Seriously?! (4.00 / 1)

This bill only covers 94% of the population? Considering that about 86% of the country is insured already, that means that we will be spending close to a trillion dollars to only cover about 50% of people that are currently uninsured. We really need the number to be closer to 97%-98% insured for the reform to really be successful, otherwise there will still be about 20 million people without insurance.

---

by: rayj @ Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 22:25:32 PM UTC

I mean, it's not just to get uninsured insured... (4.00 / 4)

There are a lot of things going on with the bill, and insuring as many people as possible is just one of them. Other things include more insurance regulation (no pre-existing conditions,  no lifetime caps, etc), supposedly reducing prices (ie, increasing competition), and deficit reduction.  The more people we get insured, obviously, the better.  Getting to 97-98% insurance is probably impossible without single payer (which is not an option right now), and the House bill gets to only 96% as well.

All things considered, I think this is pretty good, and I feel like puts the supposed "moderate" Dems in a tough spot, since it reduces the deficit by a not insignificant amount ($127B over 10 years, and supposedly up to $650B over the next 10). Of course, this never seems to matter with these so-called deficit-hawks, and I have a feeling Lieberman will still be the biggest spoiler in all this just because of his own personal vendetta.

---

by: leshrac55 @ Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 22:34:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yeah, Reid is a genius here... (0.00 / 0)

With all Lieberman's whining and bitching and moaning and complaining about the deficit, how the hell can he vote against something that REDUCES the deficit? If he does, then he's just an @sshole who needs to be given the boot once and for all.

Yes, Virginia, there are progressives in Nevada.

---

by: Andrew Davey @ Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 23:26:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's sort of weird (4.00 / 1)

that the deficit reduction is, by definition, just coming from the fact that the amount of taxes in the bill is greater than the amount of spending. And yet, basically no one is freaking out about omg taxes!.

Does that mean we have a case here where having more taxes is a political advantage? That would be extremely surprising, but that seems to be what the basic facts of the situation are saying. So given a fixed amount of spending at $850 billion in the bill, we could either lower the taxes in it and have it be simply deficit neutral over 10 years but not deficit reducing, or we could actually raise the taxes and have it be even more deficit reducing, and the latter would be better politically. That's just shocking to me.

So maybe the political path to the progressive dream is to have significantly more revenue in every bill than the amount it spends, eventually reaching the point of a large budget surplus, and then when the conservatives start screaming about giving the people's money back to the people, oblige them by spending it?

---

by: illissius @ Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 23:04:22 PM UTC

(Of course (4.00 / 1)

if it's up to the conservatives they'll just give it back by cutting the taxes back down again, so the trick is to be in power when the surplus happens.)

---

by: illissius @ Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 23:07:04 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Landrieu & Lincoln (4.00 / 4)

Somebody needs to put the squeeze on them, and hard. If they screw up reform, I'm going to do everything I can to fund whatever opponent they have in next primary/or election.

---

by: coral @ Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 23:06:55 PM UTC

How does Landrieu pan out? (0.00 / 0)

According to the NYT, Landrieu's current kick is defending small businesses.

She says that

she was willing to negotiate a bill - provided that controlling soaring health care costs for small businesses was a top goal

but it's hard to see how keeping the bill off the floor does that.

Let's skip ahead to the motion to proceed cloture vote: she votes against, and cloture fails. (At least, that go around.)

What at this point does she want from Harry to make her change her vote?

Presumably, she just won't think again and vote for cloture second time out, without some carrot being offered.

Does she expect Harry to change the text of his amendment? I can't see how he can possibly concede that.

Or is there some collateral goody that she's after? (A morsel of pork for LA, say. Or is it something from the WH.)

If the MTP is down to her and Lincoln, we need to know what they think they'd be getting from refusing cloture for it.  

---

by: skeptic06 @ Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 23:13:04 PM UTC

I say pork... (0.00 / 0)

Landrieu always talks about how little Louisiana gets. And in many ways, she's right. If some more federal funds is all she's after, then just give the Katrina relief funds or whatever else she's asking for, get her vote, and move along.

Yes, Virginia, there are progressives in Nevada.

---

by: Andrew Davey @ Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 23:24:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It works both ways (0.00 / 0)

If you want a functioning progressive block, it should be willing to hold those Katrina relief funds of whatever hostage, if possible, in order to ensure Landrieu's good behavior.  And, yes, I am advocating holding the people of Louisiana and New Orleans hostage if doing so will have net positive results for the entire country.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

---

by: Anthony de Jesus @ Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 02:36:34 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm feeling better today. (4.00 / 1)

So far, just as I've been telling y'all the whole time, Harry Reid is holding onto the public option. Good on step one.

He's also changed the financing by rolling back the "Cadillac tax" that really just punishes workers who negotiated good health benefits. More good news.

And now with Ron Wyden saying he'll filibuster a bill with no public option, we now have a Senate Progressive Block of 3. (Burris, Sanders, & Wyden)

Hopefully debate can begin and we can start fending off the bad amendments and passing the good amendments... And I'm also hoping this damned bill can be passed before Christmas so we can get this health care thing done, get people covered, and move on.

Yes, Virginia, there are progressives in Nevada.

---

by: Andrew Davey @ Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 23:32:42 PM UTC

I'm not feeling good (0.00 / 0)

if they're not willing to use reconciliation, nothing good will come out of this

but thanks for the wyden link. I didn't know that. in the end it says

Delaware Senator Tom Carper is crafting a compromise for fellow Democrats that might be offered as a replacement for the public option during floor debate. The "hammer approach" would require states where insurance plans don't meet affordability standards to offer an alternative, national plan run by a nonprofit, Carper told reporters yesterday.

is there any doubt this or something weaker would be the senate outcome if they won't use reconciliation?

---

by: The Big Hurt @ Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 00:25:12 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

but they are (0.00 / 0)

Reid let three of the key skeptics within his party know that if they join Republicans at any stage of the process to block the bill, he still retains the option of passing major parts of the bill through the filibuster proof budget reconciliation process.

In response to a question from TPMDC Nelson told reporters that, at a meeting this afternoon with Sens. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) and Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), Reid "talked about process, procedure, discussion about reconciliation and a whole host of issues of that sort."

"Nobody's really jumping up and down to push for reconciliation," Nelson said, "he's not threatening that, but anybody can conclude that if you don't move something on to the floor, that is one of the possibilities."

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo...

I'm personally not a big fan of reconciliation, it's risky, but there it is.  

---

by: DTOzone @ Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 00:53:35 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

thanks for the quote (0.00 / 0)

I'm personally not a big fan of reconciliation, it's risky, but there it is.

I'm not a big fan either but I'll take it over a lieberman-nelson watered-down 60-vote bill

---

by: The Big Hurt @ Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 01:19:48 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

"Plan C?" (4.00 / 1)

The triggered co-op, not reconciliation, remains "Plan B.".

Only if every last one of the 50+ public option supporters allow it. If they agree to triggered co-ops then they're to blame, not the Conservadems. However, if some PO supporters play the same hardball game and say 'no cloture on triggers or co-ops,' we'll have a deadlock where no solution can get to 60 votes. Then it's on to "Plan C" and reconciliation.

Reconciliation will happen (and will only happen) when complete failure is the only other option.

Self-refuting Christine O'Donnell is proof monkeys are still evolving into humans

---

by: Steve in Sacto @ Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 23:49:37 PM UTC

right on (0.00 / 0)

I hope wyden joins/stays in the no cloture camp

---

by: The Big Hurt @ Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 00:33:17 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

the cbo score is NOT the cost (0.00 / 0)

this is, i think, the fourth time i've commented to correct a post here on this issue. if you think i'm wrong, would you please correct me? if i'm not wrong, could you please report correctly on cost of these bills?

unless the cbo has scored this bill differently from all the others this year, $849 billion will NOT be the cost - it will be the fed budget number, which can be wildly at odds with the actual cost of the bill. for actual cost to the country we need total national health expenditure numbers, and the only organization to report on them at all this year (at least that i'm aware of) is the cms - and they've only done the gross figures, not the detailed components (cost to households by income level, cost to employers, cost to state and local gov) which we should also have to understand cost implications, but that's another story.

anyway, take home message is: cbo score is not cost of bill to nation.

---

by: selise @ Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 00:21:23 AM UTC

I'm pretty sure everyone knows (0.00 / 0)

I'm pretty sure that everyone knows that number refers how much the bill will cost the federal government.

---

by: Chris Bowers @ Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 00:41:34 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

i wish... (0.00 / 0)

i know for a fact that's not true. and rather than embarrass anyone with examples, would you please just report it as fed spending and revenue projections (that's the most accurate way i can think of describing it, there may be better ones).

i'll post examples, if you insist, to support my contention that many people do NOT understand the difference. but i really rather not, for what i hope are obvious reasons.

thank you for the reply, it is much appreciated.

---

by: selise @ Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 13:14:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

10 months ago (0.00 / 0)

Dick Cheney was President and now you are on the verge of a historical expansion of the welfare state.

In historical terms, you don't get those kinds of reversals save in wars and revolutions.

And this was to be sacrificed to preserve the difference between Hyde and Stupak?

It's time for "Progressives" to get on board and ram this bill home.

Further victories will bring you closer to your America, defeat will cause it to disappear beyond a veil of Darkness.

With our shields or on them.

---

by: Paul Goodman @ Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 00:30:41 AM UTC

re: stupak (0.00 / 0)

And this was to be sacrificed to preserve the difference between Hyde and Stupak?

the stupak amendment is not something to be taken lightly. it would end coverage of abortion services:

The analysis from the GW School of Public Health confirms that there would be industry-wide impact to the effective denial of coverage for abortion services inside the exchanges. The key paragraph:

   In view of how the health benefit services industry operates and how insurance product design responds to broad regulatory intervention aimed at reshaping product content, we conclude that the treatment exclusions required under the Stupak/Pitts Amendment will have an industry-wide effect, eliminating coverage of medically indicated abortions over time for all women, not only those whose
   coverage is derived through a health insurance exchange. As a result, Stupak/Pitts can be expected to move the industry away from current norms of coverage for medically indicated abortions. In combination with the Hyde Amendment, Stupak/Pitts will impose a coverage exclusion for medically indicated abortions on such a widespread basis that the health benefit services industry can be expected to recalibrate product design downward across the board in order to accommodate the exclusion in selected markets.

This is an confirmation of what we've been saying all along - that the insurance industry would reach a tipping point, where it would no longer be financially viable for them to offer abortion coverage in their health plans. Too many segments of the population would be excluded from the coverage, and the tendency to reduce administrative costs by standardizing plans would kick in. Bart Stupak, Chris Matthews, Politifact and the rest may not want to own up to this, but the amendment would, over time, end coverage of reproductive choice services. Period.

http://news.firedoglake.com/20...

---

by: The Big Hurt @ Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 00:46:09 AM UTC

[ Parent ]