“We do not have to think that human nature is perfect for us to still believe that the human condition can be perfected.”
Oy.
Democrats agree to drop government run insurance option
Moderator: Super Moderators
Another literary recommendation (to thoroughly pull this off topic): Ralph Ellison's The Invisible Man. It's all too easy to imagine the current president as Ellison's protagonist. Ellison's characterization of Jack, the communist agent who recruits the Invisible Man into his organization, is surprisingly insightful. It's clear Ellison believed the American Communist movement was exploiting blacks and the Civil Rights movement for its own disingenuous purposes.
Just received this email from Senator Bill Nelson in response to an email that I sent to him. Thought I would share it:
Dear Mrs. xxxxxxxx:
Thank you for contacting me about health care reform.
On October 13, I joined a bipartisan majority in the Finance Committee and voted to pass the America's Healthy Future Act of 2009. Senator Reid merged this bill with another bill passed by the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee earlier this year, and unveiled the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2009. On November 21, I voted to bring this bill up for debate.
I am pleased with much of what is in Senator Reid’s bill. It would allow those who are happy with their insurance to keep what they’ve got, including veterans and seniors on Medicare. It creates State-based exchanges where those without coverage, or those who are unhappy with what they have, can get coverage at an affordable price. The bill also would hold insurers' feet to the fire, requiring them to cover everyone and preventing them from dropping someone who gets sick. Additionally, it contains several measures aimed at reducing overall medical and prescription drug costs and eliminating waste and fraud in the system. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has estimated that Senator Reid’s bill will reduce the Federal budget deficit by 0 billion over ten years.
Among the improvements I added to the bill in the Finance Committee is a provision that would preserve benefits for an estimated 800,000 Medicare Advantage enrollees in Florida and another provision that would protect tax benefits for seniors who have high medical expenses. I am happy that these provisions are included in Senator Reid’s bill as well.
As for a public option, Senator Reid’s bill includes a public option that would allow States to opt out if they choose. I support this plan because it will provide consumers with more choices and make it harder for any one company, public or private, to dominate the insurance market.
I intend to improve this bill by introducing an amendment that will force pharmaceutical companies to give rebates to the Federal government for certain drugs purchased under the Medicare Part D program. These rebates will save the government billions, which will be used to fill the gap in Part D coverage known as the “doughnut hole.”
I am hopeful that the Senate will vote on this bill before the end of the year. Regardless of where anyone stands on the specifics, I think we all can agree that the system we have can be unfair and too costly, and needs reform. Again, I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue. Please don't hesitate to contact me in the future.
Sincerely,
Senator Bill Nelson
And the Republican response Senator George LeMieux
Anyone else hearing from those that are working for us on this issue ? I know these are canned responses so I know they are getting alot of emails.Dear Mrs. xxxxxxx:
Thank you for sharing your views on health care reform. In the coming months, Congress will deal with a great number of issues critically important to the future of our nation. One of the largest issues is how to reform our system of health care.
I support affordability and access to quality health care. Right now, the costs are too high and too many people don’t have health insurance; the solution can't be worse than the problem. Any attempts at reform should not destroy the high quality of care we have in the United States. Reform elements need to contain costs, preserve access to quality care, and avoid adding to an already overwhelming federal deficit.
I am studying all of the health care reform options before the Senate and you can be sure I will make the best decisions I can for the people of Florida and the rest of the nation.
It is an honor and privilege to serve the people of the great State of Florida in the United States Senate. I take great pride in being a native Floridian, and I look forward to the tremendous opportunity to better the lives of all Floridians. I assure you I will work hard to represent our state to the best of my ability in the U.S. Senate. If I can be of any help to you, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
George S. LeMieux
United States Senator
Last edited by SETIsLady on 12-11-2009 06:47 PM, edited 1 time in total.
-
Psychicwolf
- Pirate
- Posts: 5999
- Joined: 12-31-2006 12:47 AM
rumike wrote: I did read it PW. Explain this to me: why? Is there a corporate mafia that meets with each president and says "Listen, Golden-Sachs and Citigroup actually run things, and here's what happens to people who don't do as we say." I don't understand.
Start with Taibbi's "The Big Takeover". The things he talks about are why I was just sick and posted like crazy about the manufactured financial crisis last year. We are moving from a democratic republic to an out right oligarchy and all the American people are concerned with is how many women Tiger diddled and who won Dancing With the Stars. It's tragic, truly tragic.
Dance to heal the earth. Not just when you're dancing, but always. Live the dance, whenever you move, in all you do, dance to heal the earth.
-
Psychicwolf
- Pirate
- Posts: 5999
- Joined: 12-31-2006 12:47 AM
I see Nelson gave Humana what they wanted. These Medicare Advantage programs are bankrupting Medicare.
"Among the improvements I added to the bill in the Finance Committee is a provision that would preserve benefits for an estimated 800,000 Medicare Advantage enrollees in Florida and another provision that would protect tax benefits for seniors who have high medical expenses. I am happy that these provisions are included in Senator Reid’s bill as well."
"Among the improvements I added to the bill in the Finance Committee is a provision that would preserve benefits for an estimated 800,000 Medicare Advantage enrollees in Florida and another provision that would protect tax benefits for seniors who have high medical expenses. I am happy that these provisions are included in Senator Reid’s bill as well."
Dance to heal the earth. Not just when you're dancing, but always. Live the dance, whenever you move, in all you do, dance to heal the earth.
Or is it possible he is giving the seniors here in Florida what they want. Florida has the highest senior population in the Country. Without Florida Seniors Bill Nelson wouldn't have a jobPsychicwolf wrote: I see Nelson gave Humana what they wanted. These Medicare Advantage programs are bankrupting Medicare.
-
Psychicwolf
- Pirate
- Posts: 5999
- Joined: 12-31-2006 12:47 AM
SETIsLady wrote: Or is it possible he is giving the seniors here in Florida what they want. Florida has the highest senior population in the Country. Without Florida Seniors Bill Nelson wouldn't have a job
I know Florida has a huge senior population but the Medicare Advantage programs are costing the Medicare program an arm and a leg compared to traditional Medicare. And Humana, which has a huge number of Florida's senior citizens enrolled in their MA plan, has been one of the worst. They are, however, extremely generous in their political contributions.
Dance to heal the earth. Not just when you're dancing, but always. Live the dance, whenever you move, in all you do, dance to heal the earth.
-
Psychicwolf
- Pirate
- Posts: 5999
- Joined: 12-31-2006 12:47 AM
How a Few Private Health Insurers Are on the Way to Controlling Health Care
The public option is dead, killed by a handful of senators from small states who are mostly bought off by Big Insurance and Big Pharma or intimidated by these industries' deep pockets and power to run political ads against them. Some might say it's no great loss at this point because the Senate bill Harry Reid came up with contained a public option available only to 4 million people, which would have been far too small to exert any competitive pressure on private insurers anyway.
To provide political cover to senators who want to tell their constituents that the intent behind a robust public option lives on, the emerging Senate bill makes Medicare available to younger folk (age 55), and lets people who aren't covered by their employers buy in to a system that's similar to the plan that federal employees now have, where the federal government's Office of Personnel Management selects from among private insurers.
But we still end up with a system that's based on private insurers that have no incentive whatsoever to control their costs or the costs of pharmaceutical companies and medical providers. If you think the federal employee benefit plan is an answer to this, think again. Its premiums increased nearly 9 percent this year. And if you think an expanded Medicare is the answer, you're smoking medical marijuana. The Senate bill allows an independent commission to hold back Medicare costs only if Medicare spending is rising faster than total health spending. So if health spending is soaring because private insurers have no incentive to control it, we're all out of luck. Medicare explodes as well.
A system based on private insurers won't control costs because private insurers barely compete against each other. According to data from the American Medical Association, only a handful of insurers dominate most states. In 9 states, 2 insurance companies control 85 percent or more of the market. In Arkansas, home to Senator Blanche Lincoln, who doesn't dare cross Big Insurance, the Blue Cross plan controls almost 70 percent of the market; most of the rest is United Healthcare. These data, by the way, are from 2005 and 2006. Since then, private insurers have been consolidating like mad across the country. At this rate by 2014, when the new health bill kicks in and 30 million more Americans buy health insurance, Big Insurance will be really Big.
In light of all this, you'd think the insurance industry would be subject to the antitrust laws, so the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission could prevent it from combining into one or two national behemoths that suck every health dollar out of our pockets (as well as the pockets of companies paying part of the cost of their employees' health insurance). But no. Remarkably, the Senate bill still keeps Big Insurance safe from competition by preserving its privileged exemption from the antitrust laws.
From the start, opponents of the public option have wanted to portray it as big government preying upon the market, and private insurers as the embodiment of the market. But it's just the reverse. Private insurers are exempt from competition. As a result, they are becoming ever more powerful. And it's not just their economic power that's worrying. It's also their political power, as we've learned over the last ten months. Economic and political power is a potent combination. Without some mechanism forcing private insurers to compete, we're going to end up with a national health care system that's controlled by a handful of very large corporations accountable neither to American voters nor to the market.
http://robertreich.blogspot.com/
The public option is dead, killed by a handful of senators from small states who are mostly bought off by Big Insurance and Big Pharma or intimidated by these industries' deep pockets and power to run political ads against them. Some might say it's no great loss at this point because the Senate bill Harry Reid came up with contained a public option available only to 4 million people, which would have been far too small to exert any competitive pressure on private insurers anyway.
To provide political cover to senators who want to tell their constituents that the intent behind a robust public option lives on, the emerging Senate bill makes Medicare available to younger folk (age 55), and lets people who aren't covered by their employers buy in to a system that's similar to the plan that federal employees now have, where the federal government's Office of Personnel Management selects from among private insurers.
But we still end up with a system that's based on private insurers that have no incentive whatsoever to control their costs or the costs of pharmaceutical companies and medical providers. If you think the federal employee benefit plan is an answer to this, think again. Its premiums increased nearly 9 percent this year. And if you think an expanded Medicare is the answer, you're smoking medical marijuana. The Senate bill allows an independent commission to hold back Medicare costs only if Medicare spending is rising faster than total health spending. So if health spending is soaring because private insurers have no incentive to control it, we're all out of luck. Medicare explodes as well.
A system based on private insurers won't control costs because private insurers barely compete against each other. According to data from the American Medical Association, only a handful of insurers dominate most states. In 9 states, 2 insurance companies control 85 percent or more of the market. In Arkansas, home to Senator Blanche Lincoln, who doesn't dare cross Big Insurance, the Blue Cross plan controls almost 70 percent of the market; most of the rest is United Healthcare. These data, by the way, are from 2005 and 2006. Since then, private insurers have been consolidating like mad across the country. At this rate by 2014, when the new health bill kicks in and 30 million more Americans buy health insurance, Big Insurance will be really Big.
In light of all this, you'd think the insurance industry would be subject to the antitrust laws, so the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission could prevent it from combining into one or two national behemoths that suck every health dollar out of our pockets (as well as the pockets of companies paying part of the cost of their employees' health insurance). But no. Remarkably, the Senate bill still keeps Big Insurance safe from competition by preserving its privileged exemption from the antitrust laws.
From the start, opponents of the public option have wanted to portray it as big government preying upon the market, and private insurers as the embodiment of the market. But it's just the reverse. Private insurers are exempt from competition. As a result, they are becoming ever more powerful. And it's not just their economic power that's worrying. It's also their political power, as we've learned over the last ten months. Economic and political power is a potent combination. Without some mechanism forcing private insurers to compete, we're going to end up with a national health care system that's controlled by a handful of very large corporations accountable neither to American voters nor to the market.
http://robertreich.blogspot.com/
Dance to heal the earth. Not just when you're dancing, but always. Live the dance, whenever you move, in all you do, dance to heal the earth.
-
Psychicwolf
- Pirate
- Posts: 5999
- Joined: 12-31-2006 12:47 AM
And not just the insurers controlling healthcare...don't forget the Squid and their minions.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/st ... le_machine
We are about to get rationing, controlled by...the Secretary of the Treasury (!!!)...Turbo Timmay Geithner...formerly of, you guessed it: Goldman Sachs.
"One Democratic source with knowledge of the legislative compromise noted that many large employees, as well as some union-negotiated plans and state high-risk insurance pools have implemented caps already as a means to keep premiums down across the board. The source also pointed out that the Secretary of the Treasury -- which will set the limits -- would be far more generous in setting the caps than private insurers themselves.
"The language in the Senate bill leaves a lot of discretion to the Secretary of the Treasury to determine what is reasonable and unreasonable with respect to a cap," said the source. "Premiums would go through the roof if we eliminated annual limits.""
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/1 ... 89112.html
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/st ... le_machine
We are about to get rationing, controlled by...the Secretary of the Treasury (!!!)...Turbo Timmay Geithner...formerly of, you guessed it: Goldman Sachs.
"One Democratic source with knowledge of the legislative compromise noted that many large employees, as well as some union-negotiated plans and state high-risk insurance pools have implemented caps already as a means to keep premiums down across the board. The source also pointed out that the Secretary of the Treasury -- which will set the limits -- would be far more generous in setting the caps than private insurers themselves.
"The language in the Senate bill leaves a lot of discretion to the Secretary of the Treasury to determine what is reasonable and unreasonable with respect to a cap," said the source. "Premiums would go through the roof if we eliminated annual limits.""
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/1 ... 89112.html
Dance to heal the earth. Not just when you're dancing, but always. Live the dance, whenever you move, in all you do, dance to heal the earth.
http://www.nypost.com/f/print/news/opin ... BSsWRxicRN
O's partisan peril
By DANIEL DISALVO
Last Updated: 7:14 AM, December 12, 2009
Posted: 2:55 AM, December 12, 2009
Barack Obama's biggest crowd-pleasing lines of poetry on the campaign trail were about transcending partisanship. To rapturous applause, he told us we are "one people, one nation" and that there's no such thing as Red and Blue America. In office, however, President Obama has confronted the hard reality that there's no postpartisan way to govern in contemporary Washington.
Now Obama and his allies in Congress are poised to ram through health-care reform as a one-party piece of legislation. Such a daunting step would be a significant departure from the past practice of American government. Historically, major policy changes have garnered wide bipartisan support.
In his classic book, "Divided We Govern," Yale political scientist David Mayhew sorted out standard congressional measures from trivial ones over the last half-century. Looking at that long list, it's evident is that most standard legislative enactments passed Congress with the support of large majorities of both parties.
For example, the 1991 Civil Rights Act passed the House 381-38 and the Senate 93-5. Other important laws passed by similar margins, including the Landrum-Griffin labor law of 1959, the Clean Air Act of 1969 and the American with Disabilities Act of 1989. Indeed, 88 percent of the 352 standard legislative enactments from 1947 to 2006 passed with near-unanimity or some broad bipartisan coalition.
Whatever the heat of legislative combat, when Congress members finally confronted the decision to pass the Rubicon and actually legislate, they almost always did so in a bipartisan manner.
Such consensus is important because it secures an important kind of legitimacy for government action. Broad majorities on final-passage votes provide strong statements of agreement on important policy changes.
For better or worse, health-care reform passed only by Democrats will be a wholly Democratic policy.
Yet ObamaCare isn't just your average legislative program. It's among the 20 or so major pieces of legislation of the last 60 years -- in a league with the Taft-Hartley Act (1947), the Civil Rights Act (1964), Medicare (1965), the Reagan tax cut (1981), welfare reform (1996) and No Child Left Behind (2001). These were major policy departures that made substantial long-term changes in American life. Almost all passed Congress with two-to-one majorities and support from both parties.
Since World War II, only three highly polarized final-passage votes have occurred on such high-profile and historically consequential laws: the Clinton budget package (1993), the Bush tax cuts (2001) and the Medicare prescription-drug benefit for seniors (2003). Yet even on those close votes, 12 Senate Democrats and 28 House Democrats voted for the Bush tax cuts and 11 Senate Democrats and 16 House Democrats voted for Medicare reform. Without those votes from the opposition, neither measure would've passed.
Only Clinton's first budget package passed without a single GOP vote. Yet Obama, with a more ambitious piece of legislation in hand, seems determined to do Clinton one better. Indeed, a strictly Democratic health-care bill (on top of the partisan vote on the economic-stimulus package) would give some substance to Obama's claim that his mode of governance is, as he often claims, "unprecedented."
Polarized final-passage votes in Congress over the last 60 years have occurred most frequently when one party controls the presidency, the House and the Senate. And today Democrats command their largest and most unified majorities since the 1930s, if not ever.
Party polarization was in full swing before Obama landed in the White House. That he's been unable to "change the culture of Washington" is hardly surprising. Yet under his leadership, Democrats now stand ready to pass, in an unprecedented partisan manner, historic legislation that will affect all Americans. The postpartisan rhetoric of the campaign trail remains but a faint and distant memory.
--
Daniel DiSalvo is a political science professor at City College.
O's partisan peril
By DANIEL DISALVO
Last Updated: 7:14 AM, December 12, 2009
Posted: 2:55 AM, December 12, 2009
Barack Obama's biggest crowd-pleasing lines of poetry on the campaign trail were about transcending partisanship. To rapturous applause, he told us we are "one people, one nation" and that there's no such thing as Red and Blue America. In office, however, President Obama has confronted the hard reality that there's no postpartisan way to govern in contemporary Washington.
Now Obama and his allies in Congress are poised to ram through health-care reform as a one-party piece of legislation. Such a daunting step would be a significant departure from the past practice of American government. Historically, major policy changes have garnered wide bipartisan support.
In his classic book, "Divided We Govern," Yale political scientist David Mayhew sorted out standard congressional measures from trivial ones over the last half-century. Looking at that long list, it's evident is that most standard legislative enactments passed Congress with the support of large majorities of both parties.
For example, the 1991 Civil Rights Act passed the House 381-38 and the Senate 93-5. Other important laws passed by similar margins, including the Landrum-Griffin labor law of 1959, the Clean Air Act of 1969 and the American with Disabilities Act of 1989. Indeed, 88 percent of the 352 standard legislative enactments from 1947 to 2006 passed with near-unanimity or some broad bipartisan coalition.
Whatever the heat of legislative combat, when Congress members finally confronted the decision to pass the Rubicon and actually legislate, they almost always did so in a bipartisan manner.
Such consensus is important because it secures an important kind of legitimacy for government action. Broad majorities on final-passage votes provide strong statements of agreement on important policy changes.
For better or worse, health-care reform passed only by Democrats will be a wholly Democratic policy.
Yet ObamaCare isn't just your average legislative program. It's among the 20 or so major pieces of legislation of the last 60 years -- in a league with the Taft-Hartley Act (1947), the Civil Rights Act (1964), Medicare (1965), the Reagan tax cut (1981), welfare reform (1996) and No Child Left Behind (2001). These were major policy departures that made substantial long-term changes in American life. Almost all passed Congress with two-to-one majorities and support from both parties.
Since World War II, only three highly polarized final-passage votes have occurred on such high-profile and historically consequential laws: the Clinton budget package (1993), the Bush tax cuts (2001) and the Medicare prescription-drug benefit for seniors (2003). Yet even on those close votes, 12 Senate Democrats and 28 House Democrats voted for the Bush tax cuts and 11 Senate Democrats and 16 House Democrats voted for Medicare reform. Without those votes from the opposition, neither measure would've passed.
Only Clinton's first budget package passed without a single GOP vote. Yet Obama, with a more ambitious piece of legislation in hand, seems determined to do Clinton one better. Indeed, a strictly Democratic health-care bill (on top of the partisan vote on the economic-stimulus package) would give some substance to Obama's claim that his mode of governance is, as he often claims, "unprecedented."
Polarized final-passage votes in Congress over the last 60 years have occurred most frequently when one party controls the presidency, the House and the Senate. And today Democrats command their largest and most unified majorities since the 1930s, if not ever.
Party polarization was in full swing before Obama landed in the White House. That he's been unable to "change the culture of Washington" is hardly surprising. Yet under his leadership, Democrats now stand ready to pass, in an unprecedented partisan manner, historic legislation that will affect all Americans. The postpartisan rhetoric of the campaign trail remains but a faint and distant memory.
--
Daniel DiSalvo is a political science professor at City College.
racehorse
DiSalvo fails to consider the stated goals (yes, I've heard it actually stated as such) of the Republican party in Congress today, which are to obstruct any forward movement of the Obama Administration at any cost, and to limit or prevent any further growth of the Democratic Party. These seem to me to be purely partisan goals and motivations, as opposed to how the Republican party of the past may have conducted itself. It is extremely difficult to actually BE bi-partisan when those you are attempting to do so with obviously and vociferously do not wish to do so. It's like trying to work with a colleague, or be friends with someone, who continually and stubbornly refuses to even shake your hand. Sadly, only so much can be accomplished in a spirit of togetherness when that is the case.racehorse wrote: http://www.nypost.com/f/print/news/opin ... BSsWRxicRN
O's partisan peril
By DANIEL DISALVO
Anchors Aweigh!Any legislation of this importance and magnitude that is completely without any GOP support and has considerable opposition from within the Democratic party itself is unprecedented and would appear to be severely flawed despite any other factors. Perhaps, the bill that is eventually brought forth for a final vote will be different and can achieve an acceptable level of genuine bi-partisan support as has always occurred in the past involving truly historic, consequential, and changing major public policy decisions but this is not how it looks now.
racehorse
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2009/ ... score.html
December 13, 2009
Waiting on the CBO Score
Roll Call notes growing threats from some Senate Democrats to oppose the health care bill if the forthcoming CBO scoring shows the bill does not reduce health costs or is not deficit neutral.
Huffington Post: "There is, currently, a nightmare scenario afflicting Democrats on Capitol Hill with regards to health care reform. And it goes like this: Sometime early next week, leadership gets word from the Congressional Budget Office on their latest outline of reform. The legislative language on which they've settled -- the one with the clearest promise yet of getting the votes needed to cut off a Republican filibuster -- has actually scored quite poorly, saving less money over time and covering fewer people than earlier versions of the bill."
December 13, 2009
Waiting on the CBO Score
Roll Call notes growing threats from some Senate Democrats to oppose the health care bill if the forthcoming CBO scoring shows the bill does not reduce health costs or is not deficit neutral.
Huffington Post: "There is, currently, a nightmare scenario afflicting Democrats on Capitol Hill with regards to health care reform. And it goes like this: Sometime early next week, leadership gets word from the Congressional Budget Office on their latest outline of reform. The legislative language on which they've settled -- the one with the clearest promise yet of getting the votes needed to cut off a Republican filibuster -- has actually scored quite poorly, saving less money over time and covering fewer people than earlier versions of the bill."
racehorse