Tags
Organizing for America (OFA) has a great tool to help you call your legislator and tell him to pass.the.damn.bill. It gives you the phone numbers you need and a script–a script with no mention of the public option. Good for OFA. Let me reiterate the reasons we should stop pushing for the public option:
To get it passed, the House will have to vote for the Senate version, and the House is insisting that before they vote for it, they get assurances that some fixes will be made afterwards in reconciliation. Those fixes include closing the donut hole, improving the excise tax portion, seeing to it that the exchanges have some national standards so the states can’t muck it up too bad, and maybe improving affordability. And Adam Green is saying that as long as fixes have to be made, the public option should also be on the list.
The problem is that House members will refuse to vote for the Senate version unless Reid assures them that he’s got fifty votes to get those fixes passed. The fifty votes for the public option are probably not there, and by continuing to encourage progressive House members to insist on that option, we risk having the whole endeavor collapse. It’s not going to be easy to get enough votes in the House, and as long as we encourage representatives who want a public option to hold out for that, we risk losing the vote in the House.
Why take that risk when, as a matter of fact, many progressive experts are saying that the Senate parliamentarian is more than likely going to rule that the public option does not even qualify for a vote under reconciliation. The parliamentarian will rule on that issue, and he may well rule against bringing it up for a reconciliation vote.
Now we’ve got progressives calling Claire to insist that she agree to vote for the public option. On the one hand, she’s got us mad at her over that issue, and on the other hand, she’s got the tea partiers mad that she’s backing the bill at all. She’d like nothing better than not to have to vote again on this issue. EVER. By not promising to vote for the public option in reconciliation, she might keep Reid from getting the fifty votes he needs to be able to promise to the House. And voila, the House refuses to vote for the Senate bill and Claire sees herself getting off the hook.
Russ Carnahan is a similar situation. He’s nervous. He’d rather not have to take another vote on this and give Ed Martin more electoral ammunition. That’s silly of course, because Martin will try to crucify him for the vote he’s already taken, but what I’m hearing is that he’s got cold feet. So again, it is counterproductive to urge him to insist on a public option. That just gives him an excuse to vote no on the Senate bill.
Now, a diarist at Kos clarifies the situation further, by pointing out that the House is in serious danger of not having the votes to pass the Senate bill. Some representatives will refuse to vote for it because the Senate bill weakens Stupak. Others will refuse, as they did on the original vote, because the bill wouldn’t be liberal enough for them even if it had a public option. The only way to replace those lost votes is to pull in the Democrats who voted against the House bill because it had a public option. The diarist begins with a video in which Tom Harkin, who prefers single payer and who strongly supported the public option, insists that we have to let it go now:
Tom Harkin, who succeeded the Late Ted Kennedy as the chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pension (HELP) Committee, was on MSNBC’s The Ed Show yesterday. Ed pushed Sen. Harkin on the matter of including a public option in the reconciliation sidecar to the health care legislation. Sen. Harkin, a strong supporter of the public option, insisted that it could not be included if it hurt the chances of the overall package, and indicated that including it would do exactly that.
So these are the basic facts here. The fear that the inclusion of a public option in the context of the current package and process (Senate bill plus reconciliation) may jeopardize the overall health reform legislation is real and legitimate. From what Sen. Harkin said, it’s not just the Senate that has a problem with the votes for the public option. The House might also. Ed brought up the fact that the House already passed the public option, so naturally, it follows that the House has the votes for it in reconciliation. Not so, said Harkin. The votes in the House included a group of Democrats who voted for the bill on the condition of the Stupak amendment, some of whom may peel off because the abortion language in the Senate bill is weaker than the House-passed bill. Since Stupak can’t be re-inserted via reconciliation – and who among us would want to, even if it could be? – several votes would be lost in the House because of that. Stupak himself is predicting a loss of about 10-12 votes because of the abortion language.
How do you make up those votes? You can’t make them up from I’m-so-pure-I-vote-with-Republicans Kucinich types who didn’t vote for the House bill because it wasn’t progressive enough. They are sure as hell not going to vote for a package that overall resembles the Senate bill more closely than the House bill. So where do you get the votes? You get it from Democrats who voted against the original House bill because, in their view, it was too liberal – mostly because it had the public option. If you want their vote, you have to take the public option out. And those more conservative Democrats will not vote to pass the Senate bill unless they are reassured that the public option won’t be put back in using reconciliaiton. Maybe this is why only 120 House Democrats signed the letter asking for a public option in reconciliation.
Speaker Pelosi knows this. That is why she has repeatedly said that the public option will not likely make it into a reconciliation bill (and thus the overall healthcare package). And now, she has confirmed it once again by saying that it’s now off the table.
with the whole political scene…Dems and Repugs! Dems are so cowardly and Repugs are so mean. Basically I think the whole political thing is a waste of time. Nothing can be accomplished unless you are a power-hungry millionaire and buy yourself a set of Dem and Repug lackies. Democracy is a joke. Again the poor will get no health care or anything else; the rich and powerful will continue to shear the sheep more closely each year and make off with all the wool. This is not even fun any more. I quit.
something abut why I think that it is a good thing to keep the public option “movement” alive, even at such a critical juncture when, I agree, it’s not likely to happen and when the reform package that is doable is still iffy. And. today, the fact that continued pressure has resulted in a promise from Obama to bring it up later in a separate bill is the reason why. This should calm progressives (and calms me), while helping to clear the way for a vote on what the House and Senate can manage to get done right now.
So willy K and hotflash am I to believe that you two think it is a good thing for the american people to be mandated into a totally “rigged system”? Very progressive of you.
I think what I said in the previous posting was “an elusive adventure in the art of doing almost nothing” . I looked it up, the posting, and saw that WillyK came back with a rebuttal that might serve to silence the objections of some.
I asked: Just what is it that we would be ‘fighting tooth and nail” for if individually introduced –
She responded
But reviewing her list convinces me that almost all of her arguments are open to debate.
Beginning with 30M more insured, we should ask if these are the healthy younger individuals who will be caught up in the mandate net, or are they the hard core mentally and physically ill who aren’t going be able to qualify for Medicaid? In other words, the uninsurable who will still need to turn to ER services
Shoring up State Medicaid (I am sure she means Medicaid) in the face of severe state shortfalls, to the extent that other necessary services are being cut. Sure, the Feds are going to increase their share, and I assume that some of us will assume that the money will come from the 250,000 plus people, but don’t count on it. Taxes are going up for everyone, the only question is, how much? And those very taxes, that some families will be so hard pressed to pay (as well as their recently jacked up health insurance premiums) are going to go directly to corporate insurance.
Closing the doughnut hole is applicable to brand name pharmaceuticals, so those using generics won’t see a big difference.
As far as opening up the door to comprehensive reform, that is pretty much pie in the sky, since, according to the Sec Of HHS, Sebellius, there are built-in’s to specifically prevent this bill from advancing to a more comprehensive or single payer status. And, it is only as good as the political party in power, since an influx of Republicans in the next election or in 2012 will surely sink it or mark it up to an unrecognizable state. And oh yes, the delivery reforms(?) and regulations(?), I am pretty sure those reforms and regulations had to pass muster w. corporate insurance and that these corporations have already devised ways to circumvent most of them. Right now corporate insurance is increasing premiums across the board, to compensate themselves when (and if) the bill kicks in in four years. My neighbor who owns a small business in Illinois, told me today that his business’ insurance premium is going to increase 20% this year, and that his insurance agent advised him that the insurance company is preparing for the future. My daughter who has a individual policy for herself and her two children has been notified by her agent that her premiums are going up.
Sorry I don’t know about the CLASS act that Willyk refers to. I would appreciate knowing if you have time to note me w. that. I am also unsure of the meaning of the word “extesions” and would welcome info as to what that means.
Willyk’s answer re passing something in order to “fix it”, is that it is called pragmatism, realism and common sense. I call it stalling. I call it the failure of a congress so petrified of losing their jobs that they are unable to perform those jobs any longer, and an administration that cut deals b/f congress ever took the up the issue.
Finally, failure of this bill does not mean the end of the reform movement. The single payer coalition has not disbanded, nor does it intend to.
It is not a question of consideration of the “good” of this bill. The fact of the matter is, there is a better way and we know how to get there. The better way will cover everyone equitably, will reduce costs by 1/3 or more and streamline the system. It will end the red tape confusion, arbitrary cancellations, and keep premiums under control. By building on the current Medicare system, it can be implemented fairly quickly thus reducing exponentially the loss of life due to lack of health care. This to me is progressive policy.
-“taxing those making over 25o,000/yr to help finance extentions”- I am still not sure what you mean by extentions. What are the extentions to which you refer?
And now again point by point
I really don’t think most single payer advocates had any illusions about a “Democratic congress”. But I do recall O’s statement that we had to “take back Congress and take back the White House” b/f we could accomplish decent health care reform, blah, blah, blah. Dems and repubs feed from the same troughs in DC. Single payer proponents recognize that and know that health care reform will necessarily come from the people. I did take stock during this most recent episode of health care reform activity when I attended workshops, town hall meetings etc., and where I was literally advised by Public Option proponents on one occasion to sit down and shut up. Someone on these pages once thought it would be a great idea to have SP proponents attend an OFA rally, forbid them to carry signs or display other SP ads , and sort of have them there as representative of a “fringe” movement off to one side. Now, Obama sort of carries forth that same idea as expressed by M Rothschild in the Progressive.
http://www.progressive.org/wx0… Many SP advocates feel that incrementalism is the death of SP. As a matter of principle, many refuse patronizing associations with incrementalists.
Judging by the swift capitulation of the “progressives” on this issue, it is probably not a good idea to put all of the eggs in their basket. The SP coalition is made up of many groups including health care professionals, unions, people from the left, people who have experienced serious problems w. the system, and a myriad of others. Necessity could well b/c the mother of invention in this instance since healthcare is not going to get any cheaper and insurance will surely put the “pedal to the metal” in rate increases, particularly over the next four years. The proposed Insurance Rate Authority is just that, a proposal and its survival is still questionable. How much is insurance investing in their lobbying effort? Check it out. Their pockets are deep. Health care will be a 4 Trillion dollar a year enterprise by 2012. Don’t expect insurance corporations to roll over just b/c progressives think they are going to empower legislators.
Regarding the tax issue, I just reconfigured my investment portfolio b/c my financial org says taxes are definitely going up. My son, also in finance, told me the same. Dividend are to be taxed higher, excise taxes on Cadillac health plans, will definitely hit the middle classes. The poorer may not be as accountable for income taxes, however they will experience hardship by the mandate to purchase insurance which will certainly impact their overall disposable income (even with a subsidy). The increased Medicaid funding will come from the Fed and no one knows what sort of stipulations will be attached. This bill is projected to cost almost 1 trillion dollars per annum. The money will not fall from the sky and the 250,000 ers will not shoulder the entire bill.
Your last point;
There may be no bias in the proposed HCR that you see, but preexisting condition clauses can be managed via economic and product manipulation. What insurance company in their right minds would bypass healthy twenty year olds in favor of chronically ill middle aged adults b/c of a mere preexisting condition clause. This might be a problem, but it is a problem that can be overcome and will be overcome if the CEO of the corporation is to keep his very lucrative job, and believe me, he will keep his job. O has stated that insurance policy parameters will reflect how much that particular policy costs, which means that if you can’t afford a first class policy, then you might get a second class policy. I am curious as to whether a second class policy will have as good a preexisting condition clause as a first class policy. The webs are indeed tangled.