Jason Linkins on HuffPo explains the basic problem with the Senate health care “reform” bill:
America will still be in dire need of health care reform on the very next day after “health care reform” is signed into law.
It’s not just lefty bloggers who are saying this. Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY), chair of the House Rules Committee:
[U]nder the Senate plan, millions of Americans will be forced into private insurance company plans, which will be subsidized by taxpayers. That alternative will do almost nothing to reform health care but will be a windfall for insurance companies. Is it any surprise that stock prices for some of those insurers are up recently?
…Although the art of legislating involves compromise, I believe the Senate went off the rails when it agreed with the Obama Administration to water down the reform bill and no longer include the public option.
…Supporters of the weak Senate bill say “just pass it — any bill is better than no bill.”
I strongly disagree — a conference report is unlikely to sufficiently bridge the gap between these two very different bills.
It’s time that we draw the line on this weak bill and ask the Senate to go back to the drawing board. The American people deserve at least that.
In a statement released today, Democratic Reps. Lynn Woolsey and Barbara Lee demanded that the final health care bill must emerge from conference committee with several “key provisions” from the House bill, including the public option.
To his shame, President Obama has now disavowed all of his campaign promises on health care. If you can recall, he ridiculed the idea of an individual mandate. He advocated the public option (as a compromise in lieu of single-payer). He was in favor of stripping the insurance companies of their anti-trust exemption. He criticized John McCain for wanting to tax employer-based health insurance plans. And he said he wanted to lower prescription drug prices.
Once a so-called health care “reform” bill reaches the president’s desk, that will be it. Congress and the White House will not want to re-visit the issue, no matter how bad the crisis gets for ordinary Americans. We must get affordable health care NOW. Health insurance premiums are expected to double by 2020.
#1 by Uncle Rico on December 24, 2009 - 7:25 am
Obama sells out.
Blue Dogs without spine.
Republicans win.
Kill it.
#2 by cav on December 24, 2009 - 8:08 am
For anyone interested in the mechanics of how the conference committee works :
If the second chamber to consider a bill changes it significantly, a “conference committee” made up of members of both chambers will be formed. The conference committee works to reconcile differences between the Senate and House versions of the bill. If the committee cannot agree, the bill simply dies. If the committee does agree on a compromise version of the bill, they prepare a report detailing the changes they have proposed. Both the House and Senate must approve the report of the conference committee or the bill will be sent back to them for further work.
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/us…/ legprocess.htm
#3 by marshall on December 24, 2009 - 8:08 am
I am sorry, I am going listen to people that know what they are talking about.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/23/economists-letter-on-the-senate-bill/
“My view is that this is a disappointing, flawed bill — and that it’s also a progressive triumph. Pass it now.”
#4 by cav on December 24, 2009 - 8:38 am
The most important thing about this bill is that by 2014 it will be illegal to deny anybody insurance. This is a radical restriction on the abuses that these companies can perpetrate.
Beyond that, there are very substantial subsidies to help make insurance affordable.
#5 by Richard Warnick on December 24, 2009 - 8:49 am
I think you have to look at this not as a partisan political fight (though it is one), but as a battle between the insurance companies and the people. If the insurance companies win, we lose. The insurance lobbyists basically wrote the Senate bill.
From SmartMoney:
#6 by cav on December 24, 2009 - 9:12 am
After Harry Reid voted Nay!
Now we should move on to Nuking Iran.
Merry x-mas.
#7 by Bubba V. on December 24, 2009 - 10:17 am
How do we kill this fascist bill?
#8 by Richard Warnick on December 24, 2009 - 10:49 am
My prediction is it goes down on the House floor. Unless the House-Senate conference committee puts a strong public option into the final bill, there are 65 House members who have pledged to vote against it. Assuming the Republicans continue to sit on the sidelines, Speaker Pelosi will have trouble finding the necessary 218 votes.
#9 by Ronald D. Hunt on December 24, 2009 - 8:54 pm
I could see the public option being negotiated down to a medicare buyin for 55-64, Liebermann(I-Aetna) might not filibuster that from a conference report.
actually i would think that the bigger thing the progressives will fight for is bigger subsides and getting rid of idiot tax on union health plans. These 2 issues are bigger then the public option anyway. I really think we are better off without a weak public option, When we pass a public option it needs to be strong and have lower premiums then private plans, being tied to medicare rates would be best way todo this.
PO can be passed via reconciliation after this bill passes. This approach would be better as the regulations that prevent people from being able to enter the PO can’t pass under reconciliation.
#10 by Dwight Sheldon Adams on December 24, 2009 - 10:15 pm
Bubba–
I have to agree with the use of the word “fascist” to describe it–at least in part. Nevertheless, I wonder if you can explain what you mean. Are you using “fascist” as a colloquial pejorative, or as a definitive qualifier?
Dwight
#11 by marshall on December 25, 2009 - 1:59 pm
Those that know what they are talking about are still trying to reach even the densest among us.
Will we listen?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/25/opinion/25krugman.html
#12 by cav on December 25, 2009 - 4:20 pm
“(For what it’s worth, the reform that’s being passed is closer to Hillary Clinton’s plan than to President Obama’s). ”
From the Krugman piece.
Oddly, it was only because the shepherd of Hilary’s efforts, Rostenkowski, was busted for some unrelated crime, that the healthcare re-write didn’t occur in the nineties. It was practically in the hoop when a stir about his misbehavior ultimately had him jailed. And with his sentence – a sixteen plus year wait for the American people.
#13 by Bubba V. on December 25, 2009 - 4:24 pm
Fascism was touted as a centrist position etween big business and big government- the corporative state. OK, this bill forces you to buy a product from the private sector by law. Isn’t that sweet! Such harmonious cooperation cbetween government and business. How about vouchers, mutualistic free association or credit union type insurances (uncontrolled y the feds), or health care savings accounts we can spend on the providers of our choice?
#14 by Dwight Sheldon Adams on December 26, 2009 - 1:45 am
Bubba–
Now that’s a use of “fascist” that I can agree with. On those terms, this bill absolutely qualifies–whether it was designed with this explicit intent or not–as “fascist.”
I honestly don’t believe that fascism was the intent–rather, it was a socialist bill which, through compromise, became fascist, much in the same way that a bill attempting to introduce capitalist insurance to a communist state might become fascist through excessive compromise.
I would like to hear about “vouchers, mutualistic free association or credit union type insurances (uncontrolled y the feds), or health care savings accounts we can spend on the providers of our choice,” if you don’t mind providing a brief overview of how they might operate and why they would be beneficial.
Thanks for your comments.
Dwight Sheldon Adams