The United States Senate

Is this a total failure? (4.00 / 1)

I refuse to give up hope until the thing is passed.

Doesn't the Senate version have to go to a committee conference with the House version, or are they giving up on that, too?

And if the policy is less than what we want at the federal level, we'll have to work at it on the state level.

NH passed a bill extending coverage to adult children up to 26 last session and lo and behold, that's in the federal bill.

Chin up, we'll keep at it until we have a decent health care system, even if we're eligible for Medicare by then.

---

by: Jennifer Daler @ Tue Dec 08, 2009 at 20:02:20 PM CST

Maybe no conference (0.00 / 0)

There's talk of asking the House to adopt it as is, with  no conference committee work.

Health care at the state level doesn't work.

The New Hampshire "program" is an example of failure.

---

by: elwood @ Tue Dec 08, 2009 at 20:07:08 PM CST

[ Parent ]

If it doesn't work at the state (0.00 / 0)

level, it's a failure of the state governments. There's no reason Tommy Douglas's Saskatchewan could do it in 1961-2 and an American state--like New Hampshire--can't do it today.

Saskatchewan, 1961: just less than a million people spread over 230,000 square miles.

New Hampshire, 2009: about 1.3m people in 9,000 square miles.

---

by: Alex Gallichon @ Tue Dec 08, 2009 at 22:56:14 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Unless health care has changed since 1961. (0.00 / 0)

I remember the doctor's bag and the house call...

---

by: elwood @ Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 18:03:04 PM CST

[ Parent ]

In Sasketchewan (0.00 / 0)

they still have universal healthcare with a small population spread out over a huge, often remote area. They went from 40% uninsured to 0%. In the 1960s, the doctor still needed to get paid for the house call, so the fundamental insurance issue is unchanged.

---

by: Alex Gallichon @ Fri Dec 11, 2009 at 17:53:44 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I wouldn't term this (0.00 / 0)

a failure. IIRC, there may be an expansion of S-CHIP in the offing, which will help subsidize this.  

---

by: Jennifer Daler @ Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 06:54:07 AM CST

[ Parent ]

The law took effect in July - the Healthy Kids Program (0.00 / 0)

still doesn't even have a 'Date for a Date' on when we will hear about coverage.

---

by: elwood @ Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 15:25:21 PM CST

[ Parent ]

That is strange. (4.00 / 1)

I'll do some research on it and get back to you.

---

by: Jennifer Daler @ Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 16:11:29 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I feel sick (0.00 / 0)

I won't give up hope either, but that's depressing news. Did we get anything? What do we control Congress FOR?

---

by: JimC @ Tue Dec 08, 2009 at 20:12:19 PM CST

Both Sen. Bernie Sanders and Howard Dean in the last hour (4.00 / 3)

have said that the trade off from public option to opportunity to buy into Medicare at 55 and expansion of Medicaid are stronger positions than the weakened public option in both the House and Senate versions. These trade offs are improvements. I trust Bernie and Howard.

---

by: Caroline French @ Tue Dec 08, 2009 at 20:19:42 PM CST

Medicaid expansion is OUT. (0.00 / 0)

Sanders and Dean will need to revise their evaluation.

---

by: elwood @ Tue Dec 08, 2009 at 20:23:33 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Linky: (0.00 / 0)

here.

---

by: elwood @ Tue Dec 08, 2009 at 20:25:04 PM CST

[ Parent ]

That doesn't say MedicARE expansion is out. (0.00 / 0)

It's two different proposals.

--
"Act as if ye have faith and faith shall be given to you." -Aaron Sorkin

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Tue Dec 08, 2009 at 20:26:55 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Read, Douglas n/t (0.00 / 0)

---

by: elwood @ Tue Dec 08, 2009 at 20:28:33 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I did. (0.00 / 0)

--
"Act as if ye have faith and faith shall be given to you." -Aaron Sorkin

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Tue Dec 08, 2009 at 20:31:12 PM CST

[ Parent ]

No, you didn't. (0.00 / 0)

My post said, right in the title: "Medicaid expansion is out."

And you "corrected" me that Medicare is not.

---

by: elwood @ Tue Dec 08, 2009 at 20:33:18 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I don't know what you've seen, (0.00 / 0)

But I saw Sanders' reaction on Maddow a few minutes ago, and he was talking about Medicare.  You said he's have to revise his evaluation; it wasn't based primarily on what you're talking about.

--
"Act as if ye have faith and faith shall be given to you." -Aaron Sorkin

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Tue Dec 08, 2009 at 20:34:38 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I remember Dean saying from an earlier talk (0.00 / 0)

that lowering the age for Medicare is the way to go, because it will only increase the popularity of the program and create more pressure down the road to expand it further still.

But with the crisis of the uninsured so big and so right now, what will this mean for the millions of uninsured who aren't 55 or older?

And also, the details here are troubling:

In addition to debating a potential start date for a Medicare buy-in proposal, Senate Democrats are also in negotiations over who, exactly, should be allowed to qualify for the expanded Medicare program. At this juncture, it doesn't appear that everyone in the 55-64-age bracket would be granted access. Negotiators are considering limiting consumers to those who would qualify for high-risk insurance pools already set up under the Senate's health care legislation. This would mean primarily those who have been uninsured for a certain amount of time, have a history of poor health or are unable to get insurance because of a preexisting condition.

birch, finch, beech

---

by: Dean Barker @ Tue Dec 08, 2009 at 20:32:05 PM CST

[ Parent ]

How many people (4.00 / 1)

55-64 are uninsured? My impression is that young people are the least likely to have health insurance, and also the lowest risk (therefore should be easiest to insure) demographic group.

---

by: Alex Gallichon @ Tue Dec 08, 2009 at 22:59:35 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Dean also (4.00 / 1)

at the same talk (NHPR's The Exchange?) said that one incredibly inexpensive and easy thing to do would be to have this buy-in (or perhaps expand the SCHIP) over 18 and into the 20's, which is a) the cheapest age group to cover, but b) the most likely, especially with the recession, not to have insurance.

birch, finch, beech

---

by: Dean Barker @ Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 04:24:23 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Young people are by far (4.00 / 1)

the most likely to be uninsured. My data is a little old, but taken from Tamara Draut's Strapped: Why America's 20- and 30-Somethings Can't Get Ahead:

One out of three young adults--a full 17.9 million 18-34 year-olds--don't have health insurance, making this the age group with the largest percentage of uninsured. They're not going without health-care coverage out of some sense of invincibility either, in fact, only 3 percent of young workers are uninsured because they declined available coverage....About half of young adults aged 19 to 29 without health insurance reported having problems paying medical bills.

These statistics may have changed a little, but most likely they've gotten worse. Just one of the many reasons this generation is the first not likely to be better off than our parents.

---

by: peacekeeper @ Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 15:10:51 PM CST

[ Parent ]

He does say that (0.00 / 0)

This Medicare proposal is unsubsidized, though, and would be relatively expensive.  Not what he was talking about.

---

by: Bill Duncan @ Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 16:13:29 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Howard Dean Sold Out, Too (4.00 / 1)

http://www.keionline.org/blogs...

With one face, he talks tough on health care reform.  With the other, he lobbies for biotech companies -- to impede Democratic efforts to regulate them, and to prevent prescription drugs from reaching the millions of Americans who cannot afford them.

I wish I had been wrong on this nine months ago:

http://www.bluehampshire.com/d...

---

by: Dartmouth Dem @ Tue Dec 08, 2009 at 20:35:40 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I tend to buy the image (4.00 / 2)

that Howard Dean has cobbled together for himself. He is a regular on the tube pushing for, what at least seem like, sound progressive health care proposals.

I uprated your comment to encourage you to channel your "inner Avard" more. :v) You go, Don Quixote!

www.KusterforCongress.com - www.paulhodesforsenate.com

www.nikitsongas.com - www.devalpatrick.com

---

by: Jack Mitchell @ Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 06:41:41 AM CST

[ Parent ]

True (0.00 / 0)

But if this is how he chooses to make his money -- advocating for Big Pharma while working for Halliburton's lobbying firm in DC -- then he needs to be called on the carpet for it.  He is using his public image as a health care leader for illicit purposes.

And if we don't speak up, then we're in no position to criticize the Sununus (and Berkes, etc.) of the world for lobbying on behalf of their pet illicit causes.

---

by: Dartmouth Dem @ Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 07:27:55 AM CST

[ Parent ]

"To impede Democratic efforts to regulate them" (4.00 / 2)

Really? Consider your source, DD:

Trippi's posting prompted a July 16 response on Huffington Post from Jamie Love, director of Knowledge Ecology International, a non-profit organization that advocates the reduction or elimination of IP protections for pharmaceuticals. Love called a House proposal for 12 years of exclusivity for all biologics "evil," and noted Dean's and Trippi's advocacy of BIO's positions.

That sounds like anti-regulation. It takes 10-15 years to get a drug to the market, and that's because the FDA's approval process is so stringent, requiring that any drug be an improvement over existing drugs.

I'd prefer that Dean not work for pharmaceutical firms, and I don't mind you pointing out that he does, but it's not "evil" that we allow drug companies to make money off their products after we run them through the FDA gauntlet. If we're going to talk about shortening exclusivity, it seems that we have to talk about shortening approval too, or else no one (fewer people, anyway) will invest in new drugs.

---

by: JimC @ Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 08:32:18 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Way too quick to criticize on poorly sourced information and shaky logic. (4.00 / 2)

Have you been waiting the whole nine months for any shred of evidence to support the last unjustified attack? This is so different from your normal deep analysis that I diagnose a pathology-- 'Dean Aversion Dementia, perhaps.

I don't begin to claim to have a grip on the substantive issues involved ( and it doesn't appear that you do either)--- but it is far from clear that there is any conflict or tension between the great work (or as you say, 'talks tough") on health care, and his position on this.

(Full Disclosure: HD is a long time friend whom I know would rather eat glass than compromise his positions on health care).

"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 @ Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 09:54:12 AM CST

[ Parent ]

No, Paul (0.00 / 0)

Re: "shaky logic". . . . With all due respect to Gov. Dean, I feel that the following facts are pretty well established.  If they are not, and if you would like me to provide supporting information, please let me know:

* Howard Dean is serving as a paid "strategic advisor" for pharmceutical companies.

* His "advisory" work consists of advocating for policies that make life-saving pharmaceutical more expensive and less accessible. His longtime support for health care reform ads to his value as an advocate.

* These policies run counter to the views of Rep. Henry Waxman and the Democratic leadership in Congress.

* Exploding prescription drug costs -- and the massive profits of Dean's clients -- are a principal source of the health care cost explosion over the past two decades.

If you disagree with any of these points, let me know.  I will provide additional documentation tonight (after I leave work).

I respect Gov. Dean's longtime advocacy for reform, and recognize the vital role of his presidential campaign in escalating this issue to the forefront of our national agenda.  But that does not excuse his current activities.  Gov. Dean knows better than to take money from such corporations for these purposes.

---

by: Dartmouth Dem @ Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 13:24:23 PM CST

[ Parent ]

my view of the logic of your post: (4.00 / 1)

1.I'll assume you are right as to his being a 'strategic advisor', although you do not know the terms. What does that mean? Did he agree only to advocate for specific policies that he already supported? Does he retain the right to choose what policies he will support? If his agreement is to get paid to support policies that he already supports, policies that he believes help provide health care, then it is hardly a case of 'selling out', which is the term I find unsupported in your post. If you are privy to the terms of his relationship, then let us know. If not, (and I am  not) then I would be a little be slower to use such a loaded term in regards to someone who has been a leader of integrity on health issues for so long.

2. Whether his position makes drugs more expensive and less accessible is debatable. Patent protection plays a significant role in encouraging development-- the key is to find the right balance on the length. In general I think patent lengths in the US are absurdly long (in the arts they seem to extend long past the grave)-- however, I am not so sure about the particulars in drugs and the fact that you or Henry Waxman disagree with HD doesnt make him wrong, and even if objectively it could be proved that he was wrong, we dont need to demonize those with whom we disagree. If there was a pattern of anti-social behavior, it would be one thing-- but you are taking one instance and drawing the most extreme conclusions from it. I find that to be a logical failure, and somewhat puzzling.
3. I agree that prescription costs are important in driving health care prices. But these costs themselves are driven by lots of factors-- the ban on government programs negociating for lower costs for one, the lack of a single payer system for another, importation restrictions, etc. What you are talking about here is not necessarily linked to high prices (and argument can be made that overall they reduce prices and encourage development), and even if to some degree it were , it would still be  a minor piece of the picture. So again I disagree with the logic.

I dont have any problem with you taking him on in regards to this on the merits, you may well be right on all counts. I do think however that accusing someone of 'selling out' on such slim evidence is unjustified in any case, and truly uncalled for in this case.

"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 @ Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 14:27:53 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I'm with you on this, but (4.00 / 1)

Did he agree only to advocate for specific policies that he already supported? Does he retain the right to choose what policies he will support?

Is that even possible? How do I get a gig like that?

 

---

by: JimC @ Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 14:46:28 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Get in line behind me! (4.00 / 1)

I think people do this all the time -- hire on for certain projects. (ie I agree to paint your house-- that is the extent of our business relationship-- what you do at your widget factory is outside the relationship, and you have no say in what other houses I agree to paint. I also dont have to paint your barn because it was outside of  the deal). We both work with others on other projects as we choose.  

"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 @ Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 16:17:43 PM CST

[ Parent ]

It ain't painting a fence (0.00 / 0)

Paul, I don't know you that well, but I'm pretty sure that I will see hell freeze over before you use your legal skills to keep lifesaving pharmaceuticals out of reach of people who need them.

I don't dispute Gov. Dean's monumental acts of progressive courage and leadership.  But that is exactly what he is paid to do now.

---

by: Dartmouth Dem @ Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 18:57:03 PM CST

[ Parent ]

In Response (4.00 / 1)

Paul, I have tremendous respect for your opinions and guidance.  Trust me when I say that I did not make the aformentioned assertion because I dislike Howard Dean (he was one of the finest governors in modern New England history), but rather because I despise the control that large corporations hold on our government -- especially those with illicit aims -- and I resent highly paid "progressives" who lobby on their behalf. . . . In response to specific points:

I'll assume you are right as to his being a 'strategic advisor', although you do not know the terms. What does that mean?

You don't need to assume -- it is a statement of fact that Howard Dean is a "strategic advisor" for lobbying megafirm McKenna Long & Aldridge, the DC representative for Halliburton, Bechtel, and numerous leading drug companies.

When he was hired, Dean's Republican boss cited his help in securing stimulus funds for clients as a selling point:  "Given that the stimulus bill is so vast in the amount of money and the scope, I think he can be a very valuable resource."

http://www.law.com/jsp/article...

McKenna Long also has a huge stable of biotech clients, and Gov. Dean's work thus far has focused on these firms.

In general I think patent lengths in the US are absurdly long (in the arts they seem to extend long past the grave)-- however, I am not so sure about the particulars in drugs and the fact that you or Henry Waxman disagree with HD doesnt make him wrong, and even if objectively it could be proved that he was wrong, we dont need to demonize those with whom we disagree.

The particulars:  Howard Dean (without disclosing his association with the pharma industry group he was representing) wrote an op-ed in The Hill newspaper this summer arguing that fewer than 12 years of monopoly rights for biotech companies' products ``would prematurely rob innovators of their intellectual property and . . . destroy incentives to develop new cures.''  Dean later acknowledged his editorial was part of McKenna's rapid-fire response to an unexpected, eleventh-hour Senate health committee proposal to support increased access to generic drugs (which biotech firms ultimately fought off). (Boston Globe, 7/21/09)

What you are talking about here is not necessarily linked to high prices (and argument can be made that overall they reduce prices and encourage development), and even if to some degree it were , it would still be  a minor piece of the picture. So again I disagree with the logic.

I'm sorry, but using million-dollar lobbyists to derail generic drugs does, in fact, lead to higher prices.  Biotech pharmaceuticals can cost tens of thousands of dollars per patient -- hardly within the range of the average working family.  That's why the Administration and congressional leadership have been focusing on this issue during the reform debate.  As well it should.

These same companies -- most of which make enormous profits -- have also been scuttling efforts to reimport drugs from Canada for many years.  That's wrong, too.

I do think however that accusing someone of 'selling out' on such slim evidence is unjustified in any case, and truly uncalled for in this case.

My language was deliberately strong and, I admit, was intended to shock friends of Gov. Dean.  But it's only because, in my opinion, we would (and do) savage folks like John Sununu for doing exactly what Gov. Dean is doing, and the system won't change until we stop holding our friends to a lower standard than our enemies.

---

by: Dartmouth Dem @ Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 18:52:38 PM CST

[ Parent ]

One Google of effort turns up the following: (4.00 / 2)

(late for work -- this will be rushed)

Time Aug 18th

But he does have a better record than Daschle of disclosing his financial interests, as he did Monday night on CNBC. (See disclosure at about 35 seconds)

Note that after he stated the disclosure, Dean effectively toed the line of his clients, whose views may well be in line with what he believed before the extra paychecks. Under his agreement with McKenna, Dean has agreed not to make public his specific clients, his spokeswoman told me. He also does not currently work for any health insurance clients, she added, and has the freedom to turn down work with any client that he does not want to assist. (One of McKenna's major lobbying clients is KBR, a former division of Halliburton which was previously led by former Vice President Dick Cheney.)

So Dean's disclosure is welcome. It should be required of all paid consultants who do television punditry. The only shame is that it is effectively optional in the current climate.

Read more: http://swampland.blogs.time.co...

If you follow the embedded clip you will see that Dean prefaced all remarks about the issue by stating that:
A. He did work for a law firm that represented many of the drug firms.
B. His views, which he said he had espousedfor 25 years were at variance with those of most Democratic leaders.

So one Google tells us that his contract lets him choose to only work on issues in which he agrees with the firms position, that he has held this position for many years, that he acknowledges that it is different from that held by most Democrats and that he revealed his connection with the law firm during the summer while the issue was being discussed. This is a far cry from a sell out.

I agree with you on the pernicious effect of money in our political speech and I tend to agree with you on the question of drug patent length (although I think that the solution is probably to fund research in at public manner as Dean indicates most countries do). I still think your criticism of his motives in this instance was unfounded.

By the way, if we want to control drug costs the first thing i would do  is ban TV ads, just as we ban ads for hard liquor and marijuana. They are incredibly pervasive, harmful to patients and raise costs in several direct and indirect manners.

"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 Dec 10, 2009 at 07:42:13 AM CST

[ Parent ]

by embedded clip, i meant the cnbc video in the time article, not the link on the bottom (0.00 / 0)

which was sloppy cutting and pasting on my part.

"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 Dec 10, 2009 at 09:20:13 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Respectfully Noted (4.00 / 1)

I take back the term "sell out" -- should have confined my criticism to Gov. Dean's activities, not his person.

That said, I hope that you (and Gov. Dean's other friends) strongly discourage him from engaging in these type of paid "strategic advisory" activities for drug companies on behalf of one of DC's most whore-infested lobbying shops.  It is wrong, and it is beneath him.  Well beneath him.

---

by: Dartmouth Dem @ Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 09:50:03 AM CST

[ Parent ]

The 4 is for the willingness to rethink a position... (4.00 / 1)

which may be unprecedented on BH!

(Seriously, one of the best aspects of BH is the willingness to listen to others and question ourselves.)

"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 Dec 10, 2009 at 11:41:30 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Did you hear Kathy S on the radio this morning? (4.00 / 1)

She was excellent and even Pat Griffin agreed that this early buy-in was a win-win for the Democrats.

Now Congress can go to the voters and say that they are giving their constituents the same health plan they have.

I've always maintained that universal coverage was much more important than the public option.

---

by: Putney Swope @ Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 12:01:04 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Thanks, Put (0.00 / 0)

That is very kind of you.



"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 12:18:09 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Two uninsured people I know (4.00 / 1)

recently had their lives upended for the worse, and possibly long-term worse, because of recent medical issues.

Both are well under 55.

How does this help them?

birch, finch, beech

---

by: Dean Barker @ Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 13:12:16 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Exactly. (0.00 / 0)

People 55-64 are the most likely to have insurance (other than children). I think Kaiser has the best info on the uninsured population.

---

by: peacekeeper @ Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 15:24:47 PM CST

[ Parent ]

My understanding of the plans (4.00 / 1)

I am not an expert on the proposals, but this is my understanding of the proposals:

First, there are no exclusions for pre-existing illnesses, so that it should be easier to find insurance.

Second, there are subsidies for people with lower incomes, although I've heard that they might not be sufficient.

Third, from my understanding of the public option it is unclear whether they would qualify nor afford the public option insurance. The Senate plan allows them to get insurance from a coaltion of non-profits, but I do not know the details yet.

Fourth, none of the proposals effectively attack the rising costs of medical care. This is the most serious problem with the proposals, not the lack of a public option.  

---

by: Putney Swope @ Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 17:09:32 PM CST

[ Parent ]

The Insurance Lobby (4.00 / 1)

The insurance lobby remains the problem.  I met today with Granny D and the other members of the Public Funding Of Campaigns Task Force at the State House.  State Senator Martha Fuller-Clark is the chair, and on the 11-member Task Force are Attorney David Allen, former State Senator Jim Rubins, former Governor's Councilor Peter Spaulding, State Representative Bob Perry, Concord City Councilor Rob Werner, who is also a staffer of Americans For Campaign Reform, and several others.  

We were appointed to the Commission to work until November of next year to create legislation for a pilot public funding project.  It could take numerous forms.  Supportive of our efforts are former Governor Walter Peterson and former U.S. Senate Democratic Nominee John Rauh, as well as former U.S. Senator Warren Rudman.  

Anyway, efforts are on statewide and nationwide to create a public funding alternative for candidates so they don't have to rely on monied contributors such as the insurance industry.  

To save our democracy, there aren't a whole lot of other alternatives than to try to get big money out of the decision-making process; at least, to have an alternative to all that.  

---

by: Rep. Jim Splaine @ Tue Dec 08, 2009 at 20:20:51 PM CST

The problem isn't so much the contributions as the (0.00 / 0)

initial selection process whereby industry and commerce designate employees to work up the public policy ladder via the local chambers of commerce, Rotary, the Lions and other public service organizations to promote their employers' interests.  I saw it first hand when HCA was acquiring and setting up new mental health treatment centers for juveniles and had public relations staff serving on county juvenile justice committees to promote sending rowdy children for treatment rather than youth camps (prisons).

American free enterprise is a gigantic myth.  Industry and commerce have always relied on the federal government to promote their "interests."

---

by: hannah @ Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 06:56:42 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Apparently Reid is disputing the claim that the Public Option is dead. (0.00 / 0)

Meanwhile, this isn't getting much press, but I've read there's a Rockefeller-Franken amendment stipulating that 90% of health insurance premiums would have to be used for medical care, as opposed to administration or profit, which sounds like a great idea if they can get it in.

--
"Act as if ye have faith and faith shall be given to you." -Aaron Sorkin

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Tue Dec 08, 2009 at 20:22:52 PM CST

I'm holding out hope until we learn more (4.00 / 3)

Am not impressed by the "federal employee health plan" alternative -- while my insurance as a congressional aide was pretty good, I'd be hard pressed to call it inexpensive.

My hope is that, without the public option AND abortion funding, Sen. Reid will be forced to make parallel concessions to keep Dems on board.  I'll be far happier if this means:

* Regulations (with teeth) on insurance companies that (a) will make it damn near impossible for them to screen out people who aren't young and healthy, (b) prevents them from denying coverage for critical health care needs, especially re: chronic illness, and (c) imposes a REAL patients bill of rights that allows lawsuits against rogue insurers;

* A public option trigger -- not a bullshit trigger, but one directly aligned to health care cost increases in the next 2-5 years; and/or

* A significant increase in subsidies for low-to-mid income families without insurance.

I know this sounds Pollyanish.  Still, I trust my President to fight for the most progressive legislation that can garner 60 votes in the Senate, and I can't give up hope yet.

Either way, Joe Lieberman is going to hell for this.

---

by: Dartmouth Dem @ Tue Dec 08, 2009 at 20:26:17 PM CST

Well, he may be GOING to Gehenna (4.00 / 3)

but there's no guarantee they will take him.

"Oh, Senator! They told us you'd be coming. But,really, we have our standards. And Upstairs just laughed when we asked about their policies.

"Have you considered an 'Afterlife for Lieberman' movement?"

---

by: elwood @ Tue Dec 08, 2009 at 20:31:37 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Eternal solitary confinement (4.00 / 1)

seems appropriate.

...the Doo Dah Man once told me you've got to play your hand. Sometimes the cards ain't worth a dime if you don't lay 'em down.

---

by: rambler american @ Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 07:29:52 AM CST

[ Parent ]

The Franken-Rockefeller Amendment (0.00 / 0)

This sounds like a great idea, but I'm not seeing much coverage of it.

HuffPo article by Wendell Potter

Press Release from Senator Franken's office. (basically just a link to the huffpo article)

I've seen passing mentions of this in other articles, but that's it.

--
"Act as if ye have faith and faith shall be given to you." -Aaron Sorkin

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Tue Dec 08, 2009 at 20:49:46 PM CST

Better press release from Franken: (0.00 / 0)

http://franken.senate.gov/pres...

Apparently original sponsors and cosponsors include Senators Franken, Rockefeller, Lincoln, Whitehouse, Leahy, Sanders, Brown, and Begich.

--
"Act as if ye have faith and faith shall be given to you." -Aaron Sorkin

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Tue Dec 08, 2009 at 20:51:53 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Interesting idea (0.00 / 0)

Might be difficult to implement, but I like it. . . .  

---

by: Dartmouth Dem @ Tue Dec 08, 2009 at 21:25:16 PM CST

[ Parent ]

It directly addresses a major problem. (0.00 / 0)

And if you can get Sanders and Lincoln to agree on something like this, how can it not get included in the bill?

By the way, it's called S.Amdt.2910 if anybody wants to track it.

--
"Act as if ye have faith and faith shall be given to you." -Aaron Sorkin

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Tue Dec 08, 2009 at 23:14:40 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Not So Disheartened (0.00 / 0)

Thanks, Doug for the link.
Excellent amendment, I'd think a lot of senators would want to support this. What's the political downside? Is Sen Shaheen on board?

I agree with an earlier comment that expanding medicare is a very positive step, a lot better than a too-watered-down public option.

No'm Sayn?

---

by: BurtCohen @ Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 08:35:01 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I don't know how it works, but if it does, it deserves more coverage than it's getting. (0.00 / 0)

That said, the lack of coverage might make it easier to get the votes to include it.

My understanding has always been that the disparity in administration costs of Medicare (~3%*) and the administration+profit costs of private insurance (~30%*) is one of the major reasons health reform is good policy.

*I don't have a source for these, other than having heard politicos say it a million times.  If you have  link with better numbers, I defer to that.

--
"Act as if ye have faith and faith shall be given to you." -Aaron Sorkin

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 11:03:09 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Adding: (0.00 / 0)

I doubt Shaheen has a position on it already.  It was introduced less than a week ago and I don't think it's been debated.  But considering who's on that list of original cosponsors, it looks like it A, should have broad support in the Democratic caucus, and B, must be a good idea.

--
"Act as if ye have faith and faith shall be given to you." -Aaron Sorkin

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 11:07:15 AM CST

[ Parent ]

It's good. Great even. (0.00 / 0)

But I'm not sure how bulletproof it is.

I've read elsewhere that the industry is GREAT at getting around such restrictions by masking their administrative costs as nebulous "health care improvement fees" or some such.

Regards,
Corporate Dog

---

by: Corporate Dog @ Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 12:08:36 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Howard on Wed. (4.00 / 1)

Dean embraces Senate compromise on health care
(AP) - 8am 12/9

WASHINGTON - A staunch supporter of a public option to expand health care says he's encouraged by a Senate compromise on the troublesome issue.

Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, a physician, said Wednesday he believes opening up Medicare to people 55 to 64 years old gives momentum to the quest for a health care overhaul, putting it "on the right track."

The former Democratic presidential candidate and party chairman said on CBS's "The Early Show" that Medicare already is "a single payer run by the government. This moves things forward." Dean called it "real reform. Whatever we call it is irrelevant." Dean said he hopes the final version of the legislation "involves expansion of care" in America

---

by: Caroline French @ Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 08:12:27 AM CST

Dean is correct! (0.00 / 0)

Thank you Howard for adding some sanity to this discussion.

---

by: Putney Swope @ Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 12:02:56 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Sigh. (0.00 / 0)

I just saw Diogenes walk by with his lantern.

---

by: GreyMike @ Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 09:13:29 AM CST

Hot Under The Collar? (0.00 / 0)

Kos tries a nuanced approach in response to POTUS fundraising solictation:

This is so freakin' obnoxious I can hardly stand it. We are about to get a turd of a "reform" package, potentially worse than the status quo. We have the insurance industry declaring victory, Republicans cackling with glee, and the administration is using that piece of shit to raise money?

Obama spent all year enabling Max Baucus and Olympia Snowe, and he thinks we're supposed to get excited about whatever end result we're about to get, so much so that we're going to fork over money? Well, it might work with some of you guys, but I'm certainly not biting. In fact, this is insulting, betraying a lack of understanding of just how pissed the base is at this so-called reform. The administration may be happy to declare victory with a mandate that enriches insurance companies, yet creates little incentive to control costs or change the very business practices that have screwed so many people. But I'll pass.

Democrats are demoralized, and have little incentive to turn out next year. The teabaggers will turn out. If this is how the Obama camp thinks we can energize the base -- by promising them a health care pony for $5 to the same Democratic Party that is home to the likes of Baucus, Nelson, Lincoln, Lieberman, and the rest of the obstructionist gang -- then we're in for a world of hurt in 2010.

Groundswell or Groundsmell?


www.KusterforCongress.com - www.paulhodesforsenate.com

www.nikitsongas.com - www.devalpatrick.com

---

by: Jack Mitchell @ Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 11:22:52 AM CST

Oh, and hey... (0.00 / 0)

... the Senate plan ALSO imposes an excise tax on the so-called "Cadillac" plans that most union members negotiated for once-upon-a-time.

Teachers. Police. Firefighters. A variety of state workers.

So, essentially, a tax on the middle-class.

Municipal governments will end up seeking cheaper, non-Cadillac plans for its union workers.

And then the funding that was supposed to help pay for health care reform efforts, will be gone. As an added bonus, a whole subset of middle-class workers will be left with substantially WORSE health care insurance than they had before this whole process began.

Let's give a big ol' golf clap to the United States Senate, folks.

Regards,
Corporate Dog

---

by: Corporate Dog @ Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 12:02:25 PM CST

One big.... (0.00 / 0)

MAYBE.

Anyone here from Missouri?

www.KusterforCongress.com - www.paulhodesforsenate.com

www.nikitsongas.com - www.devalpatrick.com

---

by: Jack Mitchell @ Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 12:50:49 PM CST

[ Parent ]

What's the Deal? (4.00 / 2)

An analysis of last night's Gang of 10 deal has been posted on the New York Times site. Read it here.

The details are still fluid, but nobody - except Schumer - seems terribly pleased. (Schumer's always pleased when he gets a Times write-up crediting him with being a key deal maker!)

---

by: Tim Ashwell @ Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 12:58:58 PM CST

We can't disclose sources and methods (0.00 / 0)

My favorite aspect of this is that Harry Reid said on NPR that he "couldn't disclose the details of the deal."

"You can't come in here! We're formulating public policy!"

---

by: JimC @ Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 13:14:49 PM CST

[ Parent ]

healthcare (0.00 / 0)

The answer to a lot of these problems is to raise minimum wage to $12 per hr.

---

by: lidlvr5 @ Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 04:14:52 AM CST