The Big Fights Left, and the Big Benefits in the Bill

by: Mike Lux

Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 11:45


I thought it might be useful to summarize the big battles ahead, as well as the list of things that are good policy changes that seem likely to be in the final legislation. I have two lists of both in the extended entry.

The battles still ahead include:

Mike Lux :: The Big Fights Left, and the Big Benefits in the Bill
1. The shape of the public option. The House public option, while not everything we had hoped for, is still pretty solid. It is national in scope so that it can compete with the big insurers, will cover more people over time, and can be a platform to build on and expand in the future. The Senate version is worse because of the state opt-out, but still has some strong features. Most of the other alternatives- Snowe's trigger, Conrad's co-ops, Carper's opt-in- are extremely weak and completely unacceptable.

2. Affordability. The House bill is far better than what is rumored will be in the merged Senate bill on middle-class affordability. This is an absolutely critical issue for middle-class families mandated to buy insurance.

3. Who pays, middle-class workers or millionaires? The House bill pays for much of health care reform with a surtax on wealthy Americans, while Senate Finance taxes middle-class workers who have better than average health benefits. The Senate Finance version is a terrible way to go.

4. Do businesses have any responsibility? The House bill makes most business (exempting the smallest businesses) pay a fair share for covering their employees, while the Senate Finance bill exempts businesses from responsibility. Everyone needs to take responsibility for health care.

5. Are immigrants totally screwed over? There is still a fight over how immigrants, both legal and undocumented, will be treated in the final health care bill, with various amendments constructing terrible ways to treat them- such as immigrants being mandated to have insurance but not being allowed into the new health insurance pools. The Senate Finance language in this area is much worse than the House language. Any good bill has to treat immigrants fairly.

6. Abortion. The Stupak amendment is designed to decimate abortion coverage in the country. It is completely unacceptable and has to be taken out of the bill in conference committee.

7.  The individual mandate. This is one place where I think the Senate Finance committee actually got it better than the House, with much lighter penalties if you don't get insurance. There are downsides to that, but given the cheapness of the subsidies for the middle class, and the weakening of the public option in even the House bill, I think having too harsh penalties on the individual mandate would be wrong.  

Some pretty big stuff, huh? Lots of intense work to do. The good news is that under all the hullabaloo of the public option fight and the horrendous Stupak amendment, there is actually a lot of good things that are pretty well-settled assuming a bill gets passed. These items don't have the drama of some of the other fights, but none of them are insignificant policy changes, all will improve a lot of people's lives. Included in this list are:

1. The ability of insurers to destroy people's lives over pre-existing condition clauses, recissions, and lifetime caps on their coverage will end.

2. Everyone will finally be covered, with subsidies for low and middle income people. That is a very big deal, something that a lot of us have been fighting for our entire lives.

3. The "doughnut hole" screwing over senior citizens on their prescription coverage will be fixed.

4. Community rating is incredibly important, means older and sicker people, and women, won't face the same kinds of discrimination.

5. Creating the insurance exchange will provide lower prices and more choices for many people.

6. It does provide immediate help for the un-insured, even before the public option and insurance exchanges are in place.

7. It extends coverage for young people wanting to stay under their parents' coverage up to 27 years old.

8. Strengthens Medicare in several modest but important ways- no co-pays for prevention services, more help for low-income seniors, stops Medicare Advantage from screwing seniors.

9. Provides more disclosure of insurance rate increases.

10. Allows people to keep their COBRA until the exchange is in place.

11. Creates a new long term care insurance program.

12. Makes it easier for early retirees (55-64 years old) to get health care coverage.

13. Doubles the number of patients Community Health Services can treat.

14. More money for education/training of primary care providers.  

I do think these kinds of modest less visible things really do matter in people's lives, and we should be proud if we can get them done. The big fights left, though, are incredibly important to whether this is a good bill overall.


Tags: , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
We're three votes away from losing the Reid public option (4.00 / 1)
Is there a strategy for protecting the Reid public option language? Unless that element goes to the floor under a 60-vote-to-amend rule -- and it won't because Lieberman et al won't allow cloture on that -- the Conservdems would need to round up 11* Dem votes to change it (assuming the GOP votes with them). They probably already have eight (Lieberman, Nelson, Landrieu, Lincoln, Conrad, Baucus, Carper, Bayh), so we're only three* votes away from losing the Reid PO.

...Adding as an aside, one way to guarantee reconciliation while protecting the Reid language is to insist on a 60-vote-to-amend rule or our side will filibuster bringing this to the floor. The Conservadems will never agree and we'll have a stalemate with Reid still the default PO.

* They'll only need 10 and be two votes away if Byrd (or any other PO supporter) misses the vote.

"Don't take much, does it, elected Democrats, to get your balls tucked up." Cf.


Fluid. (0.00 / 0)
As with all things in the Senate, things are pretty fluid right now. The Reid language will initially go to the floor with his public option language, and it will take 60 votes to strip it. We probably have the 60 votes to open debate, but definitely don't have 60 votes to close debate, so there is a ton of amending and maneuvering yet to go.
I think we are pretty sure to have at least the 51 we need to win the up or down votes re the public option.  

[ Parent ]
re: po votes (4.00 / 1)
I think we are pretty sure to have at least the 51 we need to win the up or down votes re the public option.

I wouldn't be so sure Mike, especially if they pull the 'public option can't 60, we must strip it' crap, we must start a 51 vote no po degradation whip


[ Parent ]
Yes! (0.00 / 0)
There are two places to exert what leverage we have. One is 60 senators to "give it an up or down vote" -- there, we just have to trust/hope that someone can bring Lieberman in line, and whip everybody else. The other is 50 votes (if we can't rely on Biden, we're screwed) for all the other important elements (and also for any poison pills).

[ Parent ]
No, it won't take 60 to strip it (4.00 / 1)
Mike, the only way it will take 60 to strip the Reid language is if our side is willing to filibuster -- meaning we'll be filibustering the entire bill. There's no way Lieberman et al will agree to a rule requiring 60 votes to change the Reid language.

See David Waldman on the myth of 60 in reverse.

"Don't take much, does it, elected Democrats, to get your balls tucked up." Cf.


[ Parent ]
Maybe I'm being to optimistic (0.00 / 0)
but do you think there's a chance of using a compromise to get Sanders' Single Payer amendment into the senate version?

Agitate.Liberate.Create.

we've gotta try (4.00 / 1)
California has now twice passed single-payer reforms, only for Arnold to veto them, and Sanders' state-based amendment would allow the state to proceed.  Now's the time.

National Nurses United (AFL-CIO) is America's RN union, representing 150,000+ nurses from all 50 states.

[ Parent ]
What about this part of the bill?? (4.00 / 2)
I rely on your interpretation, but can you look at these points in particular by Dr. Angell at HuffPo, and see if you agree:

"The bill permits insurers to charge twice as much for older people as for younger ones. So older under-65's will be more likely to go without insurance, even if they have to pay fines. That's OK with the industry, since these would be among their sickest customers. (Shouldn't age be considered a pre-existing condition?)

Insurers also won't have to cover those younger people most likely to get sick, because they will tend to use the public option (which is not an "option" at all, but a program projected to cover only 6 million uninsured Americans). So instead of the public option providing competition for the insurance industry, as originally envisioned, it's been turned into a dumping ground for a small number of people whom private insurers would rather not have to cover anyway.

I've fervently believed in dropping the age of eligibility for Medicare and she supports this idea too.
Here in Arizona the emergency rooms are not filled with illegal aliens, but hard working mature adults. It's a realistic picture of the national statistics: almost 30% of the uninsured now are between 45-64.
I think that age groups would suffer more under the current House bill resulting in more uninsured, not less.  ??

Nationalism is not the same thing as terrorism, and an adversary is not the same thing as an enemy.


Different bills (0.00 / 0)
have different versions of community rating formulas, but I am not as pessimistic as her in terms of where we end up.

[ Parent ]
Mike this big issue I have with your "good stuff" (4.00 / 4)
in teh bill is that there is no cost containment on what insurers can charge. So while this stuff sounds good on paper in reality premiums will be in teh stratosphere for people with pre existing conditions and the kind of insurance that will be considered "affordable" for everyone else will be crap that doesn't cover anything.

I was really hopeful when this thing started to work it's way through congress but as someone in the health care field I am moving very quickly into the better to do nothing than to force people to buy garbage and tell them it's lobster.  


Not enough cost containment. (0.00 / 0)
I agree with that, there should be more, and the public option to provide competition should be stronger. But I don't think that negates the good things that are in the bill.

[ Parent ]
"The House bill is far better than what is rumored will be in the merged Senate bill on middle-class affordability." (4.00 / 4)
"better" only in the way that a bill for $3000 is better than a bill for $6000

This bill is worthless to single working class people.

Let's look at your positives:

1. ...if they can afford the insurance in the first place.  Otherwise, die in the streets I guess.

2. Subsidies that won't cover the entire cost. Determined by the same government that claims that the poverty line is around $10k a year.  Young single people will likely find that the fines are cheaper than the mandate. And at least my fine money won't go to a private corporation.

3. As if this couldn't have been fixed otherwise.

4. They'll face other, new kinds of discrimination!

5. "many" meaning how many?

6. Can you elaborate on this one?  Because there's nothing I'm aware of that meets this description.

7. If the parents can afford it.  Not sure how beneficial pushing adult kids into leeching off of their parents is.

8. Fixing Medicare Advantage could be easily done through separate legislation

9. This is like praising a bill for including a provision strengthening penalties for puppy kicking

10. As if anyone can afford COBRA.

11. For whom?

12. Oh good, 55 is the new 65.  Until then people can, of course, rot.

13. This is good but again, could be accomplished easily through other legislation.

14. This is plain weak.

Let's face it, this bill is a plague barge and true progressives should turn it away and just to be safe, avert their eyes lest they fall ill.

Redistribution of wealth IS happening, just not the way the Fox News crowd was claiming it would.  Enjoy your bonuses, CIGNA and AETNA execs!  Because now the DCCC can say "we passed something!" and meanwhile plenty of working people still get to be thrown into financial ruin because they happened to get sick in this awful country of ours.


Kill it (4.00 / 4)
It will combine unaffordability with all sorts of government entanglement with the IRS as the enforcer.  There is talk about subsidies but the reality of it is unacceptable.  The mandate will ruin me as I am on the edge but not officially poor.

But progressives are scared to death that they could be blamed for the failure of this rotten bill.

Are the Republicans scared that they could be blamed for the failure of the bill?

Is Stupak scared that he could be blamed for the failure of the bill?

Is  Lieberman scared that he could be blamed for the failure of the bill?

No.  They glory in it.  Being able to bring it down is an exercise of their power.  One reason progressives are in such pathetic shape is that they consider the little power they have to be a burden.

Enough!  If this passes, it doesn't provide a foundation for improving it.  It will rather be seen as proving something has now been done (using progressives' own words to cut progressive throats), and foreclosing future change..

Full Court Press!  http://www.openleft.com/showDi...


Yup (4.00 / 5)

But progressives are scared to death that they could be blamed for the failure of this rotten bill.

It's really something, how both morally and politically progressives are in such a theoretically strong position, while Obama and the right wing Dems are in such a weak one, and yet they correctly just laughed at the progressives and spit in their faces, because they always knew the progs would cave, just as they always have.

There's no rational explanation for it. They're clearly unreachable by evidence-based arguments like the lessons of the stimulus fight.

It's just a lack of spine. Moral collapse.

http://attempter.wordpress.com


[ Parent ]
I'm not sure I agree on fight #3 (0.00 / 0)
You say: "Who pays, middle-class workers or millionaires? The House bill pays for much of health care reform with a surtax on wealthy Americans, while Senate Finance taxes middle-class workers who have better than average health benefits. The Senate Finance version is a terrible way to go."

I'm not sure you're right about this. Ezra Klein argues that the Senate Finance mechanism will do a lot more to reduce overall costs of health care in the long haul. Health care economist Jon Gruber, whom Ezra interviewed, lists taxing "Cadillac health plans" first when talking about the features of legislation that can actually reduce health care spending. There are reasons to think that taxing the most expensive plans won't actually burden middle-class workers disproportionately, and the bill could be written to include exceptions for workers in physically taxing or dangerous professions.

I'm in favor higher taxes on higher incomes as a matter of general principle, but the long-term benefits of taxing expensive health insurance plans suggest that at the very least "a little of both" might be the best solution here. I know many unions hate the tax on health plans, but even as a union member I have to say that I'm not going to oppose the policy just because union organizations do. Let's try to see the bigger picture.


I'm with Mike on this... (0.00 / 0)
You're going to tell a working stiff who has managed to get and hold onto health insurance, that s/he has to pay thousands of dollars a year to give subsidies to the very insurance companies who s/he's already funding?

That's just wrong.  

National Nurses United (AFL-CIO) is America's RN union, representing 150,000+ nurses from all 50 states.


[ Parent ]
No traction for your pixe dust? (0.00 / 0)
Surprise, surprise, surprise.

Donate to Open Left








Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.

As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search