President Obama -- We Remember What You Promised. And It Wasn't This.

Be Audacious, Mr. President. n/t (4.00 / 1)

www.KusterforCongress.com - www.paulhodesforsenate.com

www.nikitsongas.com - www.devalpatrick.com

---

by: Jack Mitchell @ Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 17:20:44 PM CDT

I think the Straw Poll was the single most useful thing (4.00 / 2)

done on BH for the NH-Primary, for exactly moments such as these.

Now, if you click on the straw poll link, and follow the plan link to the Obama '08 Health Plan .pdf, you will not be disappointed.

Because here is what candidate Obama laid out for his platform when he was running here in New Hampshire (boldy mine):

Page 3 of the .pdf plan:

Under the Obama plan, Americans will be able to maintain their current coverage if they choose to, and will see the quality of their health care improve and their costs go down.  The Obama plan also addresses the large gaps in coverage that leave 47 million Americans uninsured. Specifically, the Obama plan will: (1) establish a new public insurance program, available to Americans who neither qualify for Medicaid or SCHIP nor have access to insurance through their employers,

...(1) OBAMA'S PLAN TO COVER THE UNINSURED. Obama will make available a new national health care plan which will give individuals the choice to buy affordable health coverage that is similar to the plan available to federal employees.  The new public plan will be open to individuals without access to group coverage through their workplace or current public programs. It will also be available to people who are self-employed and small businesses that want to offer insurance to their employees.

birch, finch, beech

---

by: Dean Barker @ Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 17:45:21 PM CDT

Yes, but I think I did point out that the President doesn't do (0.00 / 0)

legislation.  It's always easy to promise something that's not in your power to deliver.

That said, it's certainly possible for the Congress to make Medicare Opt-In for everyone who's inclined to access that program.  All wage earners already pay a Medicare tax.  There's no reason to exclude them from benefits on the basis of age or not being disabled.

---

by: hannah @ Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 18:16:21 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'm Optimistic (4.00 / 3)

Lots of good signs this week. . . .

* A State of the Union to put the full weight of the Presidency behind the push

* Reports that the White House will take control of the policy side, and spell out specific details of what they want in it

* Additional reports the the Administration is negotiating with the only Republican who we'll need to get to 60 votes (Olympia Snowe)

I feel better than I did last week.  And, in my opinion, our President will do everything he can to push through the strongest bill that he can get through the Senate.

---

by: Dartmouth Dem @ Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 19:38:23 PM CDT

Health Care: A Prognosis. (4.00 / 4)

1. BO expresses line in the sand requirements including portability, no preexisting conditions etc, but does not insist on public option.
2. Left goes bat shit crazy.
3. House passes bill with all things BO said plus public option.
4. Senate passes bill with all thing BO minus public option on a 60-40 vote.
5. Repeat step two.
6.  Reconciliation process includes heavy pressure from White House for a public option which then becomes part of bill reported out of reconciliation.
7. Bill easily passes House.
8. Bill passes Senate with 51 votes.
9. Repeat step two, except only half of left goes batshit crazy, this time accompanied by all of extreme right.
10. Working people in America have access to affordable health care that is there when they need it.


"But, in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope." Si se puede. Yes we can.  

---

by: Paul Twomey @ Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 19:40:38 PM CDT

One would hope. (4.00 / 1)

Or, there's this:

President Obama and top aides "have quietly stepped up talks" with moderate Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) on a "scaled-back" health care reform bill, CNN reports.

"The compromise plan would lack a government-run public health insurance option favored by Obama, but would leave the door open to adding that provision down the road under an idea proposed by Snowe."

"The modified proposal would include insurance reforms, such as preventing insurance companies from denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions, according to the source. The potential deal would give insurance companies a defined period to make such changes in order to help cover more people and drive down long-term costs. But if those changes failed to occur within the defined period, a so-called 'trigger' would provide for creating a public option to force change on the insurance companies, the source said."

And on the "trigger":

We've talked about this before, but since this talk is becoming more serious, let's recap. Everyone floating the "trigger" idea seems to realize that a public option would be a far more affordable way of delivering care.* A public plan would lower costs, expand access, and use competition to improve efficiency. Those are, by the way, good things.

Those who like the idea of a "trigger" argue that if we pass a reform package and private insurers can lower costs, expand access, and improve efficiency on their own, we wouldn't need a public option. It's better, they say, to wait for the system to get really awful before utilizing a public option to make things better.

The problem should be obvious: if proponents of such an idea realize that a public option would necessarily improve the overall system -- and they must, otherwise there would be no need for the trigger to kick in when things got even worse -- then why deliberately delay implementation of the part of the policy that lawmakers already realize would help?

Or, put another way, if Snowe and Emanuel know a public option is a good idea, there's no reason to push it off to some arbitrary date in the future, as the system deteriorates in the interim.

As for the right, the "trigger" will never be acceptable, as Enzi's opposition makes clear. The goal for conservatives is to protect private insurers and prevent competition. Whether a public option is effective now or in the future is irrelevant -- it's not about what works; it's about philosophical objections to public-private competition.

But perhaps the House will save us from this theatre:

In a letter delivered to the White House moments ago, the two leaders of the bloc of House progressives bluntly told  President Obama that they will not support any health care plan without a public option in it - and demanded a meeting to inform him face to face.

The not-yet-released letter - the first joint statement from progressives since news emerged that Obama might not address the public option in next week's speech - is their sharpest challenge yet to the president, given the extraordinary sensitivity of this political moment. The letter urges him to mention the public option in his speech.

"Any bill that does not provide, at a minimum, a public option built on the Medicare provider system and with reimbursement based on Mediare rates - not negotiated rates - is unacceptable," reads the letter, which was sent over by a source. It was signed by Reps. Lynn Woolsey and Raul Grijalva, the two leaders of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

"A health reform bill without a robust public option will not achieve the health reform this country so desperately needs," the letter continues. "We cannot vote for anything less."

birch, finch, beech

---

by: Dean Barker @ Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 20:24:49 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Certainly possible. Also possible that a trigger is a distinction without difference. (4.00 / 2)

Given that no one expects immediate implementation, it is possible that the trigger might be a fig leaf.

What is the difference between an public option that starts in automatically in two years and a public option that starts in two years because of a trigger?

In the real world, not much.

"But, in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope." Si se puede. Yes we can.  

---

by: Paul Twomey @ Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 20:37:06 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Here's a difference: (0.00 / 0)

I will work to defeat a bill with a trigger.

If it doesn't really matter Snowe can drop it.

---

by: elwood @ Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 20:44:04 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Why? (0.00 / 0)

The trigger doesn't bother me so much, because it's fairly standard in regulatory matters to phase in implementation. I understand the risk a trigger represents, but I can live  with it.

---

by: JimC @ Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 20:48:01 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'm not sure what you're thinking of here. (0.00 / 0)

There are situations where something is more heavily regulated until reaching a trigger proves that the regulation can be relaxed, but that's the opposite of this.

Maybe you're thinking of something else, that doesn't occur to me?

---

by: elwood @ Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 21:08:14 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Financial regulations (4.00 / 1)

Usually a new rule will mean new technology, so the regulators will allow 12-18 months for, say, trading firms to adjust to new disclosure rules.

You're right, though -- in this case, we have "If X, Y, and Z" happen, and (even if they're defined in some way), there could be endless litigation over
what a 10% drop in rates actually means.

---

by: JimC @ Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 21:14:19 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Really depends on the TYPE of trigger (4.00 / 2)

If the "trigger" is used to hold insurance companies' feet to the fire, I can live with that.

If the "trigger" is designed to pacify Big Insurance, Big Pharma, and the rest of the Big Bastards, then I cannot.

I trust our President to strike the best deal he can.  He needs to step up his public campaign, do a better job of defining a reform package, and then lock himself in a room with Nelson, Snowe, Voinovich, Collins, and 1-2 others until they work this shit out.  (And, if it involves dumping several billion dollars of pork into Maine, that's a small price to pay.)

---

by: Dartmouth Dem @ Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 22:25:41 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Step 6 (0.00 / 0)

Why are you confident about that?

---

by: JimC @ Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 20:44:09 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I know I heard (4.00 / 1)

Obama say he supports the public option at the Town Hall meeting in Portsmouth. He spent time explaining why it is important as a choice as well as a check on the insurance industry. Everything else I'm reading is quoting "unnamed" WH sources, this one, that one and the other one. I know then Obama said at another Town Hall the public option wasn't the main part of the bill, but I think that was more for the anti crowd than a sign he would deal it away.

Maybe my rose colored glasses are getting a bit dusty, but I like Paul's "prognosis".

---

by: Jennifer Daler @ Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 21:00:24 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Because it's what I want to happen and I prefer to put off gnashing of teeth until absolutely necessary. (4.00 / 3)

Actually, I think I see signs that this is the type of action that it will take to get something out of Senate, past the filibuster, and then put together something House progressives and 51 Senators can live with. I dont really see another viable way to reform.

I also think this has the benefit of allowing conservative democrats to vote against the final bill while really coming through on the cloture. If you remember the broohaha about the 'present ' votes in the Illinois Senate, I think it shows a sensitivity on the part of Obama to give people the political cover they need to do whats right in the end.

"But, in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope." Si se puede. Yes we can.  

---

by: Paul Twomey @ Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 07:15:03 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Oh my (0.00 / 0)

Why are you confident about that?

Because it's what I want to happen

We got trouble! :-!

I like your general theory. I'm not quite there, but I'm well shy of gnashing my teeth.

---

by: JimC @ Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 08:34:42 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Meta-note (4.00 / 2)

Stuff like this is why I prefer Blue Hampshire to Blue Mass Group. On BMG, someone would have said, "What are you, naive? Obama is a politician!" by now. The too cool for school stuff gets really old.

---

by: JimC @ Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 20:59:12 PM CDT