit health insurance providers made $12 billion in profits last year, yet they actually dropped 2.7 million people from coverage. Private insurance – by gouging the public even during a severe economic recession – has shown it cannot function in the public’s interest without a public alternative. Americans have nowhere to turn. That is not healthy market competition, and it is not good for the public.
If families or individuals like their current coverage through a private insurance company, then they can keep that coverage. And in some markets where consumers have many alternatives, a public option may be less necessary. But many local markets have broken down, with only one or two insurance providers available to consumers. Each and every health insurance market should have real choices for consumers.
There is a history of using reconciliation for significant pieces of health care legislation.
There is substantial Senate precedent for using reconciliation to enact important health care policies. The Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), Medicare Advantage, and the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA), which actually contains the term ‘reconciliation’ in its title, were all enacted under reconciliation.
The American Enterprise Institute’s Norman Ornstein and Brookings’ Thomas Mann and Molly Reynolds jointly wrote, “Are Democrats making an egregious power grab by sidestepping the filibuster? Hardly.” They continued that the precedent for using reconciliation to enact major policy changes is “much more extensive . . . than Senate Republicans are willing to admit these days.”
There is strong public support for a public option, across party lines.
The overwhelming majority of Americans want a public option. The latest New York Times poll on this issue, in December, shows that despite the attacks of recent months Americans support the public option 59% to 29%. Support includes 80% of Democrats, 59% of Independents, and even 33% of Republicans.
Much of the public identifies a public option as the key component of health care reform -- and as the best thing we can do to stand up for regular people against big insurance companies. In fact, overall support for health care reform declined steadily as the public option was removed from reform legislation.
Although we strongly support the important reforms made by the Senate-passed health reform package, including a strong public option would improve both its substance and the public’s perception of it. The Senate has an obligation to reform our unworkable health insurance market -- both to reduce costs and to give consumers more choices. A strong public option is the best way to deliver on both of these goals, and we urge its consideration under reconciliation rules.
Respectfully,
Michael Bennet (D-CO), U.S. Senator
Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), U.S. Senator
Jeff Merkley (D-OR), U.S. Senator
Sherrod Brown (D-OH), U.S. Senator
Read the full list
LETTER FROM SENATE DEMOCRATS TO LEADER REID
Dear Leader Reid:
We respectfully ask that you bring for a vote before the full Senate a public health insurance option under budget reconciliation rules.
There are four fundamental reasons why we support this approach – its potential for billions of dollars in cost savings; the growing need to increase competition and lower costs for the consumer; the history of using reconciliation for significant pieces of health care legislation; and the continued public support for a public option.
A Public Option Is an Important Tool for Restoring Fiscal Discipline.
As Democrats, we pledged that the Senate health care reform package would address skyrocketing health care costs and relieve overburdened American families and small businesses from annual double-digit health care cost increases. And that it would do so without adding a dime to the national debt.
The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) determined that the Senate health reform bill is actually better than deficit neutral. It would reduce the deficit by over $130 billion in the first ten years and up to $1 trillion in the first 20 years.
These cost savings are an important start. But a strong public option can be the centerpiece of an even better package of cost saving measures. CBO estimated that various public option proposals in the House save at least $25 billion. Even $1 billion in savings would qualify it for consideration under reconciliation.
Put simply, including a strong public option is one of the best, most fiscally responsible ways to reform our health insurance system.
A Public Option Would Provide Americans with a Low-Cost Alternative and Improve Market Competitiveness.
A strong public option would create better competition in our health insurance markets. Many Americans have no or little real choice of health insurance provider. Far too often, it’s “take it or leave it” for families and small businesses. This lack of competition drives up costs and leaves private health insurance companies with little incentive to provide quality customer service.
A recent Health Care for America Now report on private insurance companies found that the largest five for-profit health insurance providers made $12 billion in profits last year, yet they actually dropped 2.7 million people from coverage. Private insurance – by gouging the public even during a severe economic recession – has shown it cannot function in the public’s interest without a public alternative. Americans have nowhere to turn. That is not healthy market competition, and it is not good for the public.
If families or individuals like their current coverage through a private insurance company, then they can keep that coverage. And in some markets where consumers have many alternatives, a public option may be less necessary. But many local markets have broken down, with only one or two insurance providers available to consumers. Each and every health insurance market should have real choices for consumers.
There is a history of using reconciliation for significant pieces of health care legislation.
There is substantial Senate precedent for using reconciliation to enact important health care policies. The Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), Medicare Advantage, and the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA), which actually contains the term ‘reconciliation’ in its title, were all enacted under reconciliation.
The American Enterprise Institute’s Norman Ornstein and Brookings’ Thomas Mann and Molly Reynolds jointly wrote, “Are Democrats making an egregious power grab by sidestepping the filibuster? Hardly.” They continued that the precedent for using reconciliation to enact major policy changes is “much more extensive . . . than Senate Republicans are willing to admit these days.”
There is strong public support for a public option, across party lines.
The overwhelming majority of Americans want a public option. The latest New York Times poll on this issue, in December, shows that despite the attacks of recent months Americans support the public option 59% to 29%. Support includes 80% of Democrats, 59% of Independents, and even 33% of Republicans.
Much of the public identifies a public option as the key component of health care reform -- and as the best thing we can do to stand up for regular people against big insurance companies. In fact, overall support for health care reform declined steadily as the public option was removed from reform legislation.
Although we strongly support the important reforms made by the Senate-passed health reform package, including a strong public option would improve both its substance and the public’s perception of it. The Senate has an obligation to reform our unworkable health insurance market -- both to reduce costs and to give consumers more choices. A strong public option is the best way to deliver on both of these goals, and we urge its consideration under reconciliation rules.
Respectfully,
Michael Bennet (D-CO), U.S. Senator
Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), U.S. Senator
Jeff Merkley (D-OR), U.S. Senator
Sherrod Brown (D-OH), U.S. Senator
Read the full list
Dem Senators Call For Public Option Through Reconciliation Fix
By TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat TL
The letter:
Dear Leader Reid:
We respectfully ask that you bring for a vote before the full Senate a public health insurance option under budget reconciliation rules.
. . . . Although we strongly support the important reforms made by the Senate-passed health reform package, including a strong public option would improve both its substance and the public’s perception of it. The Senate has an obligation to reform our unworkable health insurance market -- both to reduce costs and to give consumers more choices. A strong public option is the best way to deliver on both of these goals, and we urge its consideration under reconciliation rules.
Respectfully,
Michael Bennet (D-CO), U.S. Senator
Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), U.S. Senator
Jeff Merkley (D-OR), U.S. Senator
Sherrod Brown (D-OH), U.S. Senator
The letter:
Dear Leader Reid:
We respectfully ask that you bring for a vote before the full Senate a public health insurance option under budget reconciliation rules.
. . . . Although we strongly support the important reforms made by the Senate-passed health reform package, including a strong public option would improve both its substance and the public’s perception of it. The Senate has an obligation to reform our unworkable health insurance market -- both to reduce costs and to give consumers more choices. A strong public option is the best way to deliver on both of these goals, and we urge its consideration under reconciliation rules.
Respectfully,
Michael Bennet (D-CO), U.S. Senator
Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), U.S. Senator
Jeff Merkley (D-OR), U.S. Senator
Sherrod Brown (D-OH), U.S. Senator
Key Senate Dems: Pass Public Option Through Reconciliation
By FireDogLake's David Dayen FDL
Four Senate Democrats, led by Sen. Michael Bennet (D-CO) have written a letter to Harry Reid calling for the Senate to pass a public option for health care reform using the budget reconciliation process.
Bennet was joined on the letter by Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) and Jeff Merkley (D-OR). In the letter, they discuss how the public option would save money (over $25 billion, even using the “level playing field” version), provide an alternative to private insurance companies and force competition on price and quality.
More significantly, Bennet and his counterparts made a strong case (using the AEI’s Norm Ornstein!) that budget reconciliation is a normal process to resolve policy issues that impact the bottom line.
There is a history of using reconciliation for significant pieces of health care legislation.
There is substantial Senate precedent for using reconciliation to enact important health care policies. The Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), Medicare Advantage, and the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA), which actually contains the term ‘reconciliation’ in its title, were all enacted under reconciliation.
The American Enterprise Institute’s Norman Ornstein and Brookings’ Thomas Mann and Molly Reynolds jointly wrote, “Are Democrats making an egregious power grab by sidestepping the filibuster? Hardly.” They continued that the precedent for using reconciliation to enact major policy changes is “much more extensive . . . than Senate Republicans are willing to admit these days.”
I think that the renewed push for the public option is nice, but the renewed push for using reconciliation to make the health care bill more palatable to pass the House actually might get this thing off the mat. It appears that the policy differences between the House and Senate are largely being ironed out; the process is more of a hurdle at this point. So if Bennet and his colleagues can actually calm the nerves of those skittish Senators who don’t want to use reconciliation because it’s “icky” and “partisan,” that would represent a significant step forward. It also happens to represent the only step forward; the House cannot do anything without reconciliation fixes.
Bennet, Gillibrand, Brown and Merkley are not the only ones itching to use reconciliation to finish off the health care bill:
Given the unified GOP opposition to their health care effort, Senate Democrats argued just before departing for the Presidents Day recess that Obama’s summit is no reason to shelve reconciliation as a potential strategy. The tactic would allow Democrats pass certain aspects of health care reform with just 51 votes.
“I think it should be constantly pursued,” Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) said Thursday when asked whether Democrats should take a break from drafting a reconciliation bill until after Obama’s summit.
“I think the Republicans are pretty committed to the notion that obstructing everything that President Obama would like to accomplish is very key to their base and their political success,” Whitehouse added. “I don’t see them departing from that strategy.”
Given that Democrats are choking in a desert looking for results right now, Bennet and these other Senators are at least offering that path out of the desert.
Four Senate Democrats, led by Sen. Michael Bennet (D-CO) have written a letter to Harry Reid calling for the Senate to pass a public option for health care reform using the budget reconciliation process.
Bennet was joined on the letter by Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) and Jeff Merkley (D-OR). In the letter, they discuss how the public option would save money (over $25 billion, even using the “level playing field” version), provide an alternative to private insurance companies and force competition on price and quality.
More significantly, Bennet and his counterparts made a strong case (using the AEI’s Norm Ornstein!) that budget reconciliation is a normal process to resolve policy issues that impact the bottom line.
There is a history of using reconciliation for significant pieces of health care legislation.
There is substantial Senate precedent for using reconciliation to enact important health care policies. The Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), Medicare Advantage, and the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA), which actually contains the term ‘reconciliation’ in its title, were all enacted under reconciliation.
The American Enterprise Institute’s Norman Ornstein and Brookings’ Thomas Mann and Molly Reynolds jointly wrote, “Are Democrats making an egregious power grab by sidestepping the filibuster? Hardly.” They continued that the precedent for using reconciliation to enact major policy changes is “much more extensive . . . than Senate Republicans are willing to admit these days.”
I think that the renewed push for the public option is nice, but the renewed push for using reconciliation to make the health care bill more palatable to pass the House actually might get this thing off the mat. It appears that the policy differences between the House and Senate are largely being ironed out; the process is more of a hurdle at this point. So if Bennet and his colleagues can actually calm the nerves of those skittish Senators who don’t want to use reconciliation because it’s “icky” and “partisan,” that would represent a significant step forward. It also happens to represent the only step forward; the House cannot do anything without reconciliation fixes.
Bennet, Gillibrand, Brown and Merkley are not the only ones itching to use reconciliation to finish off the health care bill:
Given the unified GOP opposition to their health care effort, Senate Democrats argued just before departing for the Presidents Day recess that Obama’s summit is no reason to shelve reconciliation as a potential strategy. The tactic would allow Democrats pass certain aspects of health care reform with just 51 votes.
“I think it should be constantly pursued,” Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) said Thursday when asked whether Democrats should take a break from drafting a reconciliation bill until after Obama’s summit.
“I think the Republicans are pretty committed to the notion that obstructing everything that President Obama would like to accomplish is very key to their base and their political success,” Whitehouse added. “I don’t see them departing from that strategy.”
Given that Democrats are choking in a desert looking for results right now, Bennet and these other Senators are at least offering that path out of the desert.
“If the Sen. health bill is all a progressive can aspire to w/ a historic Dem maj in Congress & a Dem Pres., the only Q to ask - is that all there is?
By TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat TL
Is that all there is, is that all there is?
If that's all there is my friends, then let's keep dancing
Let's break out the booze and have a ball
If that's all there is
Today, in the United State of America, the Democratic Party controls the House, the Senate and the Presidency. In the scheme of things, after 12 year of GOP control of the Congress and 8 years of GOP control of the Presidency, you would expect significant changes. Especially after the landslide result of the 2008 election. But it just has not happened.
Let's be clear -- Democratic governance is better than GOP governance. But let's face it, how could it be worse? The question is this - is this as good as it gets? Is this all that the Democratic Party can deliver in terms of progressive governance? If so, then David Broder has won. The choices we have as Americans are between a Center Right government and a Far Right government. This despite the fact that the American electorate is supportive of progressive ideas. Why is this? I'll think about that on the flip.
Charles Blow places some of the blame on President Obama:
President Obama wanted to change Washington. It changed ... for the worse. And it’s now holding his agenda hostage. The question is: How much is he willing to change himself in order to save it?
On Feb. 9, 2009, at the first prime-time press conference of his presidency, Obama said: “I am the eternal optimist. I think that over time people respond to — to civility and rational argument.”
Since then, the right has tried to block him at nearly every turn, and the far right has formed a movement fueled by irrational anger.
[. . .] Yet, there he was again this week, a year to the day after the prime-time press conference, saying almost exactly the same thing: “I am just an eternal optimist. ... And all I can do is just to keep on making the argument about what’s right for the country and assume that over time, people, regardless of party, regardless of their particular political positions, are going to gravitate towards the truth.” So stubbornly sweet. So simply naïve.
If Obama is still clinging to this quaint concept after the year he’s had, it’s easy to understand why he’s in trouble.
I, of all people (who has spent years railing against the PPUS), take Blow's point. But I have to ask, when and what has Obama been offering in the way of "civil and rational argument" anyway? In terms of his argument to the American People, what has he argued for? Nothing coherent in most cases, or even intelligible. If you can figure out what Obama has projected as his principles, you have one on me. This approach ended up having its virtues during the 2008 campaign, as it allowed many people to project their views on to Obama. His personal charisma is incredible.
But as President? It has simply failed. Everyone in the Democratic Caucus had the chance to argue they were with Obama while holding diametrically opposing views. There was no coherent Democratic message because there is no coherent message from the Democratic President.
And as Village Blogger Ezra Klein has become shocked to discover, Republican interests do not lie in successful governing when they are in the minority, rather it comes in improving their chances for winning the next election.
The structural problems of the Senate are often pointed to as the obstacle to the progressive Democratic agenda. Of course this is true, but not new. And yet it is not the full story. At least a part of the progressive Democratic agenda could be passed through reconciliation. And the Democrats spent much of 2009 with 60 votes in the Senate. And still, despite these historic majorities, very little that one could think of as progressive has been done. And even that was of the layup variety (renewing S-Chip, Lily Ledbetter Act.) Some claim the stimulus was progressive. If so, it was thin gruel - too small and too lardened with tax cuts. If that is the supreme expression of Democratic progressivism, then the point is made - when it comes to governing, we are forced to choose between Center Right and Right programs.
If this is the best we can do at this time. If this is all there is in the progressivism of the Democratic Party, then we are surely sunk. For the path of the Nation is not good. And as in 1932, tranformational progressivism is badly needed. But unlike in 1932, no where is it being offered.
Take health insurance and health care for instance. A NYTimes editorial today says:
When Republican Congressional leaders come to the White House’s health care summit meeting on Feb. 25, don’t expect them to bring any big ideas with them. Instead, they will press President Obama to scrap his ambitious health care reforms and focus on modest proposals.
That may make political sense. Americans have certainly been spooked by all of the Republican hype about government takeovers.
But the small ideas the Republicans are championing would barely make a dent in the most critical problems threatening the health care system: the huge number of Americans without insurance and the ever-escalating costs of health care.
The assumption of the editorial is that the de facto Democratic plan, the Senate health bill, has the big ideas necessary to tackle the problem. This conceit is almost as harmful as the the GOP proposals. The Senate health bill is a failure. It does not address the fundamental problems of health care reform. It does not even implement the proper framework for addressing the problem.
It relies on the delusions that a regulatory framework that depends upon state based regulatory bodies, "competition" in tiny state based exchanges, and a funding mechanism that taxes health benefits is the path to the big ideas solutions. This is absurd
The NYTimes, like the Village Dems, has decided to believe that the solutions lie in what is deemed "politically possible" in the Village (irony abounds in that they do not even consider the fact that their "politically possible" solution can not pass the House.)
Of course actual big ideas were available for passage by this Democratic government. It involved pushing the one proven reform in the health care area - public insurance. Let's say that instead of the Rube Goldberg contraption that is the Senate health bill, Democrats had instead insisted on shoring up and expanding the one part of the system that was working at controlling costs. Indeed, let's make the bill simple, with no new programs.
Suppose the Democratic plan for health care had been instead to expand Medicaid (to its credit, the Senate bill did this) and to nationalize it (no more need for Cornhusker Kickbacks.) And suppose it was done to the House proposed level of 150% of FPL. And let's also suppose that Medicare coverage was expanded to those 55 and older. Finally let's suppose that we placated the Republicans with a sliding scale voucher system for those who fell below a certain level of income, to be applied either to purchase private insurance or to buy public insurance.
Now who would argue that this plan would not do more to reach the progressive goal of universal health insurance coverage? No one.
But how to pay for it? The obvious progressive answer would be with taxes on the rich. Who opposes taxes on the rich? Not most Americans.
I can hear the Villagers screaming now - "but what about cost control?" But the cost control is right there - it is the expansion of public insurance. No one disputes that public insurance is the most effective form of cost control. No one.
But what about the mandate? I do not object to it. Put it to a vote and see if it will pass. Oh, you need 60 votes for that? Well, that's on you then. The plan I outline above required only 50 votes.
I'm not against mandates and putting on paper the idea of banning discrimination based on preexisting conditions(the reality of such a ban seems remote to me.) But what I am against is cutting out the heart of a progressive approach to health care reform for that. Put it in a separate bill.
But the Democratic Party in power today would not do that. Perhaps could not do that. That would require governing a tick or 2 further to the progressive side than is allowed in the Village.
The Villagers have been running around screaming that "the Senate health bill is the most progressive since 1965." It always struck me as ironic that they make this claim, when the Senate bill creates nothing that resembles what was created in 1965.
Because the 1965 bill the Villagers are referencing -- that bill created public insurance programs - Medicare and Medicaid. If the 1965 bill were progressive, and they were, the Senate health bill rejects that form of progressivism. Where the 1965 bill rejected a market solution to the issue of health care, the Senate health bill embraces it and reject a public insurance solution.
In some ways that is the epitaph of the health care debate of 2009 - that Village Democrats could make the claim that the Senate bill was the most progressive since 1965 (BTW, this is a flat out lie - the Clinton Tax bill of 1993 was clearly much more progressive, and it is not even close.)
If the Senate health bill is all a progressive can aspire to with a historic Dem majority in the Congress and a Dem in the White House, the only question to ask is - is that all there is?
Speaking for me only
Is that all there is, is that all there is?
If that's all there is my friends, then let's keep dancing
Let's break out the booze and have a ball
If that's all there is
Today, in the United State of America, the Democratic Party controls the House, the Senate and the Presidency. In the scheme of things, after 12 year of GOP control of the Congress and 8 years of GOP control of the Presidency, you would expect significant changes. Especially after the landslide result of the 2008 election. But it just has not happened.
Let's be clear -- Democratic governance is better than GOP governance. But let's face it, how could it be worse? The question is this - is this as good as it gets? Is this all that the Democratic Party can deliver in terms of progressive governance? If so, then David Broder has won. The choices we have as Americans are between a Center Right government and a Far Right government. This despite the fact that the American electorate is supportive of progressive ideas. Why is this? I'll think about that on the flip.
Charles Blow places some of the blame on President Obama:
President Obama wanted to change Washington. It changed ... for the worse. And it’s now holding his agenda hostage. The question is: How much is he willing to change himself in order to save it?
On Feb. 9, 2009, at the first prime-time press conference of his presidency, Obama said: “I am the eternal optimist. I think that over time people respond to — to civility and rational argument.”
Since then, the right has tried to block him at nearly every turn, and the far right has formed a movement fueled by irrational anger.
[. . .] Yet, there he was again this week, a year to the day after the prime-time press conference, saying almost exactly the same thing: “I am just an eternal optimist. ... And all I can do is just to keep on making the argument about what’s right for the country and assume that over time, people, regardless of party, regardless of their particular political positions, are going to gravitate towards the truth.” So stubbornly sweet. So simply naïve.
If Obama is still clinging to this quaint concept after the year he’s had, it’s easy to understand why he’s in trouble.
I, of all people (who has spent years railing against the PPUS), take Blow's point. But I have to ask, when and what has Obama been offering in the way of "civil and rational argument" anyway? In terms of his argument to the American People, what has he argued for? Nothing coherent in most cases, or even intelligible. If you can figure out what Obama has projected as his principles, you have one on me. This approach ended up having its virtues during the 2008 campaign, as it allowed many people to project their views on to Obama. His personal charisma is incredible.
But as President? It has simply failed. Everyone in the Democratic Caucus had the chance to argue they were with Obama while holding diametrically opposing views. There was no coherent Democratic message because there is no coherent message from the Democratic President.
And as Village Blogger Ezra Klein has become shocked to discover, Republican interests do not lie in successful governing when they are in the minority, rather it comes in improving their chances for winning the next election.
The structural problems of the Senate are often pointed to as the obstacle to the progressive Democratic agenda. Of course this is true, but not new. And yet it is not the full story. At least a part of the progressive Democratic agenda could be passed through reconciliation. And the Democrats spent much of 2009 with 60 votes in the Senate. And still, despite these historic majorities, very little that one could think of as progressive has been done. And even that was of the layup variety (renewing S-Chip, Lily Ledbetter Act.) Some claim the stimulus was progressive. If so, it was thin gruel - too small and too lardened with tax cuts. If that is the supreme expression of Democratic progressivism, then the point is made - when it comes to governing, we are forced to choose between Center Right and Right programs.
If this is the best we can do at this time. If this is all there is in the progressivism of the Democratic Party, then we are surely sunk. For the path of the Nation is not good. And as in 1932, tranformational progressivism is badly needed. But unlike in 1932, no where is it being offered.
Take health insurance and health care for instance. A NYTimes editorial today says:
When Republican Congressional leaders come to the White House’s health care summit meeting on Feb. 25, don’t expect them to bring any big ideas with them. Instead, they will press President Obama to scrap his ambitious health care reforms and focus on modest proposals.
That may make political sense. Americans have certainly been spooked by all of the Republican hype about government takeovers.
But the small ideas the Republicans are championing would barely make a dent in the most critical problems threatening the health care system: the huge number of Americans without insurance and the ever-escalating costs of health care.
The assumption of the editorial is that the de facto Democratic plan, the Senate health bill, has the big ideas necessary to tackle the problem. This conceit is almost as harmful as the the GOP proposals. The Senate health bill is a failure. It does not address the fundamental problems of health care reform. It does not even implement the proper framework for addressing the problem.
It relies on the delusions that a regulatory framework that depends upon state based regulatory bodies, "competition" in tiny state based exchanges, and a funding mechanism that taxes health benefits is the path to the big ideas solutions. This is absurd
The NYTimes, like the Village Dems, has decided to believe that the solutions lie in what is deemed "politically possible" in the Village (irony abounds in that they do not even consider the fact that their "politically possible" solution can not pass the House.)
Of course actual big ideas were available for passage by this Democratic government. It involved pushing the one proven reform in the health care area - public insurance. Let's say that instead of the Rube Goldberg contraption that is the Senate health bill, Democrats had instead insisted on shoring up and expanding the one part of the system that was working at controlling costs. Indeed, let's make the bill simple, with no new programs.
Suppose the Democratic plan for health care had been instead to expand Medicaid (to its credit, the Senate bill did this) and to nationalize it (no more need for Cornhusker Kickbacks.) And suppose it was done to the House proposed level of 150% of FPL. And let's also suppose that Medicare coverage was expanded to those 55 and older. Finally let's suppose that we placated the Republicans with a sliding scale voucher system for those who fell below a certain level of income, to be applied either to purchase private insurance or to buy public insurance.
Now who would argue that this plan would not do more to reach the progressive goal of universal health insurance coverage? No one.
But how to pay for it? The obvious progressive answer would be with taxes on the rich. Who opposes taxes on the rich? Not most Americans.
I can hear the Villagers screaming now - "but what about cost control?" But the cost control is right there - it is the expansion of public insurance. No one disputes that public insurance is the most effective form of cost control. No one.
But what about the mandate? I do not object to it. Put it to a vote and see if it will pass. Oh, you need 60 votes for that? Well, that's on you then. The plan I outline above required only 50 votes.
I'm not against mandates and putting on paper the idea of banning discrimination based on preexisting conditions(the reality of such a ban seems remote to me.) But what I am against is cutting out the heart of a progressive approach to health care reform for that. Put it in a separate bill.
But the Democratic Party in power today would not do that. Perhaps could not do that. That would require governing a tick or 2 further to the progressive side than is allowed in the Village.
The Villagers have been running around screaming that "the Senate health bill is the most progressive since 1965." It always struck me as ironic that they make this claim, when the Senate bill creates nothing that resembles what was created in 1965.
Because the 1965 bill the Villagers are referencing -- that bill created public insurance programs - Medicare and Medicaid. If the 1965 bill were progressive, and they were, the Senate health bill rejects that form of progressivism. Where the 1965 bill rejected a market solution to the issue of health care, the Senate health bill embraces it and reject a public insurance solution.
In some ways that is the epitaph of the health care debate of 2009 - that Village Democrats could make the claim that the Senate bill was the most progressive since 1965 (BTW, this is a flat out lie - the Clinton Tax bill of 1993 was clearly much more progressive, and it is not even close.)
If the Senate health bill is all a progressive can aspire to with a historic Dem majority in the Congress and a Dem in the White House, the only question to ask is - is that all there is?
Speaking for me only
Saturday, February 13, 2010
Anthem Blue Cross - poster child for urgency of health reform
By People's World Marilyn Bechtel PW
With its latest move to raise premiums on individual policyholders in California, Anthem Blue Cross is becoming a poster child for health care reform.
Last month Anthem - headquartered in Woodland Hills, Calif. and owned by the Indianapolis-based WellPoint Inc. - started telling many of its 800,000 individual, non-group policyholders their premiums will rise by up to 39 percent starting March 1. The rate hikes follow even higher increases last year. Anthem, with the largest number of individual policyholders in California, is also saying it may "adjust" rates more often than once a year.
Reaction was swift and sharp from customers and from elected officials at every level.
Anthem customer and independent health insurance agent Jeff Sher of San Francisco told the San Francisco Chronicle his 38 percent increase, to $530 per month, followed a 41 percent hike last year. Sher blamed the increase on "the illusion there is a free market in this product. But you can't shop for health care, particularly after you're already sick. You can't shop for health care because there is almost no competition."
Los Angeles graphic designer Keith Knueven told the Los Angeles Times, "It's hard for me to understand how anyone can raise rates now when so many people don't have jobs." Knueven's premiums have jumped from $287 to $393 per month.
"If we don't act, this is just a preview of coming attractions," President Obama said of Anthem's action, adding, "Premiums will continue to rise for folks with insurance; millions more will lose their coverage altogether; our deficits will continue to grow larger."
Also in Washington, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius called on Anthem to provide "a detailed justification" for the increases, since WellPoint's profits have soared to $2.7 billion in the fourth quarter of 2009, and to make public the percentage of individual premiums used for medical care, compared to administrative costs.
California's two senators, both Democrats, also joined the fray. Calling the increases "unconscionable," Dianne Feinstein said in a statement, "I can think of no better example of why we need health insurance reform" with "a rate authority to keep insurance rates affordable." Barbara Boxer urged State Attorney General Jerry Brown to investigate the rate hikes.
Meanwhile, U.S. Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles, who chairs the House Energy and Commerce Committee, has set a Feb. 24 special hearing on Anthem's action. He is pressing WellPoint CEO Angela Braly to provide details on the increase, as well as evidence of claims history and profits on individual policies between 2005 and 2008.
California Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner, a Republican, is urging WellPoint to postpone the increases until May 1 so an independent investigation can be conducted to see if Anthem is paying out at least 70 percent of premiums in health benefits, as state law requires. In a letter to Braly, he said his office has gotten many complaints from individuals who said the hikes "would cripple them financially.
Assemblyman Dave Jones, D-Sacramento, said his Health Committee will hold hearings Feb. 23. He plans to join state Senator Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, to introduce legislation on disclosure and rate regulation for the health insurance industry.
In a blog posted Feb. 10 on the web site of the 200-plus organization Health Access California, Executive Director Anthony Wright pointed out that Anthem "has been a longstanding opponent of health reform" and called its latest rate hike "the strongest message to date about why we urgently need health reform." With reform, he said, consumers would gain the power of group purchasing and insurers would have to do much more to justify rate increases. See www.health-access.org.
Health Access California hosts a web site, www.sickofbluecross.com, featuring extensive background on Anthem Blue Cross, including many stories of people's experiences with the company as well as a history of its opposition to reform and its record profits. The site features a petition calling on the firm to stop opposing reform and regulation, and start putting people ahead of profits.
With its latest move to raise premiums on individual policyholders in California, Anthem Blue Cross is becoming a poster child for health care reform.
Last month Anthem - headquartered in Woodland Hills, Calif. and owned by the Indianapolis-based WellPoint Inc. - started telling many of its 800,000 individual, non-group policyholders their premiums will rise by up to 39 percent starting March 1. The rate hikes follow even higher increases last year. Anthem, with the largest number of individual policyholders in California, is also saying it may "adjust" rates more often than once a year.
Reaction was swift and sharp from customers and from elected officials at every level.
Anthem customer and independent health insurance agent Jeff Sher of San Francisco told the San Francisco Chronicle his 38 percent increase, to $530 per month, followed a 41 percent hike last year. Sher blamed the increase on "the illusion there is a free market in this product. But you can't shop for health care, particularly after you're already sick. You can't shop for health care because there is almost no competition."
Los Angeles graphic designer Keith Knueven told the Los Angeles Times, "It's hard for me to understand how anyone can raise rates now when so many people don't have jobs." Knueven's premiums have jumped from $287 to $393 per month.
"If we don't act, this is just a preview of coming attractions," President Obama said of Anthem's action, adding, "Premiums will continue to rise for folks with insurance; millions more will lose their coverage altogether; our deficits will continue to grow larger."
Also in Washington, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius called on Anthem to provide "a detailed justification" for the increases, since WellPoint's profits have soared to $2.7 billion in the fourth quarter of 2009, and to make public the percentage of individual premiums used for medical care, compared to administrative costs.
California's two senators, both Democrats, also joined the fray. Calling the increases "unconscionable," Dianne Feinstein said in a statement, "I can think of no better example of why we need health insurance reform" with "a rate authority to keep insurance rates affordable." Barbara Boxer urged State Attorney General Jerry Brown to investigate the rate hikes.
Meanwhile, U.S. Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles, who chairs the House Energy and Commerce Committee, has set a Feb. 24 special hearing on Anthem's action. He is pressing WellPoint CEO Angela Braly to provide details on the increase, as well as evidence of claims history and profits on individual policies between 2005 and 2008.
California Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner, a Republican, is urging WellPoint to postpone the increases until May 1 so an independent investigation can be conducted to see if Anthem is paying out at least 70 percent of premiums in health benefits, as state law requires. In a letter to Braly, he said his office has gotten many complaints from individuals who said the hikes "would cripple them financially.
Assemblyman Dave Jones, D-Sacramento, said his Health Committee will hold hearings Feb. 23. He plans to join state Senator Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, to introduce legislation on disclosure and rate regulation for the health insurance industry.
In a blog posted Feb. 10 on the web site of the 200-plus organization Health Access California, Executive Director Anthony Wright pointed out that Anthem "has been a longstanding opponent of health reform" and called its latest rate hike "the strongest message to date about why we urgently need health reform." With reform, he said, consumers would gain the power of group purchasing and insurers would have to do much more to justify rate increases. See www.health-access.org.
Health Access California hosts a web site, www.sickofbluecross.com, featuring extensive background on Anthem Blue Cross, including many stories of people's experiences with the company as well as a history of its opposition to reform and its record profits. The site features a petition calling on the firm to stop opposing reform and regulation, and start putting people ahead of profits.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
"...can anyone truly doubt that the United States needs real health care reform (not health insurance reform – HEALTH CARE REFORM)?"
By Craig Wiesner Tikkun Daily
As a small business owner, and one of the millions of people who had individual health coverage instead of a group plan, one of the things I dreaded most was any letter from Blue Cross. Other than my monthly bills, any time I saw their logo on an envelope, I would break out in a sweat. Why? Because every year for over a decade, any letter I got from them was probably telling me that my rates were going up. 10%, 12%, 24% …
Last year, just before receiving the dreaded letter, I was fortunate to discover that with just two employees, my partner and me, I could get group coverage from Kaiser. I signed up for Kaiser, sent in the first check to cover our first month, and in the same week that I got our ID cards from Kaiser in the mail, I read in the San Francisco Chronicle that Blue Cross was sending out letters to subscribers like me, informing us that our rates would be going up … wait for it … up to 40% (this is in 2008).
I called Blue Cross and said that I was canceling my coverage. “OK, sir. I can take care of that for you.” The chipper woman answered.
“Wait…. Don’t you even care that a customer who has been with you for over a decade is leaving?”
“You’re an individual policy holder – sir. ” is all I can remember her answering, as though that was a clear enough answer. A few minutes later, my Blue Cross was canceled.
This week, February 9th 2010, Anthem Blue Cross sent letters to perhaps hundreds of thousands of California individual policy holders informing them that their rates are going up…. up to 39% AGAIN!
Why?
Anthem Blue Cross, part of a larger conglomerate (Wellpoint), which recently posted NET PROFITS of nearly $3 billion dollars, said “Unfortunately, in the weak economy many people who do not have health conditions are forgoing buying insurance. This leaves fewer people, often with significantly greater medical needs, in the insured pool. We regret the impact this has on our members.”
Really? You think the weak economy caused healthy people to forgo buying insurance? You don’t think it had something to do with rates increasing double digits every year for a decade while co-payments went up and quality of care went down? You don’t think it had something to do with insurance companies turning people away because they once had a yeast infection?
I’m glad that I switched us to Kaiser and was very lucky that it took just two people to form a group, because I have pre-existing conditions that caused me to be turned down when I tried to shop around a few years ago for an individual policy. But even our Kaiser plan went up double digits this year (12% or higher depending on which type of plan we chose for the coming year).
Add these skyrocketing rates to the number of people who die each year because they don’t have adequate health coverage, to the impact this all has on individuals and small businesses and big businesses, and can anyone truly doubt that the United States needs real health care reform (not health insurance reform – HEALTH CARE REFORM)?
I’ll be watching the gathering at the White House on February 25th. I’m not too hopeful but as a small business owner and someone with a pre-existing condition, I am somewhat desperate. Gee – I got myself all worked up over this. I’d better calm down with a nice cup of tea … Now where can I find one of those tea bags …
As a small business owner, and one of the millions of people who had individual health coverage instead of a group plan, one of the things I dreaded most was any letter from Blue Cross. Other than my monthly bills, any time I saw their logo on an envelope, I would break out in a sweat. Why? Because every year for over a decade, any letter I got from them was probably telling me that my rates were going up. 10%, 12%, 24% …
Last year, just before receiving the dreaded letter, I was fortunate to discover that with just two employees, my partner and me, I could get group coverage from Kaiser. I signed up for Kaiser, sent in the first check to cover our first month, and in the same week that I got our ID cards from Kaiser in the mail, I read in the San Francisco Chronicle that Blue Cross was sending out letters to subscribers like me, informing us that our rates would be going up … wait for it … up to 40% (this is in 2008).
I called Blue Cross and said that I was canceling my coverage. “OK, sir. I can take care of that for you.” The chipper woman answered.
“Wait…. Don’t you even care that a customer who has been with you for over a decade is leaving?”
“You’re an individual policy holder – sir. ” is all I can remember her answering, as though that was a clear enough answer. A few minutes later, my Blue Cross was canceled.
This week, February 9th 2010, Anthem Blue Cross sent letters to perhaps hundreds of thousands of California individual policy holders informing them that their rates are going up…. up to 39% AGAIN!
Why?
Anthem Blue Cross, part of a larger conglomerate (Wellpoint), which recently posted NET PROFITS of nearly $3 billion dollars, said “Unfortunately, in the weak economy many people who do not have health conditions are forgoing buying insurance. This leaves fewer people, often with significantly greater medical needs, in the insured pool. We regret the impact this has on our members.”
Really? You think the weak economy caused healthy people to forgo buying insurance? You don’t think it had something to do with rates increasing double digits every year for a decade while co-payments went up and quality of care went down? You don’t think it had something to do with insurance companies turning people away because they once had a yeast infection?
I’m glad that I switched us to Kaiser and was very lucky that it took just two people to form a group, because I have pre-existing conditions that caused me to be turned down when I tried to shop around a few years ago for an individual policy. But even our Kaiser plan went up double digits this year (12% or higher depending on which type of plan we chose for the coming year).
Add these skyrocketing rates to the number of people who die each year because they don’t have adequate health coverage, to the impact this all has on individuals and small businesses and big businesses, and can anyone truly doubt that the United States needs real health care reform (not health insurance reform – HEALTH CARE REFORM)?
I’ll be watching the gathering at the White House on February 25th. I’m not too hopeful but as a small business owner and someone with a pre-existing condition, I am somewhat desperate. Gee – I got myself all worked up over this. I’d better calm down with a nice cup of tea … Now where can I find one of those tea bags …
“W/o reform, it's entirely possible that more & more employers will be dropping coverage, leaving more & more individuals to buy it on their own."
By TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat TL
Despite my counsel to the Villagers that there is no political return in selling the regulations contained in the Senate health bill, Jon Cohn tries here, using the Anthem Blue Cross 39% rate health insurance rate hike story. Cohn writes:
[T]he best way to avoid adverse selection, as I've argued many times, is to create one giant insurance pool--in which everybody, healthy and sick, gets coverage at the same rates. And, roughly speaking, that's what the Democratic health care bills would do, by creating insurance exchanges through which all individuals in a given state would buy coverage.
This paragraph does not even make internal sense. In what way is the creation of 50 state based exchanges "creat[ing] one giant insurance pool[?]" (Unlike the Senate bill, the House bill creates a national exchange.) But even that is deceptive. The exchanges will involve only a small part of the national health insurance pool. Most are covered through employer based plans. Cohn's argument is filled with holes.
In reality, Cohn's argument is aspirational - it is about what the exchanges might become in some magical future. Consider this:
Of course, only a relatively small portion of Americans carry individual insurance coverage. The majority of people with private coverage get it through their employers, where such stark rate increases are rare. But, without reform, it's entirely possible--some would say likely--that more and more employers will be dropping coverage, leaving more and more individuals to buy it on their own. That's why the California Anthem story should get everybody's attention.
Is it true that without reform, employers will be more likely to drop employee health insurance? What is the basis for this statement? The reality I believe is different. The Senate bill makes it more likely to see a reduction in employer based health insurance. And that is not a bad thing policy wise so long as there is a real safe harbor for people.
But here is why arguing for the regulatory components of the Senate health bill is a political loser - you basically have to tell people they are going to lose their employer based insurance, and indeed, the Senate health bill is intended to forward that process (that is what the excise tax is all about.) That is a political loser.
Politics is not so complicated in my opinion. Policy is. I am not going to rehash my disbelief in the power of the state based exchanges and the regulatory reform framework that the Village wonks are so convinced about. Instead i want to address the political flaws in the selling of the Senate health bill.
Here is the problem - they are selling something no one wants to buy. The Senate health bill is a political loser. It has no political constituency, except for the Village Wonks. It has numerous political foes - the most important right now being the unions - whose opposition to the excise tax is what will keep the House from passing the Senate Stand Alone health bill.
Again, leave aside the policy disagreements on the Senate health bill, the biggest problem now for its proponents is political. There is no selling the "Pass The Damn Bill" mantra. Because no political constituency really cares about passing THAT bill.
In attempting to defuse the opposition to a health bill, Rahm Emanuel has led the Obama Administration to strip the bill of any supporters. But the process has left one critical constituency in opposition to a component of the Senate health bill - yes, the excise tax and the unions are what I am talking about.
If the excise tax was not in the Senate bill, I imagine the Obama Administration could herd the Dem cats necessary to pass the bill. No one would be really excited about it. It would not have much positive impact politically. But it could be done.
But the excise tax stands in the way of the Obama Administration's game plan for passage. The Anthem Blue Cross story provides a small opportunity to present the need for a health bill in a general sense. But it will not move any of the key players necessary for passage of the Senate bill.
At this point, narratives are helpful on the margins, but without a solution to the union/excise tax problem, it is all for nothing.
Until the Obama Administration and the Senate Dems come to grips with the fact that the Senate bill's excise tax is a bill killer, nothing will be accomplished.
That is the political reality that the Villagers and the Obama Administration seem unwilling to accept.
Despite my counsel to the Villagers that there is no political return in selling the regulations contained in the Senate health bill, Jon Cohn tries here, using the Anthem Blue Cross 39% rate health insurance rate hike story. Cohn writes:
[T]he best way to avoid adverse selection, as I've argued many times, is to create one giant insurance pool--in which everybody, healthy and sick, gets coverage at the same rates. And, roughly speaking, that's what the Democratic health care bills would do, by creating insurance exchanges through which all individuals in a given state would buy coverage.
This paragraph does not even make internal sense. In what way is the creation of 50 state based exchanges "creat[ing] one giant insurance pool[?]" (Unlike the Senate bill, the House bill creates a national exchange.) But even that is deceptive. The exchanges will involve only a small part of the national health insurance pool. Most are covered through employer based plans. Cohn's argument is filled with holes.
In reality, Cohn's argument is aspirational - it is about what the exchanges might become in some magical future. Consider this:
Of course, only a relatively small portion of Americans carry individual insurance coverage. The majority of people with private coverage get it through their employers, where such stark rate increases are rare. But, without reform, it's entirely possible--some would say likely--that more and more employers will be dropping coverage, leaving more and more individuals to buy it on their own. That's why the California Anthem story should get everybody's attention.
Is it true that without reform, employers will be more likely to drop employee health insurance? What is the basis for this statement? The reality I believe is different. The Senate bill makes it more likely to see a reduction in employer based health insurance. And that is not a bad thing policy wise so long as there is a real safe harbor for people.
But here is why arguing for the regulatory components of the Senate health bill is a political loser - you basically have to tell people they are going to lose their employer based insurance, and indeed, the Senate health bill is intended to forward that process (that is what the excise tax is all about.) That is a political loser.
Politics is not so complicated in my opinion. Policy is. I am not going to rehash my disbelief in the power of the state based exchanges and the regulatory reform framework that the Village wonks are so convinced about. Instead i want to address the political flaws in the selling of the Senate health bill.
Here is the problem - they are selling something no one wants to buy. The Senate health bill is a political loser. It has no political constituency, except for the Village Wonks. It has numerous political foes - the most important right now being the unions - whose opposition to the excise tax is what will keep the House from passing the Senate Stand Alone health bill.
Again, leave aside the policy disagreements on the Senate health bill, the biggest problem now for its proponents is political. There is no selling the "Pass The Damn Bill" mantra. Because no political constituency really cares about passing THAT bill.
In attempting to defuse the opposition to a health bill, Rahm Emanuel has led the Obama Administration to strip the bill of any supporters. But the process has left one critical constituency in opposition to a component of the Senate health bill - yes, the excise tax and the unions are what I am talking about.
If the excise tax was not in the Senate bill, I imagine the Obama Administration could herd the Dem cats necessary to pass the bill. No one would be really excited about it. It would not have much positive impact politically. But it could be done.
But the excise tax stands in the way of the Obama Administration's game plan for passage. The Anthem Blue Cross story provides a small opportunity to present the need for a health bill in a general sense. But it will not move any of the key players necessary for passage of the Senate bill.
At this point, narratives are helpful on the margins, but without a solution to the union/excise tax problem, it is all for nothing.
Until the Obama Administration and the Senate Dems come to grips with the fact that the Senate bill's excise tax is a bill killer, nothing will be accomplished.
That is the political reality that the Villagers and the Obama Administration seem unwilling to accept.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
'The Nation': Voices of the Uninsured
By Various Contributors The Nation
Since the unlikely election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts, hardly a day goes by in Washington without a torrent of speculation on what loss of a filibuster-proof majority will mean for the healthcare reform legislation that both houses have already passed. But as the president recently noted, the intense focus on the process of moving the bill over the finish line has done much to obscure the actual human stakes of the policy being debated.
Particularly striking is the near-total absence of the voices of those most acutely affected by the capriciousness of our current healthcare system, the millions who have no insurance. Despite the fact that 30 million of these folks have arguably the largest stake in the legislative outcome, they're almost totally absent from the national conversation over its fate.
Here at The Nation, we have been working to right this in our own small way. We've spent the last two weeks searching for stories from the uninsured. Despite our chosen tools (Twitter and e-mail), or perhaps because of them, we received 185 responses from a diverse group of people. From recent college graduates, to struggling single parents, to recent retirees, the storytellers ranged vastly in age, background and occupation. However, a common thread held them all together: the anxiety and uncertainty that comes with being uninsured.
Many stories expressed great, unshakeable fear that one medical emergency would ruin them. "I would say my wife and I are one medical emergency away from losing everything, but actually I've pretty much resigned myself in my head to the reality that if I have a medical emergency I am going to die," says a used-book seller in California.
The responses included wide array of opinions and varied hopes for the future of healthcare reform, but what an overwhelming majority agreed upon was that the United States government, particularly Congress, had failed to represent them within the debate. "Why can't the general health and well-being of the American population be too big to fail? " asks one Massachusetts woman. Distraught and disappointed, many have given up on the possibility of change. "They are all out-of-touch, rich career politicians who care more about getting elected than if we die," says a woman from Ohio.
Ultimately, the full stories you'll find attached hope to bring this discussion back to where it belongs. We hope to ground the debate in the painful realities that people face every day: pre-existing conditions, inconceivably high premiums, medical bankruptcy and considerable pain. To root the conversation back in compassion and consideration for those most in need.
Perhaps by allowing these voices to be heard, they will become impossible to ignore.
***
In College and Out of Insurance
I haven't had health insurance since I was 18. I'm 23 now. My health started to take a turn for the worse around two to three years ago. I currently have many conditions--TMJ, tendonitis, spinal problems, poor eyesight, poor dental health, etc., and I almost never see doctors or dentists because they're so hard to afford on a student budget.
I once had insurance for three months but it was cancelled after I had trouble paying the premiums on time. Now I can't get insurance from anyone due to pre-existing conditions, and I've applied multiple times to every carrier on eHealthInsurance. There are no options for me in the US, except to pay out-of-pocket, which is wildly expensive. I can't even move to another country because I'm still in college.
I have been living with these conditions too long and I really don't want to do it anymore. I've been suicidal for a while and my one hope was health insurance reform (specifically the interim high-risk pools, ban on rescission, and the extension of maximum age on a family plan to 27). I've been happier for the past month since the Senate bill was passed, but stunningly, that all went away because of the sudden rise of Brown's support, which virtually no one saw coming. Politicians almost always defend lack of progress by citing how slow Congress moves and how it's not an institution that makes sudden and/or radical changes, but this election at least partially proves them wrong.
So my hope is almost completely gone and I don't want to continue living with these conditions.
J. Travis Rolko, 23
Ohio
A Member of the Country's Invisible Poor
In a letter sent to the White House:
I've been coping with chronic pain and autoimmune dysfunction throughout my life and, as it has with far too many others, it has become debilitating. An ever-increasing number of the population is living with these invisible illnesses. Due to the very nature of these symptoms that are hard to track and harder to see, medical care is seldom pursued or even available until one's quality of life is severely diminished. I reached that point years ago, once I was no longer covered by my parents' health plan. My husband and I live paycheck to paycheck, so insurance has never been an affordable option. Doctors can do little more than guess once the few tests I can afford fail to provide answers. Healthcare clinics and employee benefits are equally outrageous in price and too seldom available.
We are members of this country's invisible poor, hiding in plain sight as job-seekers and rent-payers who look the part of middle-class America but are struggling to buy groceries, much less medical care or insurance. In the current status quo, I am neither recognized as poor nor ill, but am living with the constantly increasing pressures of both. A healthcare system that takes into account not only affordability and availability but allows for the many different circumstances American citizens find themselves in can literally begin giving me, and those like me, our lives back.
My husband is currently laid off, and has been since December. I got significantly sicker during my last job (yet have no diagnosis). We cannot afford a vehicle (but have been consistently just above the poverty line), and have not had health check-ups in years (due to continually rising costs). We deserve, along with every citizen against whom there is a financial bias, to do more than survive; we are ready to thrive.
I've done mostly retail over the years with a stint in theatre as a stage manager. My last job was manager of a Hollywood Video in Fountain Valley, California. My husband is a writer-for-hire whose last job was the manager-on-duty at the Palm Springs Hilton. Finally, allow me to say that I'm very invested in healthcare reform. As frustrating as the process has been, I have to believe we can get something signed that at least gives us a platform to work from. Congress needs to stop buying into rhetoric, allowing things like a sixty-vote requirement, and pay more attention to policy than politics and simply care more about their constituents than their own asses.
Dorian Rhodes and Dave Rhodes, 41 and 50
California
Will You Stop Fighting, and Listen? We're Dying Out Here
Our son has been severely disabled since birth; he is wheelchair bound and cannot sit, stand or walk on his own. He is also developmentally handicapped. We have a $5 million lifetime insurance cap, and are about to hit it. My son is 11, and last Christmas (2008) he had an almost $600,000, thirty-day hospital stay. If that happens again, I'm doomed. Add to that almost $1500 a month in prescription food, $100 a month in diapers, wheelchairs, etc. and the costs are staggering. It is no wonder most bankruptcies are medical, and those folks have insurance.
We're dying out here, and the Congress wants to fight about... what are they fighting about again? I forget. Oh yeah, they're mostly fighting for the folks that pay them to be there: insurance companies. I sent my letter to President Obama and almost every member of the Senate, to no avail. With the announcements from Pelosi and the Supreme Court, I fear I am well and truly screwed.
I am, frankly, disgusted. Not just by the demise, but also by the way the Democratic "leadership" (and in the case of Senator Reid, I use that term quite loosely!) has conducted themselves in this matter. Having, first Joe Lieberman, and then Ben Nelson, and a parade of other Democrats hold the process hostage was disheartening, to say the least. The idea that somehow, we Democrats need a super-majority to fix a mess that a simple majority of Republicans created is just downright stupid. If Lieberman wants to filibuster, make him stand up on C-SPAN and read the phone book make him look like the ass that he is acting like. And start by taking his chairmanship away.
I fight with United Healthcare, and Ceridian (who manages our healthcare spending account) on a weekly basis, and I'm tired of it. Add to that the impending lifetime benefit cap, and the inability of me (and my family) to move from state to state--my Medicaid coverage is not portable!--and I'm trapped. On top of that, there is no consistency of coverage from policy to policy. So, for instance I work (this week) for Sun Microsystems. We have a defined set of benefits, as negotiated, and are actually self-insured (though the program is [mis]-managed by United Healthcare). But next week we are being taken over by Oracle. How will my coverage change? I have no idea. There is no basic level of coverage either mandated or provided by the federal government. So I have no idea what will happen.
I'm not panicked, yet, because Medicaid covers my son. But that's not portable, so should I get transferred to another state? He would fall out of Medicaid coverage, and would have to get on a waiting list for Medicaid waivers. Currently, the state of North Carolina is considering increasing the Medicaid co-pay to 30 percent. If I had to pay 30 percent of $600,000, it would ruin me.
We need single-payer. We need to remove the profit motive. As I've said for over a year now, this has not been correctly framed from the beginning. It is not healthcare reform. It is health insurance reform. Our healthcare is pretty darned good. Our insurance system is shameful. The former CEO of UnitedHealthGroup was paid $129M one year. one year. That's money that could have been spent on medical care. But it was wasted.
Obviously, I could go on and on and on forever. I've tried meeting with my Congressional representatives. Senator Kay Hagan "didn't have time" and Congressman David Price wasn't available until Contessa Brewer wanted to interview me on MSNBC, at which point he was magically available. Obviously last week's Supreme Court ruling will only make our Congressional representatives less available and less responsive to individual constituents so that they can pay better attention to corporate sponsors. We spin further and further out of control.
Have you had enough yet? Believe me, I have. But I have to fight on. I have no choice but to continue this fight until a solution is found that serves the needs of my son, because he cannot fight for himself.
David G. Simmons, 46
North Carolina
Why Couldn't My Tax Dollars Pay to Save My Stepfather's Life?
I lost my job a year ago, and I don't have health insurance. I'm 37. My stepdad did have private health insurance--he was healthy and fit, and paid hundreds of dollars a month. And when he did get sick with a rare cancer, we had to fight for every appointment and wait months for others. His cancer spread quickly and he died within several months, but I believe the insurance companies caused his death. His illness was treatable and he could have beaten it.
It's been a few years and I still miss him.
I actually hope the current version of the healthcare bill fails. I cannot afford insurance right now--and to be put on my husband's insurance will be over $300 a month, and that's with Kaiser Permanente; I haven't had good dealings with them in the past.
In any case, the bill currently punishes people with fines for not having insurance, and it's just wrong. It's a giveaway to the insurance companies, and that makes my blood boil. At the very least, we need a public option, but I'm a single-payer girl. I just refuse to believe that those moronic teabaggers are the majority opinion in this country. I know they aren't, but you'd think they were with all the attention they get. I'm also an "average Joe." I've worked all my life and paid taxes. I'm sickened (pun intended) that my tax dollars pay for war and death, and not saving people's lives, like my stepfather's.
Jennifer M., 37
California
Do the Right Thing--Start Leading, Stop Following Lobbyists
I'm a single mom on the verge of declaring medical bankruptcy. I was forced to sell my home. My son, now 17, and I live with my 89-year-old mother (illegally) in a retirement community. For the past year, we have shared a 10x10 bedroom roughly the size of my old walk-in closet. I have two college degrees and I am now working only fifteen hours a week as a church administrator. Due to a pre-existing chronic medical condition, I am not able to buy insurance (even if I could afford it). As a result, it is being left untreated.
I am absolutely dismayed with the Massachusetts election outcome and its potential ramifications for healthcare reform. Whether on moral/ethical grounds, as a human rights issue or viewed solely on the numbers, I do not understand how anyone could be opposed to healthcare reform in this country. If conservatives want to stay away from the "touchy/feely" views, fine. However, how can they not see the bottom line? The costs of no healthcare reform far outweigh the costs of the status quo. We have a failed system and it is affecting everyone.
I'd like to see Congress actually represent the people and not corporate America. I'd like to see Congress develop a spine, some ethics, locate their hearts and do the right thing. They all know what that is, but are all in bed with Big Pharma and the insurance industry and the fear of not getting re-elected outweighs everything else. We need healthcare reform and not a watered-down version rubber-stamped by the above. We need our elected officials to actually lead and stop following lobbyists.
Suzi Spagenberg, 49
California
We Need Real Protection
I've honestly suspected from the get-go that neither the conservatives nor the liberals really care about healthcare reform, and that both sides have done their best to silence the progressives, who do. Frankly, the more cynical part of me is not the least bit surprised. I find it train wreck level interesting, that at the first little excuse the Democrats start to drop even making an attempt at healthcare reform and run in the opposite direction.
As for my investment in healthcare reform, being working-class poor, it's a bit like asking someone on the Titanic if they feel invested in the ship's sinking. I'm in this boat so there's no way for me not to be invested. Last year my wife and I both came down sick at the same time. We were living in West Virginia at the time, and it was during the weeks of the big freeze, twenty below zero at night and zero during the day, and we both came down sick with what we suspected was a sinus infection. Our solution? Swallow enough symptom suppressors to be able to sleep, and enough to be able to work, and hope that it wouldn't get any worse.
I want Congress to pass the bill that is most likely to pass (sadly, I know that is the Senate version) and then use reconciliation to put the public option back in play, and if it fits within the boundaries to also put the individual mandate on a trigger so it would not kick in for at least ten years. Then they should prepare to be dogged by progressives until they perfect the legislation, so that it offers real protection and access to healthcare that doesn't turn into vaporcare the first time you try to use it.
RFT, 36
Texas
One Pretzel Hit Cost $500--This is Not the American Dream
I have healthcare. However, I recently took legal custody of my 11-year-old cousin, and because it's residential custody and not full, he is unable to be put under my insurance. His mother is on welfare. Before giving him up to my custody, she let his New Jersey Family Care insurance lapse. So right now we're waiting to see if we qualify to cover him. If we make too much money or don't jump through the proper flaming hoop, then my cousin will remain uninsured. He was recently hit in the eye with a pretzel while having lunch at school. It required an ER visit. I now have a bill of over $500.
The demise of healthcare scares me. I am a stay at home mom and paternal caretaker. Besides the 11-year-old, I have a 6-year-old autistic son and an aging, wheelchair-bound mom, who has been diabetic for over thirty-six years and is now on Medicare. One bad illness will bankrupt us for generations, and aid for my son's lifelong autism ends at age 22.
This is not the American dream. This isn't even basic compassion.
Shea Murphy, 35
New Jersey
The "Obscene Meanness" of America
After hearing Senator Jim Webb say that "The American people have spoken," when the Democrats lost the Massachusetts special election, I was so completely incensed that he or anyone could come to that conclusion, when the people of Massachusetts who have healthcare elected an anti-healthcare candidate.
My husband and I are educated, intelligent, unemployed and in our mid-40s. I am a writer and he is in commercial insurance. We used to rely on his employment to cover the entire family. He has been unemployed for more than a year. We could not afford the COBRA, and indeed can barely afford our mortgage. All other creditors are waiting in line until we get back on our feet, and I have several herniated disks. I live in pain and anxiously await a healthcare plan that will provide me with an opportunity to get the surgeries I need. My husband was raised in London and is so discouraged with what he calls the "obscene meanness" of our system. We have contemplated uprooting our entire lives, to move to England, just to get the surgeries I desperately need. It is difficult to understand how the American people can stand for this and how our politicians can come to the insane conclusions that we do not want it. Howard Dean seems to be the only person talking sense on the pop-culture news.
We have three adult children who are struggling for insurance. My 25-year-old son graduated from American University and lives and works full-time in DC and is covered for now, but he is planning to leave work to get his masters. He has had major back surgery (scoliosis) and can never afford to go without insurance. My 23-year-old daughter works part-time at an advertising agency and part-time pursuing her career as an artist (for which she studied at Boston University). My 21-year-old son is in school at American University, covered for now, but also had major back surgery (stenosis) and cannot go without insurance.
Again, we could not afford the COBRA for ourselves, let alone to help the kids, even if we were allowed to cover them. It's killing us.
Angela Combs, 47
California
Beside Myself, Waiting for Change
I was diagnosed with throat cancer on Tuesday, January 12. I am unemployed and have no health insurance. I intend to get the care I need. My doctor has not turned me down, nor has the hospital for treatment. I anticipate the bills will begin soon and I will not be able to pay them. Prognosis is 80/20 for recovery with radiation and chemotherapy. I have a notion I am going to face something nastier than cancer in my life: bill collectors. So it begins.
My occupation used to be an administrative assistant. The last two positions that paid well were transferred to different states so my job was gone with them. At 59, with the tight job market, I am not getting any offers. And now, with this diagnosis, there really isn't going to be a job.
I've been beside myself with the Democrats not coming together at once to pass healthcare, and I am livid that just a few people held it hostage. I've tried to do my share by signing petitions and beating up Evan Bayh. This was before I knew I was ill. I think Congress should pass some scrap of something. I wanted the public option. I also hoped they would lower Medicare eligibility to 55. That was selfish, of course. Still, they must try to do something, if only to have it to build upon. They are crazy to think this will come around again this generation.
Sarah Hurt, 59
Indiana
Get Tough For God's Sake and Ours
My brother is losing his COBRA on February 28. He recently was hospitalized for a heart attack and stroke.
It is difficult for my brother to type since his stroke. I have been researching to find him insurance. There is nothing affordable since he is out of work. Part of the reason he had his stroke/heart attack was because he had cut back on his medication due to finances. His cardiologist told me he keeps seeing this, people who can't afford medication and they stop taking it, which causes dire complications.
Even with health insurance, he owed the hospital over $5,600 and rehabilitation about $2,000. We were able to have the hospital bill "forgiven" after proving my brother had no money. The hospital has a charity fund we applied for; we are applying for the same for rehabilitation. We live in Charlotte, North Carolina, and there are low-cost medical clinics for people who are not more than 20 percent over the poverty level. This is what I have been looking into once COBRA runs out. My brother is not eligible for Medicaid since he is a single male. He lost his job and his house last year so is now living with my husband and I.
I went through a similar instance with my daughter when she graduated college in 2007 and went off our insurance. She had an ultrasound due to menstrual cramps earlier that year and it was inconclusive. Not one insurance carrier would cover her because of the "inconclusive" diagnosis! She took no medications and her doctor wrote a letter to the insurance companies. Eventually she was able to get insurance when she found a job, but the immorality of this made me so angry!
I have been fortunate because I have had good healthcare. However, now that I have someone in my family who has no insurance, it makes me very angry. I have been following healthcare ever since Obama took office.
I want to see the Democrats get tough, for God's sake. I love Obama, but he is too damn nice. Why can't we get fifty-one Senate votes and go for reconciliation? I tell everyone about my brother and tell them that it could happen to them. We elected Obama to be the president who would finally get healthcare done. He needs to get tough and do it. The Republicans only want him to fail for their own selfish political needs. They couldn't care less about the American people. They don't want him to go down in history as the president that got healthcare.
LR and BT, 55 and 51
North Carolina
Is Congress the Opposite of Progress? I Hope Not
I used to be covered by my mom's insurance, but I couldn't afford this semester of school and they cut her, so now both of us are uninsured.
She's 56, works in retail as a salesperson. She's been there for almost twelve years. I'm 21 and currently work a few hours a week as a homemaker. They started cutting her hours in September, but I was in college at the time so we somewhat had coverage.
It bothers me greatly that there's the possibility but no progress with the healthcare bill. I tore the ligaments in my shoulder a few years ago and had I not been under my mother's insurance I'd have to pay $1,500 per MRI. Hospital bills have prevented me from going on with education. I was supposed to have surgery, but couldn't afford it. So now we're sort of at the edge. We can't get sick or anything. Honestly, the Senate bill does bother me. But I can't expect a huge change right away. In my opinion, it would be a baby step toward progress. A friend once told me "If con is the opposite of pro, is Congress the opposite of progress?" I hope not. I wish Democrats would unite. There are worse cases than mine.
Bisera Rozic, 21
Illinois
Since the unlikely election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts, hardly a day goes by in Washington without a torrent of speculation on what loss of a filibuster-proof majority will mean for the healthcare reform legislation that both houses have already passed. But as the president recently noted, the intense focus on the process of moving the bill over the finish line has done much to obscure the actual human stakes of the policy being debated.
Particularly striking is the near-total absence of the voices of those most acutely affected by the capriciousness of our current healthcare system, the millions who have no insurance. Despite the fact that 30 million of these folks have arguably the largest stake in the legislative outcome, they're almost totally absent from the national conversation over its fate.
Here at The Nation, we have been working to right this in our own small way. We've spent the last two weeks searching for stories from the uninsured. Despite our chosen tools (Twitter and e-mail), or perhaps because of them, we received 185 responses from a diverse group of people. From recent college graduates, to struggling single parents, to recent retirees, the storytellers ranged vastly in age, background and occupation. However, a common thread held them all together: the anxiety and uncertainty that comes with being uninsured.
Many stories expressed great, unshakeable fear that one medical emergency would ruin them. "I would say my wife and I are one medical emergency away from losing everything, but actually I've pretty much resigned myself in my head to the reality that if I have a medical emergency I am going to die," says a used-book seller in California.
The responses included wide array of opinions and varied hopes for the future of healthcare reform, but what an overwhelming majority agreed upon was that the United States government, particularly Congress, had failed to represent them within the debate. "Why can't the general health and well-being of the American population be too big to fail? " asks one Massachusetts woman. Distraught and disappointed, many have given up on the possibility of change. "They are all out-of-touch, rich career politicians who care more about getting elected than if we die," says a woman from Ohio.
Ultimately, the full stories you'll find attached hope to bring this discussion back to where it belongs. We hope to ground the debate in the painful realities that people face every day: pre-existing conditions, inconceivably high premiums, medical bankruptcy and considerable pain. To root the conversation back in compassion and consideration for those most in need.
Perhaps by allowing these voices to be heard, they will become impossible to ignore.
***
In College and Out of Insurance
I haven't had health insurance since I was 18. I'm 23 now. My health started to take a turn for the worse around two to three years ago. I currently have many conditions--TMJ, tendonitis, spinal problems, poor eyesight, poor dental health, etc., and I almost never see doctors or dentists because they're so hard to afford on a student budget.
I once had insurance for three months but it was cancelled after I had trouble paying the premiums on time. Now I can't get insurance from anyone due to pre-existing conditions, and I've applied multiple times to every carrier on eHealthInsurance. There are no options for me in the US, except to pay out-of-pocket, which is wildly expensive. I can't even move to another country because I'm still in college.
I have been living with these conditions too long and I really don't want to do it anymore. I've been suicidal for a while and my one hope was health insurance reform (specifically the interim high-risk pools, ban on rescission, and the extension of maximum age on a family plan to 27). I've been happier for the past month since the Senate bill was passed, but stunningly, that all went away because of the sudden rise of Brown's support, which virtually no one saw coming. Politicians almost always defend lack of progress by citing how slow Congress moves and how it's not an institution that makes sudden and/or radical changes, but this election at least partially proves them wrong.
So my hope is almost completely gone and I don't want to continue living with these conditions.
J. Travis Rolko, 23
Ohio
A Member of the Country's Invisible Poor
In a letter sent to the White House:
I've been coping with chronic pain and autoimmune dysfunction throughout my life and, as it has with far too many others, it has become debilitating. An ever-increasing number of the population is living with these invisible illnesses. Due to the very nature of these symptoms that are hard to track and harder to see, medical care is seldom pursued or even available until one's quality of life is severely diminished. I reached that point years ago, once I was no longer covered by my parents' health plan. My husband and I live paycheck to paycheck, so insurance has never been an affordable option. Doctors can do little more than guess once the few tests I can afford fail to provide answers. Healthcare clinics and employee benefits are equally outrageous in price and too seldom available.
We are members of this country's invisible poor, hiding in plain sight as job-seekers and rent-payers who look the part of middle-class America but are struggling to buy groceries, much less medical care or insurance. In the current status quo, I am neither recognized as poor nor ill, but am living with the constantly increasing pressures of both. A healthcare system that takes into account not only affordability and availability but allows for the many different circumstances American citizens find themselves in can literally begin giving me, and those like me, our lives back.
My husband is currently laid off, and has been since December. I got significantly sicker during my last job (yet have no diagnosis). We cannot afford a vehicle (but have been consistently just above the poverty line), and have not had health check-ups in years (due to continually rising costs). We deserve, along with every citizen against whom there is a financial bias, to do more than survive; we are ready to thrive.
I've done mostly retail over the years with a stint in theatre as a stage manager. My last job was manager of a Hollywood Video in Fountain Valley, California. My husband is a writer-for-hire whose last job was the manager-on-duty at the Palm Springs Hilton. Finally, allow me to say that I'm very invested in healthcare reform. As frustrating as the process has been, I have to believe we can get something signed that at least gives us a platform to work from. Congress needs to stop buying into rhetoric, allowing things like a sixty-vote requirement, and pay more attention to policy than politics and simply care more about their constituents than their own asses.
Dorian Rhodes and Dave Rhodes, 41 and 50
California
Will You Stop Fighting, and Listen? We're Dying Out Here
Our son has been severely disabled since birth; he is wheelchair bound and cannot sit, stand or walk on his own. He is also developmentally handicapped. We have a $5 million lifetime insurance cap, and are about to hit it. My son is 11, and last Christmas (2008) he had an almost $600,000, thirty-day hospital stay. If that happens again, I'm doomed. Add to that almost $1500 a month in prescription food, $100 a month in diapers, wheelchairs, etc. and the costs are staggering. It is no wonder most bankruptcies are medical, and those folks have insurance.
We're dying out here, and the Congress wants to fight about... what are they fighting about again? I forget. Oh yeah, they're mostly fighting for the folks that pay them to be there: insurance companies. I sent my letter to President Obama and almost every member of the Senate, to no avail. With the announcements from Pelosi and the Supreme Court, I fear I am well and truly screwed.
I am, frankly, disgusted. Not just by the demise, but also by the way the Democratic "leadership" (and in the case of Senator Reid, I use that term quite loosely!) has conducted themselves in this matter. Having, first Joe Lieberman, and then Ben Nelson, and a parade of other Democrats hold the process hostage was disheartening, to say the least. The idea that somehow, we Democrats need a super-majority to fix a mess that a simple majority of Republicans created is just downright stupid. If Lieberman wants to filibuster, make him stand up on C-SPAN and read the phone book make him look like the ass that he is acting like. And start by taking his chairmanship away.
I fight with United Healthcare, and Ceridian (who manages our healthcare spending account) on a weekly basis, and I'm tired of it. Add to that the impending lifetime benefit cap, and the inability of me (and my family) to move from state to state--my Medicaid coverage is not portable!--and I'm trapped. On top of that, there is no consistency of coverage from policy to policy. So, for instance I work (this week) for Sun Microsystems. We have a defined set of benefits, as negotiated, and are actually self-insured (though the program is [mis]-managed by United Healthcare). But next week we are being taken over by Oracle. How will my coverage change? I have no idea. There is no basic level of coverage either mandated or provided by the federal government. So I have no idea what will happen.
I'm not panicked, yet, because Medicaid covers my son. But that's not portable, so should I get transferred to another state? He would fall out of Medicaid coverage, and would have to get on a waiting list for Medicaid waivers. Currently, the state of North Carolina is considering increasing the Medicaid co-pay to 30 percent. If I had to pay 30 percent of $600,000, it would ruin me.
We need single-payer. We need to remove the profit motive. As I've said for over a year now, this has not been correctly framed from the beginning. It is not healthcare reform. It is health insurance reform. Our healthcare is pretty darned good. Our insurance system is shameful. The former CEO of UnitedHealthGroup was paid $129M one year. one year. That's money that could have been spent on medical care. But it was wasted.
Obviously, I could go on and on and on forever. I've tried meeting with my Congressional representatives. Senator Kay Hagan "didn't have time" and Congressman David Price wasn't available until Contessa Brewer wanted to interview me on MSNBC, at which point he was magically available. Obviously last week's Supreme Court ruling will only make our Congressional representatives less available and less responsive to individual constituents so that they can pay better attention to corporate sponsors. We spin further and further out of control.
Have you had enough yet? Believe me, I have. But I have to fight on. I have no choice but to continue this fight until a solution is found that serves the needs of my son, because he cannot fight for himself.
David G. Simmons, 46
North Carolina
Why Couldn't My Tax Dollars Pay to Save My Stepfather's Life?
I lost my job a year ago, and I don't have health insurance. I'm 37. My stepdad did have private health insurance--he was healthy and fit, and paid hundreds of dollars a month. And when he did get sick with a rare cancer, we had to fight for every appointment and wait months for others. His cancer spread quickly and he died within several months, but I believe the insurance companies caused his death. His illness was treatable and he could have beaten it.
It's been a few years and I still miss him.
I actually hope the current version of the healthcare bill fails. I cannot afford insurance right now--and to be put on my husband's insurance will be over $300 a month, and that's with Kaiser Permanente; I haven't had good dealings with them in the past.
In any case, the bill currently punishes people with fines for not having insurance, and it's just wrong. It's a giveaway to the insurance companies, and that makes my blood boil. At the very least, we need a public option, but I'm a single-payer girl. I just refuse to believe that those moronic teabaggers are the majority opinion in this country. I know they aren't, but you'd think they were with all the attention they get. I'm also an "average Joe." I've worked all my life and paid taxes. I'm sickened (pun intended) that my tax dollars pay for war and death, and not saving people's lives, like my stepfather's.
Jennifer M., 37
California
Do the Right Thing--Start Leading, Stop Following Lobbyists
I'm a single mom on the verge of declaring medical bankruptcy. I was forced to sell my home. My son, now 17, and I live with my 89-year-old mother (illegally) in a retirement community. For the past year, we have shared a 10x10 bedroom roughly the size of my old walk-in closet. I have two college degrees and I am now working only fifteen hours a week as a church administrator. Due to a pre-existing chronic medical condition, I am not able to buy insurance (even if I could afford it). As a result, it is being left untreated.
I am absolutely dismayed with the Massachusetts election outcome and its potential ramifications for healthcare reform. Whether on moral/ethical grounds, as a human rights issue or viewed solely on the numbers, I do not understand how anyone could be opposed to healthcare reform in this country. If conservatives want to stay away from the "touchy/feely" views, fine. However, how can they not see the bottom line? The costs of no healthcare reform far outweigh the costs of the status quo. We have a failed system and it is affecting everyone.
I'd like to see Congress actually represent the people and not corporate America. I'd like to see Congress develop a spine, some ethics, locate their hearts and do the right thing. They all know what that is, but are all in bed with Big Pharma and the insurance industry and the fear of not getting re-elected outweighs everything else. We need healthcare reform and not a watered-down version rubber-stamped by the above. We need our elected officials to actually lead and stop following lobbyists.
Suzi Spagenberg, 49
California
We Need Real Protection
I've honestly suspected from the get-go that neither the conservatives nor the liberals really care about healthcare reform, and that both sides have done their best to silence the progressives, who do. Frankly, the more cynical part of me is not the least bit surprised. I find it train wreck level interesting, that at the first little excuse the Democrats start to drop even making an attempt at healthcare reform and run in the opposite direction.
As for my investment in healthcare reform, being working-class poor, it's a bit like asking someone on the Titanic if they feel invested in the ship's sinking. I'm in this boat so there's no way for me not to be invested. Last year my wife and I both came down sick at the same time. We were living in West Virginia at the time, and it was during the weeks of the big freeze, twenty below zero at night and zero during the day, and we both came down sick with what we suspected was a sinus infection. Our solution? Swallow enough symptom suppressors to be able to sleep, and enough to be able to work, and hope that it wouldn't get any worse.
I want Congress to pass the bill that is most likely to pass (sadly, I know that is the Senate version) and then use reconciliation to put the public option back in play, and if it fits within the boundaries to also put the individual mandate on a trigger so it would not kick in for at least ten years. Then they should prepare to be dogged by progressives until they perfect the legislation, so that it offers real protection and access to healthcare that doesn't turn into vaporcare the first time you try to use it.
RFT, 36
Texas
One Pretzel Hit Cost $500--This is Not the American Dream
I have healthcare. However, I recently took legal custody of my 11-year-old cousin, and because it's residential custody and not full, he is unable to be put under my insurance. His mother is on welfare. Before giving him up to my custody, she let his New Jersey Family Care insurance lapse. So right now we're waiting to see if we qualify to cover him. If we make too much money or don't jump through the proper flaming hoop, then my cousin will remain uninsured. He was recently hit in the eye with a pretzel while having lunch at school. It required an ER visit. I now have a bill of over $500.
The demise of healthcare scares me. I am a stay at home mom and paternal caretaker. Besides the 11-year-old, I have a 6-year-old autistic son and an aging, wheelchair-bound mom, who has been diabetic for over thirty-six years and is now on Medicare. One bad illness will bankrupt us for generations, and aid for my son's lifelong autism ends at age 22.
This is not the American dream. This isn't even basic compassion.
Shea Murphy, 35
New Jersey
The "Obscene Meanness" of America
After hearing Senator Jim Webb say that "The American people have spoken," when the Democrats lost the Massachusetts special election, I was so completely incensed that he or anyone could come to that conclusion, when the people of Massachusetts who have healthcare elected an anti-healthcare candidate.
My husband and I are educated, intelligent, unemployed and in our mid-40s. I am a writer and he is in commercial insurance. We used to rely on his employment to cover the entire family. He has been unemployed for more than a year. We could not afford the COBRA, and indeed can barely afford our mortgage. All other creditors are waiting in line until we get back on our feet, and I have several herniated disks. I live in pain and anxiously await a healthcare plan that will provide me with an opportunity to get the surgeries I need. My husband was raised in London and is so discouraged with what he calls the "obscene meanness" of our system. We have contemplated uprooting our entire lives, to move to England, just to get the surgeries I desperately need. It is difficult to understand how the American people can stand for this and how our politicians can come to the insane conclusions that we do not want it. Howard Dean seems to be the only person talking sense on the pop-culture news.
We have three adult children who are struggling for insurance. My 25-year-old son graduated from American University and lives and works full-time in DC and is covered for now, but he is planning to leave work to get his masters. He has had major back surgery (scoliosis) and can never afford to go without insurance. My 23-year-old daughter works part-time at an advertising agency and part-time pursuing her career as an artist (for which she studied at Boston University). My 21-year-old son is in school at American University, covered for now, but also had major back surgery (stenosis) and cannot go without insurance.
Again, we could not afford the COBRA for ourselves, let alone to help the kids, even if we were allowed to cover them. It's killing us.
Angela Combs, 47
California
Beside Myself, Waiting for Change
I was diagnosed with throat cancer on Tuesday, January 12. I am unemployed and have no health insurance. I intend to get the care I need. My doctor has not turned me down, nor has the hospital for treatment. I anticipate the bills will begin soon and I will not be able to pay them. Prognosis is 80/20 for recovery with radiation and chemotherapy. I have a notion I am going to face something nastier than cancer in my life: bill collectors. So it begins.
My occupation used to be an administrative assistant. The last two positions that paid well were transferred to different states so my job was gone with them. At 59, with the tight job market, I am not getting any offers. And now, with this diagnosis, there really isn't going to be a job.
I've been beside myself with the Democrats not coming together at once to pass healthcare, and I am livid that just a few people held it hostage. I've tried to do my share by signing petitions and beating up Evan Bayh. This was before I knew I was ill. I think Congress should pass some scrap of something. I wanted the public option. I also hoped they would lower Medicare eligibility to 55. That was selfish, of course. Still, they must try to do something, if only to have it to build upon. They are crazy to think this will come around again this generation.
Sarah Hurt, 59
Indiana
Get Tough For God's Sake and Ours
My brother is losing his COBRA on February 28. He recently was hospitalized for a heart attack and stroke.
It is difficult for my brother to type since his stroke. I have been researching to find him insurance. There is nothing affordable since he is out of work. Part of the reason he had his stroke/heart attack was because he had cut back on his medication due to finances. His cardiologist told me he keeps seeing this, people who can't afford medication and they stop taking it, which causes dire complications.
Even with health insurance, he owed the hospital over $5,600 and rehabilitation about $2,000. We were able to have the hospital bill "forgiven" after proving my brother had no money. The hospital has a charity fund we applied for; we are applying for the same for rehabilitation. We live in Charlotte, North Carolina, and there are low-cost medical clinics for people who are not more than 20 percent over the poverty level. This is what I have been looking into once COBRA runs out. My brother is not eligible for Medicaid since he is a single male. He lost his job and his house last year so is now living with my husband and I.
I went through a similar instance with my daughter when she graduated college in 2007 and went off our insurance. She had an ultrasound due to menstrual cramps earlier that year and it was inconclusive. Not one insurance carrier would cover her because of the "inconclusive" diagnosis! She took no medications and her doctor wrote a letter to the insurance companies. Eventually she was able to get insurance when she found a job, but the immorality of this made me so angry!
I have been fortunate because I have had good healthcare. However, now that I have someone in my family who has no insurance, it makes me very angry. I have been following healthcare ever since Obama took office.
I want to see the Democrats get tough, for God's sake. I love Obama, but he is too damn nice. Why can't we get fifty-one Senate votes and go for reconciliation? I tell everyone about my brother and tell them that it could happen to them. We elected Obama to be the president who would finally get healthcare done. He needs to get tough and do it. The Republicans only want him to fail for their own selfish political needs. They couldn't care less about the American people. They don't want him to go down in history as the president that got healthcare.
LR and BT, 55 and 51
North Carolina
Is Congress the Opposite of Progress? I Hope Not
I used to be covered by my mom's insurance, but I couldn't afford this semester of school and they cut her, so now both of us are uninsured.
She's 56, works in retail as a salesperson. She's been there for almost twelve years. I'm 21 and currently work a few hours a week as a homemaker. They started cutting her hours in September, but I was in college at the time so we somewhat had coverage.
It bothers me greatly that there's the possibility but no progress with the healthcare bill. I tore the ligaments in my shoulder a few years ago and had I not been under my mother's insurance I'd have to pay $1,500 per MRI. Hospital bills have prevented me from going on with education. I was supposed to have surgery, but couldn't afford it. So now we're sort of at the edge. We can't get sick or anything. Honestly, the Senate bill does bother me. But I can't expect a huge change right away. In my opinion, it would be a baby step toward progress. A friend once told me "If con is the opposite of pro, is Congress the opposite of progress?" I hope not. I wish Democrats would unite. There are worse cases than mine.
Bisera Rozic, 21
Illinois
The National Anthem -- And Why We Need Health Care Reform So Desperately
By Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich RR
My health insurer here in California is Anthem Blue Cross. When I first opted for it, it was just called Blue Cross. Then, a year or so back, I was notified that an entity called “Anthem” would now be running my insurance policy. I didn’t think much about it at the time. I’ve had the usual problems most people have with their health insurers – confusing bills, co-payments and deductibles that never seem to add up, a bureaucracy that gives every impression of being more interested in fighting me than helping me — but nothing more.
Now, Anthem Blue Cross is going a step further. It’s raising rates for individual policyholders by as much as 39 percent. That’s fifteen times faster than inflation. So far, my group policy hasn’t been affected but I’m expecting the worst.
Anthem says it has no choice. It says the recession has forced many policyholders to drop coverage because they can’t afford it. So Anthem has to spread its costs over a much smaller pool, which ratchets up the cost of each. In addition, says Anthem, too many of those remaining policyholders have greater medical needs than the average. So Anthem is just doing what it has to do to survive.
This argument sounds logical until you look more closely. First, Anthem and its corporate parent, WellPoint, are enormously profitable. WellPoint’s profits rose to $2.7 billion last quarter. Even if you subtract one-time-only financial maneuvers, WellPoint is still fat and happy, which makes Anthem fat and happy. Everyone is fat and happy except Anthem’s policy holders, who are being skewered.
Anthem’s argument is even more questionable when you consider that Anthem has been among the most aggressive opponents of the health-care bills passed by the House and Senate. If Anthem were sincere about why it’s raising its rates, it would be embracing the legislation. The Senate and House bills would add tens of millions of Americans to insurance pools – thereby spreading the costs over more people and avoiding the very problem Anthem says is now forcing it to raise its rates so much.
Even more troubling is the fact that Anthem obviously believes it can raise its rates by as much as 39 percent without losing every one of its remaining customers with average or even somewhat above-average medical needs. The only way it could possibly raise its rates so high and expect to keep its customers would be if Anthem’s customers have no other choice. In other words, Anthem’s strategy makes sense only if Anthem faces little or no competition from other health insurers.
I wouldn’t be surprised if this were the case. Insurers, remember, are exempt from the federal antitrust laws. And WellPoint, Anthem’s parent, is the largest insurer in America.
Anthem is a microcosm of what ails our private for-profit health insurance system – the most expensive in the world, whose costs are rising faster than anywhere in the world; a system rapidly becoming unaffordable to more and more Americans, in which insurers are rapidly consolidating into behemoths that have almost no competitors. And a system in which the biggest health insurers are lobbying like mad against reform because they like things just the way they are. They can squeeze the public and the public has no alternative but to pay up.
All this makes Anthem one of he best arguments for reform — which is probably why the President mentioned Anthem today when he emerged from what was billed as a “bipartisan” meeting to talk about health care and jobs.
Obama says he’s open to any new ideas from Republicans for how to control health care costs and expand coverage. The problem is Republicans don’t want to play this game. They don’t care about controlling costs or expanding coverage. They care only about taking back the House and/or the Senate next November. And they believe a means toward attaining this goal is to prevent Obama from achieving a victory on health care. The sooner the President accepts that undeniable fact — and gets the House to pass the Senate’s bill, and then uses the reconciliation process (that requires only 51 votes in the Senate) to deal with any remaining irreconcilable differences between the House and Senate — the better.
In the meantime, next chance I get I’m switching to another insurer — if that makes any difference at all in what I pay or the service I get, which seems increasingly doubtful. I’m also joining any Tea Party of mad-as-hellers fed up with how Big Insurance, Big Pharma, Wall Street, and much of the rest of corporate America have taken over our democracy.
My health insurer here in California is Anthem Blue Cross. When I first opted for it, it was just called Blue Cross. Then, a year or so back, I was notified that an entity called “Anthem” would now be running my insurance policy. I didn’t think much about it at the time. I’ve had the usual problems most people have with their health insurers – confusing bills, co-payments and deductibles that never seem to add up, a bureaucracy that gives every impression of being more interested in fighting me than helping me — but nothing more.
Now, Anthem Blue Cross is going a step further. It’s raising rates for individual policyholders by as much as 39 percent. That’s fifteen times faster than inflation. So far, my group policy hasn’t been affected but I’m expecting the worst.
Anthem says it has no choice. It says the recession has forced many policyholders to drop coverage because they can’t afford it. So Anthem has to spread its costs over a much smaller pool, which ratchets up the cost of each. In addition, says Anthem, too many of those remaining policyholders have greater medical needs than the average. So Anthem is just doing what it has to do to survive.
This argument sounds logical until you look more closely. First, Anthem and its corporate parent, WellPoint, are enormously profitable. WellPoint’s profits rose to $2.7 billion last quarter. Even if you subtract one-time-only financial maneuvers, WellPoint is still fat and happy, which makes Anthem fat and happy. Everyone is fat and happy except Anthem’s policy holders, who are being skewered.
Anthem’s argument is even more questionable when you consider that Anthem has been among the most aggressive opponents of the health-care bills passed by the House and Senate. If Anthem were sincere about why it’s raising its rates, it would be embracing the legislation. The Senate and House bills would add tens of millions of Americans to insurance pools – thereby spreading the costs over more people and avoiding the very problem Anthem says is now forcing it to raise its rates so much.
Even more troubling is the fact that Anthem obviously believes it can raise its rates by as much as 39 percent without losing every one of its remaining customers with average or even somewhat above-average medical needs. The only way it could possibly raise its rates so high and expect to keep its customers would be if Anthem’s customers have no other choice. In other words, Anthem’s strategy makes sense only if Anthem faces little or no competition from other health insurers.
I wouldn’t be surprised if this were the case. Insurers, remember, are exempt from the federal antitrust laws. And WellPoint, Anthem’s parent, is the largest insurer in America.
Anthem is a microcosm of what ails our private for-profit health insurance system – the most expensive in the world, whose costs are rising faster than anywhere in the world; a system rapidly becoming unaffordable to more and more Americans, in which insurers are rapidly consolidating into behemoths that have almost no competitors. And a system in which the biggest health insurers are lobbying like mad against reform because they like things just the way they are. They can squeeze the public and the public has no alternative but to pay up.
All this makes Anthem one of he best arguments for reform — which is probably why the President mentioned Anthem today when he emerged from what was billed as a “bipartisan” meeting to talk about health care and jobs.
Obama says he’s open to any new ideas from Republicans for how to control health care costs and expand coverage. The problem is Republicans don’t want to play this game. They don’t care about controlling costs or expanding coverage. They care only about taking back the House and/or the Senate next November. And they believe a means toward attaining this goal is to prevent Obama from achieving a victory on health care. The sooner the President accepts that undeniable fact — and gets the House to pass the Senate’s bill, and then uses the reconciliation process (that requires only 51 votes in the Senate) to deal with any remaining irreconcilable differences between the House and Senate — the better.
In the meantime, next chance I get I’m switching to another insurer — if that makes any difference at all in what I pay or the service I get, which seems increasingly doubtful. I’m also joining any Tea Party of mad-as-hellers fed up with how Big Insurance, Big Pharma, Wall Street, and much of the rest of corporate America have taken over our democracy.
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Public Option Whip List PCCC
After the loss of Ted Kennedy's seat in Massachusetts, the idea of passing a health care bill thru budget reconciliation -- a process that only requires 51 votes in the Senate -- has been gaining momentum. But some Senate Democrats may pass up this opportunity to push the public option. By speaking out publicly, members of Congress can help make a public option a reality. We'll highlight the heroes who do below(Congressional staffers,click here.)
Call your member of Congress:
Enter your information here, so we can locate your member of Congress and give you a script to read from.
Now with 119 supporers!
Read the full letter they've signed on to.
Name Status
Rep. Neil Abercrombie HI-01 Supporter
Rep. Gary Ackerman NY-05 Supporter
Rep. John Adler NJ-03 Unknown
Rep. Jason Altmire PA-04 Unknown
Rep. Robert Andrews NJ-01 Unknown
Rep. Michael Arcuri NY-24 Unknown
Rep. Joe Baca CA-43 Unknown
Rep. Brian Baird WA-03 Unknown
Rep. Tammy Baldwin WI-02 Supporter
Rep. John Barrow GA-12 Unknown
Rep. Melissa Bean IL-08 Unknown
Rep. Xavier Becerra CA-31 Unknown
Rep. Shelley Berkley NV-01 Unknown
Rep. Howard Berman CA-28 Supporter
Rep. Marion Berry AR-01 Unknown
Rep. Timothy Bishop NY-01 Unknown
Rep. Sanford Bishop GA-02 Unknown
Rep. Earl Blumenauer OR-03 Supporter
Rep. John Boccieri OH-16 Unknown
Rep. Dan Boren OK-02 Unknown
Rep. Leonard Boswell IA-03 Supporter
Rep. Rick Boucher VA-09 Unknown
Rep. Allen Boyd FL-02 Unknown
Rep. Robert Brady PA-01 Supporter
Rep. Bruce Braley IA-01 Unknown
Rep. Bobby Bright AL-02 Unknown
Rep. Corrine Brown FL-03 Supporter
Rep. G. Butterfield NC-01 Unknown
Rep. Lois Capps CA-23 Supporter
Rep. Michael Capuano MA-08 Supporter
Rep. Dennis Cardoza CA-18 Unknown
Rep. Russ Carnahan MO-03 Unknown
Rep. Christopher Carney PA-10 Unknown
Rep. Andre Carson IN-07 Supporter
Rep. Kathy Castor FL-11 Unknown
Rep. Ben Chandler KY-06 Unknown
Rep. Travis Childers MS-01 Unknown
Rep. Judy Chu CA-32 Supporter
Rep. Yvette Clarke NY-11 Supporter
Rep. William Clay MO-01 Supporter
Rep. Emanuel Cleaver MO-05 Supporter
Rep. James Clyburn SC-06 Unknown
Rep. Steve Cohen TN-09 Supporter
Rep. Gerry Connolly VA-11 Unknown
Rep. John Conyers MI-14 Supporter
Rep. Jim Cooper TN-05 Unknown
Rep. Jim Costa CA-20 Unknown
Rep. Jerry Costello IL-12 Unknown
Rep. Joe Courtney CT-02 Supporter
Rep. Joseph Crowley NY-07 Unknown
Rep. Henry Cuellar TX-28 Unknown
Rep. Elijah Cummings MD-07 Supporter
Rep. Kathy Dahlkemper PA-03 Unknown
Rep. Artur Davis AL-07 Unknown
Rep. Susan Davis CA-53 Supporter
Rep. Lincoln Davis TN-04 Unknown
Rep. Danny Davis IL-07 Supporter
Rep. Peter DeFazio OR-04 Supporter
Rep. Diana DeGette CO-01 Unknown
Rep. Bill Delahunt MA-10 Supporter
Rep. Rosa DeLauro CT-03 Unknown
Rep. Norman Dicks WA-06 Unknown
Rep. John Dingell MI-15 Unknown
Rep. Lloyd Doggett TX-25 Supporter
Rep. Joe Donnelly IN-02 Unknown
Rep. Michael Doyle PA-14 Supporter
Rep. Steve Driehaus OH-01 Unknown
Rep. Chet Edwards TX-17 Unknown
Rep. Donna Edwards MD-04 Supporter
Rep. Keith Ellison MN-05 Supporter
Rep. Brad Ellsworth IN-08 Unknown
Rep. Eliot Engel NY-17 Supporter
Rep. Anna Eshoo CA-14 Supporter
Rep. Bob Etheridge NC-02 Unknown
Rep. Sam Farr CA-17 Supporter
Rep. Chaka Fattah PA-02 Supporter
Rep. Bob Filner CA-51 Supporter
Rep. Bill Foster IL-14 Unknown
Rep. Barney Frank MA-04 Supporter
Rep. Marcia Fudge OH-11 Unknown
Rep. John Garamendi CA-10 Supporter
Rep. Gabrielle Giffords AZ-08 Unknown
Rep. Charles Gonzalez TX-20 Supporter
Rep. Bart Gordon TN-06 Unknown
Rep. Alan Grayson FL-08 Supporter
Rep. Al Green TX-09 Supporter
Rep. Gene Green TX-29 Supporter
Rep. Raul Grijalva AZ-07 Supporter
Rep. Luis Gutierrez IL-04 Supporter
Rep. John Hall NY-19 Supporter
Rep. Debbie Halvorson IL-11 Unknown
Rep. Phil Hare IL-17 Supporter
Rep. Jane Harman CA-36 Supporter
Rep. Alcee Hastings FL-23 Supporter
Rep. Martin Heinrich NM-01 Supporter*
Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin SD-01 Unknown
Rep. Brian Higgins NY-27 Supporter
Rep. Baron Hill IN-09 Unknown
Rep. Jim Himes CT-04 Unknown
Rep. Maurice Hinchey NY-22 Supporter
Rep. Ruben Hinojosa TX-15 Unknown
Rep. Mazie Hirono HI-02 Supporter
Rep. Paul Hodes NH-02 Unknown
Rep. Tim Holden PA-17 Unknown
Rep. Rush Holt NJ-12 Supporter
Rep. Mike Honda CA-15 Supporter
Rep. Steny Hoyer MD-05 Unknown
Rep. Jay Inslee WA-01 Supporter
Rep. Steve Israel NY-02 Unknown
Rep. Jesse Jackson IL-02 Supporter
Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee TX-18 Supporter
Rep. Hank Johnson GA-04 Supporter
Rep. Eddie Johnson TX-30 Unknown
Rep. Steve Kagen WI-08 Unknown
Rep. Paul Kanjorski PA-11 Unknown
Rep. Marcy Kaptur OH-09 Supporter
Rep. Patrick Kennedy RI-01 Supporter
Rep. Dale Kildee MI-05 Supporter
Rep. Carolyn Kilpatrick MI-13 Supporter
Rep. Mary Jo Kilroy OH-15 Supporter
Rep. Ron Kind WI-03 Unknown
Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick AZ-01 Unknown
Rep. Larry Kissell NC-08 Unknown
Rep. Ron Klein FL-22 Unknown
Rep. Suzanne Kosmas FL-24 Unknown
Rep. Frank Kratovil MD-01 Unknown
Rep. Dennis Kucinich OH-10 Unknown
Rep. James Langevin RI-02 Supporter
Rep. Rick Larsen WA-02 Supporter
Rep. John Larson CT-01 Unknown
Rep. Barbara Lee CA-09 Supporter
Rep. Sandy Levin MI-12 Unknown
Rep. John Lewis GA-05 Supporter
Rep. Dan Lipinski IL-03 Unknown
Rep. Dave Loebsack IA-02 Unknown
Rep. Zoe Lofgren CA-16 Supporter
Rep. Nita Lowey NY-18 Supporter
Rep. Ben Lujan NM-03 Supporter
Rep. Stephen Lynch MA-09 Unknown
Rep. Dan Maffei NY-25 Supporter
Rep. Carolyn Maloney NY-14 Supporter
Rep. Betsy Markey CO-04 Unknown
Rep. Ed Markey MA-07 Supporter
Rep. Jim Marshall GA-08 Unknown
Rep. Eric Massa NY-29 Unknown
Rep. James Matheson UT-02 Unknown
Rep. Doris Matsui CA-05 Supporter
Rep. Carolyn McCarthy NY-04 Unknown
Rep. Betty McCollum MN-04 Unknown
Rep. Jim McDermott WA-07 Supporter
Rep. Jim McGovern MA-03 Supporter
Rep. Mike McIntyre NC-07 Unknown
Rep. Michael McMahon NY-13 Unknown
Rep. Jerry McNerney CA-11 Unknown
Rep. Kendrick Meek FL-17 Unknown
Rep. Gregory Meeks NY-06 Supporter
Rep. Charlie Melancon LA-03 Unknown
Rep. Mike Michaud ME-02 Supporter
Rep. George Miller CA-07 Supporter
Rep. Brad Miller NC-13 Supporter
Rep. Walter Minnick ID-01 Unknown
Rep. Harry Mitchell AZ-05 Unknown
Rep. Alan Mollohan WV-01 Unknown
Rep. Dennis Moore KS-03 Unknown
Rep. Gwen Moore WI-04 Supporter
Rep. James Moran VA-08 Supporter
Rep. Scott Murphy NY-20 Supporter
Rep. Chris Murphy CT-05 Supporter
Rep. Patrick Murphy PA-08 Supporter
Rep. John Murtha PA-12 Unknown
Rep. Jerrold Nadler NY-08 Supporter
Rep. Grace Napolitano CA-38 Supporter
Rep. Richard Neal MA-02 Unknown
Rep. Glenn Nye VA-02 Unknown
Rep. Jim Oberstar MN-08 Supporter
Rep. David Obey WI-07 Unknown
Rep. John Olver MA-01 Supporter
Rep. Solomon Ortiz TX-27 Unknown
Rep. Bill Owens NY-23 Unknown
Rep. Frank Pallone NJ-06 Unknown
Rep. Bill Pascrell NJ-08 Unknown
Rep. Ed Pastor AZ-04 Unknown
Rep. Donald Payne NJ-10 Supporter
Rep. Nancy Pelosi CA-08 Unknown
Rep. Ed Perlmutter CO-07 Unknown
Rep. Tom Perriello VA-05 Supporter
Rep. Gary Peters MI-09 Unknown
Rep. Collin Peterson MN-07 Unknown
Rep. Chellie Pingree ME-01 Supporter
Rep. Jared Polis CO-02 Supporter
Rep. Earl Pomeroy ND-01 Unknown
Rep. David Price NC-04 Supporter
Rep. Mike Quigley IL-05 Unknown
Rep. Nick Rahall WV-03 Unknown
Rep. Charles Rangel NY-15 Unknown
Rep. Silvestre Reyes TX-16 Unknown
Rep. Laura Richardson CA-37 Supporter
Rep. Ciro Rodriguez TX-23 Unknown
Rep. Mike Ross AR-04 Unknown
Rep. Steve Rothman NJ-09 Supporter
Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard CA-34 Supporter
Rep. C. A. Dutch Ruppersberger MD-02 Unknown
Rep. Bobby Rush IL-01 Unknown
Rep. Tim Ryan OH-17 Unknown
Rep. John Salazar CO-03 Unknown
Rep. Linda Sanchez CA-39 Supporter
Rep. Loretta Sanchez CA-47 Unknown
Rep. John Sarbanes MD-03 Supporter
Rep. Janice Schakowsky IL-09 Supporter
Rep. Mark Schauer MI-07 Supporter
Rep. Adam Schiff CA-29 Supporter
Rep. Kurt Schrader OR-05 Unknown
Rep. Allyson Schwartz PA-13 Unknown
Rep. David Scott GA-13 Unknown
Rep. Robert Scott VA-03 Supporter
Rep. Jose Serrano NY-16 Supporter
Rep. Joe Sestak PA-07 Supporter*
Rep. Carol Shea-Porter NH-01 Supporter
Rep. Brad Sherman CA-27 Supporter
Rep. Heath Shuler NC-11 Unknown
Rep. Albio Sires NJ-13 Unknown
Rep. Ike Skelton MO-04 Unknown
Rep. Louise Slaughter NY-28 Unknown
Rep. Adam Smith WA-09 Unknown
Rep. Vic Snyder AR-02 Unknown
Rep. Zack Space OH-18 Unknown
Rep. Jackie Speier CA-12 Supporter
Rep. John Spratt SC-05 Unknown
Rep. Pete Stark CA-13 Unknown
Rep. Bart Stupak MI-01 Unknown
Rep. Betty Sutton OH-13 Supporter
Rep. John Tanner TN-08 Unknown
Rep. Gene Taylor MS-04 Unknown
Rep. Harry Teague NM-02 Unknown
Rep. Mike Thompson CA-01 Supporter
Rep. Bennie Thompson MS-02 Unknown
Rep. John Tierney MA-06 Supporter
Rep. Dina Titus NV-03 Unknown
Rep. Paul Tonko NY-21 Supporter
Rep. Edolphus Towns NY-10 Supporter
Rep. Niki Tsongas MA-05 Supporter
Rep. Chris Van Hollen MD-08 Unknown
Rep. Nydia Velazquez NY-12 Supporter
Rep. Peter Visclosky IN-01 Unknown
Rep. Tim Walz MN-01 Unknown
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz FL-20 Unknown
Rep. Maxine Waters CA-35 Supporter
Rep. Diane Watson CA-33 Supporter
Rep. Mel Watt NC-12 Supporter
Rep. Henry Waxman CA-30 Unknown
Rep. Anthony Weiner NY-09 Supporter
Rep. Peter Welch VT-01 Supporter
Rep. Charles Wilson OH-06 Unknown
Rep. Lynn Woolsey CA-06 Supporter
Rep. David Wu OR-01 Supporter
Rep. John Yarmuth KY-03 Supporter
Plus: Delegates Donna M. Christensen (D-VI) and Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC).
* Separate letters were sent by Reps. Joe Sestak and Martin Heinrich.
Has your boss taken a position on passing the public option through reconciliation? Please let us know. Email your statement to staff@whipcongress.com.
After the loss of Ted Kennedy's seat in Massachusetts, the idea of passing a health care bill thru budget reconciliation -- a process that only requires 51 votes in the Senate -- has been gaining momentum. But some Senate Democrats may pass up this opportunity to push the public option. By speaking out publicly, members of Congress can help make a public option a reality. We'll highlight the heroes who do below(Congressional staffers,click here.)
Call your member of Congress:
Enter your information here, so we can locate your member of Congress and give you a script to read from.
Now with 119 supporers!
Read the full letter they've signed on to.
Name Status
Rep. Neil Abercrombie HI-01 Supporter
Rep. Gary Ackerman NY-05 Supporter
Rep. John Adler NJ-03 Unknown
Rep. Jason Altmire PA-04 Unknown
Rep. Robert Andrews NJ-01 Unknown
Rep. Michael Arcuri NY-24 Unknown
Rep. Joe Baca CA-43 Unknown
Rep. Brian Baird WA-03 Unknown
Rep. Tammy Baldwin WI-02 Supporter
Rep. John Barrow GA-12 Unknown
Rep. Melissa Bean IL-08 Unknown
Rep. Xavier Becerra CA-31 Unknown
Rep. Shelley Berkley NV-01 Unknown
Rep. Howard Berman CA-28 Supporter
Rep. Marion Berry AR-01 Unknown
Rep. Timothy Bishop NY-01 Unknown
Rep. Sanford Bishop GA-02 Unknown
Rep. Earl Blumenauer OR-03 Supporter
Rep. John Boccieri OH-16 Unknown
Rep. Dan Boren OK-02 Unknown
Rep. Leonard Boswell IA-03 Supporter
Rep. Rick Boucher VA-09 Unknown
Rep. Allen Boyd FL-02 Unknown
Rep. Robert Brady PA-01 Supporter
Rep. Bruce Braley IA-01 Unknown
Rep. Bobby Bright AL-02 Unknown
Rep. Corrine Brown FL-03 Supporter
Rep. G. Butterfield NC-01 Unknown
Rep. Lois Capps CA-23 Supporter
Rep. Michael Capuano MA-08 Supporter
Rep. Dennis Cardoza CA-18 Unknown
Rep. Russ Carnahan MO-03 Unknown
Rep. Christopher Carney PA-10 Unknown
Rep. Andre Carson IN-07 Supporter
Rep. Kathy Castor FL-11 Unknown
Rep. Ben Chandler KY-06 Unknown
Rep. Travis Childers MS-01 Unknown
Rep. Judy Chu CA-32 Supporter
Rep. Yvette Clarke NY-11 Supporter
Rep. William Clay MO-01 Supporter
Rep. Emanuel Cleaver MO-05 Supporter
Rep. James Clyburn SC-06 Unknown
Rep. Steve Cohen TN-09 Supporter
Rep. Gerry Connolly VA-11 Unknown
Rep. John Conyers MI-14 Supporter
Rep. Jim Cooper TN-05 Unknown
Rep. Jim Costa CA-20 Unknown
Rep. Jerry Costello IL-12 Unknown
Rep. Joe Courtney CT-02 Supporter
Rep. Joseph Crowley NY-07 Unknown
Rep. Henry Cuellar TX-28 Unknown
Rep. Elijah Cummings MD-07 Supporter
Rep. Kathy Dahlkemper PA-03 Unknown
Rep. Artur Davis AL-07 Unknown
Rep. Susan Davis CA-53 Supporter
Rep. Lincoln Davis TN-04 Unknown
Rep. Danny Davis IL-07 Supporter
Rep. Peter DeFazio OR-04 Supporter
Rep. Diana DeGette CO-01 Unknown
Rep. Bill Delahunt MA-10 Supporter
Rep. Rosa DeLauro CT-03 Unknown
Rep. Norman Dicks WA-06 Unknown
Rep. John Dingell MI-15 Unknown
Rep. Lloyd Doggett TX-25 Supporter
Rep. Joe Donnelly IN-02 Unknown
Rep. Michael Doyle PA-14 Supporter
Rep. Steve Driehaus OH-01 Unknown
Rep. Chet Edwards TX-17 Unknown
Rep. Donna Edwards MD-04 Supporter
Rep. Keith Ellison MN-05 Supporter
Rep. Brad Ellsworth IN-08 Unknown
Rep. Eliot Engel NY-17 Supporter
Rep. Anna Eshoo CA-14 Supporter
Rep. Bob Etheridge NC-02 Unknown
Rep. Sam Farr CA-17 Supporter
Rep. Chaka Fattah PA-02 Supporter
Rep. Bob Filner CA-51 Supporter
Rep. Bill Foster IL-14 Unknown
Rep. Barney Frank MA-04 Supporter
Rep. Marcia Fudge OH-11 Unknown
Rep. John Garamendi CA-10 Supporter
Rep. Gabrielle Giffords AZ-08 Unknown
Rep. Charles Gonzalez TX-20 Supporter
Rep. Bart Gordon TN-06 Unknown
Rep. Alan Grayson FL-08 Supporter
Rep. Al Green TX-09 Supporter
Rep. Gene Green TX-29 Supporter
Rep. Raul Grijalva AZ-07 Supporter
Rep. Luis Gutierrez IL-04 Supporter
Rep. John Hall NY-19 Supporter
Rep. Debbie Halvorson IL-11 Unknown
Rep. Phil Hare IL-17 Supporter
Rep. Jane Harman CA-36 Supporter
Rep. Alcee Hastings FL-23 Supporter
Rep. Martin Heinrich NM-01 Supporter*
Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin SD-01 Unknown
Rep. Brian Higgins NY-27 Supporter
Rep. Baron Hill IN-09 Unknown
Rep. Jim Himes CT-04 Unknown
Rep. Maurice Hinchey NY-22 Supporter
Rep. Ruben Hinojosa TX-15 Unknown
Rep. Mazie Hirono HI-02 Supporter
Rep. Paul Hodes NH-02 Unknown
Rep. Tim Holden PA-17 Unknown
Rep. Rush Holt NJ-12 Supporter
Rep. Mike Honda CA-15 Supporter
Rep. Steny Hoyer MD-05 Unknown
Rep. Jay Inslee WA-01 Supporter
Rep. Steve Israel NY-02 Unknown
Rep. Jesse Jackson IL-02 Supporter
Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee TX-18 Supporter
Rep. Hank Johnson GA-04 Supporter
Rep. Eddie Johnson TX-30 Unknown
Rep. Steve Kagen WI-08 Unknown
Rep. Paul Kanjorski PA-11 Unknown
Rep. Marcy Kaptur OH-09 Supporter
Rep. Patrick Kennedy RI-01 Supporter
Rep. Dale Kildee MI-05 Supporter
Rep. Carolyn Kilpatrick MI-13 Supporter
Rep. Mary Jo Kilroy OH-15 Supporter
Rep. Ron Kind WI-03 Unknown
Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick AZ-01 Unknown
Rep. Larry Kissell NC-08 Unknown
Rep. Ron Klein FL-22 Unknown
Rep. Suzanne Kosmas FL-24 Unknown
Rep. Frank Kratovil MD-01 Unknown
Rep. Dennis Kucinich OH-10 Unknown
Rep. James Langevin RI-02 Supporter
Rep. Rick Larsen WA-02 Supporter
Rep. John Larson CT-01 Unknown
Rep. Barbara Lee CA-09 Supporter
Rep. Sandy Levin MI-12 Unknown
Rep. John Lewis GA-05 Supporter
Rep. Dan Lipinski IL-03 Unknown
Rep. Dave Loebsack IA-02 Unknown
Rep. Zoe Lofgren CA-16 Supporter
Rep. Nita Lowey NY-18 Supporter
Rep. Ben Lujan NM-03 Supporter
Rep. Stephen Lynch MA-09 Unknown
Rep. Dan Maffei NY-25 Supporter
Rep. Carolyn Maloney NY-14 Supporter
Rep. Betsy Markey CO-04 Unknown
Rep. Ed Markey MA-07 Supporter
Rep. Jim Marshall GA-08 Unknown
Rep. Eric Massa NY-29 Unknown
Rep. James Matheson UT-02 Unknown
Rep. Doris Matsui CA-05 Supporter
Rep. Carolyn McCarthy NY-04 Unknown
Rep. Betty McCollum MN-04 Unknown
Rep. Jim McDermott WA-07 Supporter
Rep. Jim McGovern MA-03 Supporter
Rep. Mike McIntyre NC-07 Unknown
Rep. Michael McMahon NY-13 Unknown
Rep. Jerry McNerney CA-11 Unknown
Rep. Kendrick Meek FL-17 Unknown
Rep. Gregory Meeks NY-06 Supporter
Rep. Charlie Melancon LA-03 Unknown
Rep. Mike Michaud ME-02 Supporter
Rep. George Miller CA-07 Supporter
Rep. Brad Miller NC-13 Supporter
Rep. Walter Minnick ID-01 Unknown
Rep. Harry Mitchell AZ-05 Unknown
Rep. Alan Mollohan WV-01 Unknown
Rep. Dennis Moore KS-03 Unknown
Rep. Gwen Moore WI-04 Supporter
Rep. James Moran VA-08 Supporter
Rep. Scott Murphy NY-20 Supporter
Rep. Chris Murphy CT-05 Supporter
Rep. Patrick Murphy PA-08 Supporter
Rep. John Murtha PA-12 Unknown
Rep. Jerrold Nadler NY-08 Supporter
Rep. Grace Napolitano CA-38 Supporter
Rep. Richard Neal MA-02 Unknown
Rep. Glenn Nye VA-02 Unknown
Rep. Jim Oberstar MN-08 Supporter
Rep. David Obey WI-07 Unknown
Rep. John Olver MA-01 Supporter
Rep. Solomon Ortiz TX-27 Unknown
Rep. Bill Owens NY-23 Unknown
Rep. Frank Pallone NJ-06 Unknown
Rep. Bill Pascrell NJ-08 Unknown
Rep. Ed Pastor AZ-04 Unknown
Rep. Donald Payne NJ-10 Supporter
Rep. Nancy Pelosi CA-08 Unknown
Rep. Ed Perlmutter CO-07 Unknown
Rep. Tom Perriello VA-05 Supporter
Rep. Gary Peters MI-09 Unknown
Rep. Collin Peterson MN-07 Unknown
Rep. Chellie Pingree ME-01 Supporter
Rep. Jared Polis CO-02 Supporter
Rep. Earl Pomeroy ND-01 Unknown
Rep. David Price NC-04 Supporter
Rep. Mike Quigley IL-05 Unknown
Rep. Nick Rahall WV-03 Unknown
Rep. Charles Rangel NY-15 Unknown
Rep. Silvestre Reyes TX-16 Unknown
Rep. Laura Richardson CA-37 Supporter
Rep. Ciro Rodriguez TX-23 Unknown
Rep. Mike Ross AR-04 Unknown
Rep. Steve Rothman NJ-09 Supporter
Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard CA-34 Supporter
Rep. C. A. Dutch Ruppersberger MD-02 Unknown
Rep. Bobby Rush IL-01 Unknown
Rep. Tim Ryan OH-17 Unknown
Rep. John Salazar CO-03 Unknown
Rep. Linda Sanchez CA-39 Supporter
Rep. Loretta Sanchez CA-47 Unknown
Rep. John Sarbanes MD-03 Supporter
Rep. Janice Schakowsky IL-09 Supporter
Rep. Mark Schauer MI-07 Supporter
Rep. Adam Schiff CA-29 Supporter
Rep. Kurt Schrader OR-05 Unknown
Rep. Allyson Schwartz PA-13 Unknown
Rep. David Scott GA-13 Unknown
Rep. Robert Scott VA-03 Supporter
Rep. Jose Serrano NY-16 Supporter
Rep. Joe Sestak PA-07 Supporter*
Rep. Carol Shea-Porter NH-01 Supporter
Rep. Brad Sherman CA-27 Supporter
Rep. Heath Shuler NC-11 Unknown
Rep. Albio Sires NJ-13 Unknown
Rep. Ike Skelton MO-04 Unknown
Rep. Louise Slaughter NY-28 Unknown
Rep. Adam Smith WA-09 Unknown
Rep. Vic Snyder AR-02 Unknown
Rep. Zack Space OH-18 Unknown
Rep. Jackie Speier CA-12 Supporter
Rep. John Spratt SC-05 Unknown
Rep. Pete Stark CA-13 Unknown
Rep. Bart Stupak MI-01 Unknown
Rep. Betty Sutton OH-13 Supporter
Rep. John Tanner TN-08 Unknown
Rep. Gene Taylor MS-04 Unknown
Rep. Harry Teague NM-02 Unknown
Rep. Mike Thompson CA-01 Supporter
Rep. Bennie Thompson MS-02 Unknown
Rep. John Tierney MA-06 Supporter
Rep. Dina Titus NV-03 Unknown
Rep. Paul Tonko NY-21 Supporter
Rep. Edolphus Towns NY-10 Supporter
Rep. Niki Tsongas MA-05 Supporter
Rep. Chris Van Hollen MD-08 Unknown
Rep. Nydia Velazquez NY-12 Supporter
Rep. Peter Visclosky IN-01 Unknown
Rep. Tim Walz MN-01 Unknown
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz FL-20 Unknown
Rep. Maxine Waters CA-35 Supporter
Rep. Diane Watson CA-33 Supporter
Rep. Mel Watt NC-12 Supporter
Rep. Henry Waxman CA-30 Unknown
Rep. Anthony Weiner NY-09 Supporter
Rep. Peter Welch VT-01 Supporter
Rep. Charles Wilson OH-06 Unknown
Rep. Lynn Woolsey CA-06 Supporter
Rep. David Wu OR-01 Supporter
Rep. John Yarmuth KY-03 Supporter
Plus: Delegates Donna M. Christensen (D-VI) and Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC).
* Separate letters were sent by Reps. Joe Sestak and Martin Heinrich.
Has your boss taken a position on passing the public option through reconciliation? Please let us know. Email your statement to staff@whipcongress.com.
Monday, February 8, 2010
Is Obama’s Bipartisan Healthcare Summit an Attempt to Recuperate the Cadillac Tax?
By FireDogLake's emptywheel FDL
When Max Baucus delayed finalizing the Senate Finance Committee’s healthcare bill last August in the name of getting bipartisan support from Olympia Snowe or Chuck Grassley, Republicans and teabaggers spent the month talking about death panels. Allowing the delay in the false hope of bipartisan support was, among a string of poor decisions, probably the worst decision the Obama Administration made.
So why is Obama planning on a bipartisan healthcare summit for later this month?
The move has gotten a lot of people trying to puzzle WTF (?!?!?) Obama intends to achieve. Here are Greg Sargent’s thoughts:
A lot to chew on here. Republicans will spin this as proof that Obama has shelved reform, wants to start again, and will only pursue a bill that GOPers sign onto. Liberals will be dismayed at the apparent suggestion that Obama seems to actually be saying that such common ground could form the basis of anything approaching real reform — and that he’s leaving open the possiblity of doing “compromise” legislation with Republicans.
It’s possible, though, that this is all about laying the groundwork for pursuing a Dem-only reconciliation solution later. Such an effort, should it happen, will inevitably be portrayed as yet another partisan back-room effort to ram reform through. So perhaps the White House hopes a very public gesture of bipartisanship and transparency now will undercut those attacks and allow Dems to argue that they had no choice but to move forward alone.
**********************************************
Update: Maybe the game plan is to give skittish Congressional Dems cover to support a Dem-only reconciliation (i.e., “back-room” and “partisan”) approach later.
Update: Nancy Pelosi, who’s been much more realistic throughout this process than the White House or the Senate about the likelihood of bipartisan cooperation ever happening, endorses this in a statement:
“I welcome the President’s call for a bipartisan, bicameral discussion in front of the American people on fundamental health insurance reform that will make quality care affordable for all Americans and American businesses. The House and the Senate will continue to work between now and February 25th to find a common approach between the House and the Senate on these solutions.
“The House-passed health insurance reform legislation included a number of Republican amendments – added as the bill worked its way through three committees. In the last Congress, we worked with President Bush in a bipartisan way to pass initial economic recovery legislation, a bill to deal with the financial crisis and historic energy legislation that increased our nation’s fuel efficiency standards for the first time in more than 30 years. We remain hopeful that the Republican leadership will work in a bipartisan fashion on the great challenges the American people face.”
Either this is a coordinated cave, or it’s a coordinated effort to lay the groundwork for a Dem-only solution later.
I think Greg’s thoughts are probably the most likely explanation. Still, I’ve got a nagging suspicion this is an attempt to recuperate the Cadillac tax–or some sort of end to the health insurance tax break.
As Ezra lays out, the Cadillac tax–insofar as it chips away at the tax break for employer-sponsored health care–is a policy that both George Bush and John McCain supported, in even more radical forms.
The solutions the GOP has on its Web site are not solutions at all, because Republicans don’t want to be in the position of offering an alternative bill. But when Republicans are feeling bolder — as they were in Bush’s 2007 State of the Union, or John McCain’s plan — they generally take aim at one of the worst distortions in the health-care market: The tax break for employer-sponsored insurance. Bush capped it. McCain repealed it altogether. Democrats usually reject, and attack, both approaches.Not this year, though. Senate Democrats initially attempted to cap the exclusion, which is what Bush proposed in 2007. There was no Republican support for the move, and Democrats backed off from the proposal. They quickly replaced it, however, with the excise tax, which does virtually the same thing. The excise tax only applies to employer-sponsored insurance above a certain price point, and it essentially erases the preferential tax treatment for every dollar above its threshold.
And of course, the excise tax is probably the biggest sticking point between the House and the Senate.
I can’t help but suspect that Senate claims that they can’t figure out how to pass a fix through reconciliation are, instead, lame excuses mobilized to protect the excise tax that they (and presumably, the Administration, still want). And Pelosi’s response that there simply are not the votes for the healthcare bill in the House is her equally intransigent refusal to pass something that won’t do what it was promised to do and will piss off the unions Democrats need to get elected in November. In other words, the Senate and the House appear to have hit an impasse over the excise tax, one that prevents the most obvious solution to passing health insurance reform.
And all of this has happened at a time when the Administration’s Cadillac tax booster, Jonathan Gruber, has gotten very quiet. At least some of Gruber’s claims (notably that workers would get a raise, but also, probably, that companies would save money, and therefore, possibly even the claims about revenue and cost controls) haven’t survived closer scrutiny. So how can the Administration still argue for a Cadillac tax if it won’t do what they promised it would?
Mind you, even if this speculation is right, I still don’t know WTF (!?!?!?) Obama would intend to accomplish with this summit. Is he just planning on bringing John McCain into a room and saying, “John, I have a great idea! Let’s borrow that idea that you proposed last year that turned out to be such a dud electorally?” Or is he going to try to get the Republicans to commit to the excise tax, since they would welcome an opportunity to screw the unions, regardless of how stupid the underlying policy was?
I do know this. For some time, the White House’s efforts to pass the excise tax barely hid their underlying objective to eliminate tax breaks for employer provided health insurance. So while this is entirely speculative, I do wonder whether Obama is trying to use Republicans to either justify a switch to a different plan, eliminating the tax break, or at the very least, to build pressure for the policy among Democrats.
When Max Baucus delayed finalizing the Senate Finance Committee’s healthcare bill last August in the name of getting bipartisan support from Olympia Snowe or Chuck Grassley, Republicans and teabaggers spent the month talking about death panels. Allowing the delay in the false hope of bipartisan support was, among a string of poor decisions, probably the worst decision the Obama Administration made.
So why is Obama planning on a bipartisan healthcare summit for later this month?
The move has gotten a lot of people trying to puzzle WTF (?!?!?) Obama intends to achieve. Here are Greg Sargent’s thoughts:
A lot to chew on here. Republicans will spin this as proof that Obama has shelved reform, wants to start again, and will only pursue a bill that GOPers sign onto. Liberals will be dismayed at the apparent suggestion that Obama seems to actually be saying that such common ground could form the basis of anything approaching real reform — and that he’s leaving open the possiblity of doing “compromise” legislation with Republicans.
It’s possible, though, that this is all about laying the groundwork for pursuing a Dem-only reconciliation solution later. Such an effort, should it happen, will inevitably be portrayed as yet another partisan back-room effort to ram reform through. So perhaps the White House hopes a very public gesture of bipartisanship and transparency now will undercut those attacks and allow Dems to argue that they had no choice but to move forward alone.
**********************************************
Update: Maybe the game plan is to give skittish Congressional Dems cover to support a Dem-only reconciliation (i.e., “back-room” and “partisan”) approach later.
Update: Nancy Pelosi, who’s been much more realistic throughout this process than the White House or the Senate about the likelihood of bipartisan cooperation ever happening, endorses this in a statement:
“I welcome the President’s call for a bipartisan, bicameral discussion in front of the American people on fundamental health insurance reform that will make quality care affordable for all Americans and American businesses. The House and the Senate will continue to work between now and February 25th to find a common approach between the House and the Senate on these solutions.
“The House-passed health insurance reform legislation included a number of Republican amendments – added as the bill worked its way through three committees. In the last Congress, we worked with President Bush in a bipartisan way to pass initial economic recovery legislation, a bill to deal with the financial crisis and historic energy legislation that increased our nation’s fuel efficiency standards for the first time in more than 30 years. We remain hopeful that the Republican leadership will work in a bipartisan fashion on the great challenges the American people face.”
Either this is a coordinated cave, or it’s a coordinated effort to lay the groundwork for a Dem-only solution later.
I think Greg’s thoughts are probably the most likely explanation. Still, I’ve got a nagging suspicion this is an attempt to recuperate the Cadillac tax–or some sort of end to the health insurance tax break.
As Ezra lays out, the Cadillac tax–insofar as it chips away at the tax break for employer-sponsored health care–is a policy that both George Bush and John McCain supported, in even more radical forms.
The solutions the GOP has on its Web site are not solutions at all, because Republicans don’t want to be in the position of offering an alternative bill. But when Republicans are feeling bolder — as they were in Bush’s 2007 State of the Union, or John McCain’s plan — they generally take aim at one of the worst distortions in the health-care market: The tax break for employer-sponsored insurance. Bush capped it. McCain repealed it altogether. Democrats usually reject, and attack, both approaches.Not this year, though. Senate Democrats initially attempted to cap the exclusion, which is what Bush proposed in 2007. There was no Republican support for the move, and Democrats backed off from the proposal. They quickly replaced it, however, with the excise tax, which does virtually the same thing. The excise tax only applies to employer-sponsored insurance above a certain price point, and it essentially erases the preferential tax treatment for every dollar above its threshold.
And of course, the excise tax is probably the biggest sticking point between the House and the Senate.
I can’t help but suspect that Senate claims that they can’t figure out how to pass a fix through reconciliation are, instead, lame excuses mobilized to protect the excise tax that they (and presumably, the Administration, still want). And Pelosi’s response that there simply are not the votes for the healthcare bill in the House is her equally intransigent refusal to pass something that won’t do what it was promised to do and will piss off the unions Democrats need to get elected in November. In other words, the Senate and the House appear to have hit an impasse over the excise tax, one that prevents the most obvious solution to passing health insurance reform.
And all of this has happened at a time when the Administration’s Cadillac tax booster, Jonathan Gruber, has gotten very quiet. At least some of Gruber’s claims (notably that workers would get a raise, but also, probably, that companies would save money, and therefore, possibly even the claims about revenue and cost controls) haven’t survived closer scrutiny. So how can the Administration still argue for a Cadillac tax if it won’t do what they promised it would?
Mind you, even if this speculation is right, I still don’t know WTF (!?!?!?) Obama would intend to accomplish with this summit. Is he just planning on bringing John McCain into a room and saying, “John, I have a great idea! Let’s borrow that idea that you proposed last year that turned out to be such a dud electorally?” Or is he going to try to get the Republicans to commit to the excise tax, since they would welcome an opportunity to screw the unions, regardless of how stupid the underlying policy was?
I do know this. For some time, the White House’s efforts to pass the excise tax barely hid their underlying objective to eliminate tax breaks for employer provided health insurance. So while this is entirely speculative, I do wonder whether Obama is trying to use Republicans to either justify a switch to a different plan, eliminating the tax break, or at the very least, to build pressure for the policy among Democrats.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)