Good news Bernanke, bailouts, cliamte change, the public option, and more!

by: Chris Bowers

Mon Dec 07, 2009 at 17:00


Some good things are happening today on the policy and activism front.  Check it out:

  1. The PCCC has already delivered over 8,000 thank you notes to Senator Bernie Sanders for putting a hold on Ben Bernanke's renomination.  Now, Open Left is joining in the effort, and we are looking to help deliver 20,000 thank you notes to Bernie Sanders by the end of the week.  Send a thank you note by clicking here, and get Bernie's back.  When Senators take courageous stands, the grassroots need to get their backs.

  2. Obama to use $200 billion of TARP money to fund jobs bill.  The rumors over the weekend that President Obama was ready to fund the forthcoming jobs bill with TARP money are not only true, but they are better than expected.  Tomorrow, President Obama will propose using $200 billion of TARP money to fund the entire non-employment benefit, non-COBRA extension, portion of the jobs bill.

    To put this in perspective, almost all of the second $350 billion in TARP money will be used on stimulus and job creation relation legislation.  With $200 billion for a jobs bill, $75 billion for the homeowners bill, and $23.4 billion in the auto bailout, more than 80% of the second portion of the Wall Street bailout

    In terms of politics for 2010, it is hard to think of a better move politically than to redirect Wall Street bailout money toward a job creation bill.  Great stuff.

  3. With a very weak climate bill delayed at least until the Spring in the Senate, the EPA is just going to move forward and regulate carbon on its own.

    Some will argue that legislation would be preferable to EPA regulation because that regulation would just stop the next time a Republican administration is in the White House.  I would counter that pretending we are going to pass legislation that only kicks in 20+ years from now is equally foolish.  Just as different White Houses can change regulatory policies, different Congresses can change the law.

    And whatever arguments I have had about the public option lately, I have no qualms about killing any bill that strips EPA authority to regulate carbon.  Reducing our options to handle global climate change in exchange for a super-weak bill really is worse than nothing.  If we do that, then the Senate, with its 60-vote culture, average age of 62, and small-state corporate capture, will have total control over our climate change policy.  Giving that kind of power exclusively to the Senate is the surest way to kill the planet that I can think of.  Even if we suffer four, eight, or twelve year disruptions in the regulatory scheme, we would be signing our own death warrant if we took carbon regulatory power away from the EPA, and left the Senate in control.

  4. As first reported by Ezra Klein, Senate Democrats are now floating the idea of lowering the age of Medicare to 55 as an alternative to a new public option program.  This is an intriguing idea.  It is certainly better than a triggered co-op, and might even be better than the opt-out public option currently in the bill.  Also, as commenter Cachy notes, it actually nudges us down the path toward universality in much the same way that a public option would.

    We shouldn't get too excited about this last one, though.  We don't know how much support it has (Conrad has begun questioning it, for example), and they might not go all the way down to 55.  The rug could easily be pulled out from under us.

  5. No Stupak language in Senate bill.  The chances of defeating the Stupak amendment went up today.  Even Orin Hatch, the co-sponsor of Ben Nelson's Stupak amendment for the Senate, says there is no way it will pass that chamber.  As such, the final battle over Stupak will happen on the House side, during conference committee (if there is a conference committee).
Reasons to be hopeful!  Just wake up everyday, and keep fighting.
Chris Bowers :: Good news Bernanke, bailouts, cliamte change, the public option, and more!

Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Good news Bernanke, bailouts, cliamte change, the public option, and more! | 44 comments
Lowering Medicare age to 55 (0.00 / 0)
while really good in its own right, does nothing for the rest of us who are saddled with a mandate to buy insurance.

We should get Medicare lowered to 55 AND a Medicare buy-in as the "public option for the rest of us".

For the sake of argument... (4.00 / 2)
... wouldn't premiums go down if this high risk group of 55-65 year olds is covered by the government? (I don't know -- hence "for the sake of argument"), especially if the Franken amendment is included as well.

John McCain won't insure children
[ Parent ]
I suppose it would (0.00 / 0)
but the problem with not having a PO is that insurance companies will raise their rates with impunity.  Changing the amount that has to be spent on medical services might not affect that since even if the percentage that goes into profits goes down, the amount in dollars won't.

If Medicare is extended to 55, that's good and I support it but it won't do anything to constrain the insurance companies in the under-55 market.

[ Parent ]
PO (4.00 / 2)
Remember, the PO was only for the small percentage of the population using the exchange.  It would have had no effect on (most) anyone who has insurance now through an employer.

The reason to push for the PO was never due to it making this legislation better.  It was about building towards the future.

[ Parent ]
Right (0.00 / 0)
that doesn't contradict anything I said, right?

As to your point, do you think that at this point there's anything usable left in the PO for the future?  If so, what?

[ Parent ]
At this point? (4.00 / 1)
Yikes, I don't even know what "this point" is at the moment.  I like the Medicare buy-in plan.  But other than that, it seems like the PO really is truly dead at this point.  I know it keeps springing back to life, but I think it really has gone away now.

Previously I thought we would get something called the "Public Option" just to appease us, but now I think we won't get anything called the "Public Option" just to prove who's got the power.

However, that might give us an opening for something potentially even better, like the Medicare buy-in.  I'll believe it when I see it, though.

[ Parent ]
Monopolistic Pricing (0.00 / 0)
If the insurance market exhibited competitive behavior then the price of the services would be roughly equal the cost borne by the business and profits would be driven towards zero.  The insurance industry is not competitive.  Instead they are monopolistic and it is very unlikely that they will decide to decrease their prices simply because their costs went down.  
[ Parent ]
Medicare at 55 (0.00 / 0)
I certainly welcome expanding Medicare access.  I worry, however, about looming cuts to the program that will ensure that even fewer health practitioners accept it.  

Is cutting of private insurer's subsidies to sell private policies still on the table?

I live in a true blue state--I will have a choice in November

Buy-in....You could buy in at 55 (4.00 / 2)
which would bring needed revenue into Medicare. It's not the same as the Medicare you automatically can be enrolled in at 65. So it would be really cost effective on several levels:

1. Medicare would have premiums for 55-65 above what is charged 65+ people. More revenue coming in.

2. Medicare would have a larger group of healthy people (55-65) who wouldn't need as much care, especially the very expensive end of life care of the older group, so there would be fewer outlays for this age group.

3. Private insurance for those mandated could be less expensive because the oldest group would have the option of choosing Medicare. So premiums go down for the younger, healthier people.

4. Thus less government spending required for subsidies for the younger groups who have incomes that qualify (up to either 400 (House) of 300 (Senate?) % of poverty line.

[ Parent ]
Regulatory framework, once it's established (0.00 / 0)
can be hard to undo, also (for example, if a big power company complies with a stricter standard, they'll balk at their competitors getting away with less in the future).  The EPA move is great news!

John McCain won't insure children
I agree about stripping EPA authority (4.00 / 2)
It would be the worst thing we can do. All the versions of the Climate bill I heard about had a lot of money for clean coal and energy security stuff that does nothing to reduce carbon. Carbon reduction through conservation should be our number one goal. Conservation also helps forward other progressive goals, like better public transportation, local sourcing of food and manufactured goods, and a host of other things that improve the world (like maybe a few less big-box stores.)

Alternatives to carbon fuels all involve hard technical problems that will take decades to work though. Conservation give immediate results. It seems to me that an established government agency like the EPA should be able to drive the sort of regulatory changes that are needed to reduce carbon and encourage conservation.

ec=-8.50 soc=-8.41   (3,967 Watts)

sidenote? (0.00 / 0)
Even with the medicare change, I would not be in favor of the mandates (4.00 / 3)
essentially cost control for all or no mandates. The medicare bill is one of those examples of if you really wanted to negotiate- you would start at age 45 just to get to 55 rather than accepting 55. But, again, that's negotiation.  It is like Franken proposing 90 percent so that we may end up with 85 percent on his amendment. He is is turning out to be one of the better people from last years class of new members to the Congress.
memory lapses via FDL (0.00 / 0)
dday on Medicare proposal (0.00 / 0)
The Medicare Buy-In Debate - And Why We Shouldn't Be Having It (Yet)

The money saved from these public coverage expansions could be plowed into higher subsidies, which are needed under the Senate bill. But that's all anyone age 27-55 would get out of this - they would be left basically with a forced mandate to buy private insurance.

Smells like divide and conquer to me.

Yup, without the po, the mandate has to go. (4.00 / 2)
Dems really can't force anybody to sign up for a horrible private plan. This would be hugely unpopular. Just another big handout for the insurers. No way!
[ Parent ]
No mandate means no pre-existing conditions changes (4.00 / 1)
They go hand in hand. Otherwise people will wait until they need insurance to buy it, since it must be offered and they can't be turned down.

Self-refuting Christine O'Donnell is proof monkeys are still evolving into humans
[ Parent ]
Really, because currently... (4.00 / 2)
it looks like we'll have the mandate, with no P.O. Therefore  Insurance companies can simply price all those with pre-existing conditions out of the market, or raise premiums on them until they can't afford coverage.
[ Parent ]
Not true (4.00 / 1)
They can't charge more for pre-existing conditions, either.
[ Parent ]
I looked for the provision, (0.00 / 0)
and couldn't find it. I found caps on deductibles, and "out of pocket" costs, but nothing about premiums. If you have a relevant link, I'd be interested in reading it.
[ Parent ]
And that would be bad? (0.00 / 0)
I don't see a negative point in people screwing the insurers, for a change...
[ Parent ]
Nice, but unfortunately (0.00 / 0)
the insurers would simply pass on the screwage to those who are insured...
[ Parent ]
Imho, prolly not. They always raise the price to the maximum... (4.00 / 1)
..the market will pay. So, a change in the cost structure will more likely result in a change of their profit share, not necessarily in them raising or lowering the premiums. Come on, how shall they raise the price of insurance, if people simply don't have the money to pay that?

Look at Athaena, or what's their name. Their plan of raising the premiums will likely result in several hundred thousand customers cancelling their insurance. Now, do you think the company would do that if they would still make profits from those customers? No way! Imho it's a sure sign they don't earn anything on those "entry level" plans and so reorient their product towards more afluent customers. And they'll squeeze them out of everything the customers are willing and able to pay, no matter how high the costs are. Don't forget, they have a monopoly in many states, so it's their way or the highway! And remember, capitalism isn't about calculating costs + x%, but about MAXIMIZING profits.

[ Parent ]
So why wouldn't they raise rates? (4.00 / 1)
Come on, how shall they raise the price of insurance, if people simply don't have the money to pay that?

They'll simply let the people who can't afford insurance go elsewhere.  Since "elsewhere" will charge the same amount, there being collusion and all, they won't be able to afford anything.  Too bad.  Besides, the poorest customers are the worst customers anyway.

Or, they'll just raise rates and collect more in government subsidies.

Obviously, there's a point at which raising rates any further will lead to loss of business, but given how valuable insurance is and how little competition there is that point can be stretched very high.  If government is paying for people's private insurance, even better - companies could theoretically jack up rates however they like and just collect free government money.

Assuming there's no PO, of course.

[ Parent ]
Yup. As I said, they'll always see that premiums max out. (0.00 / 0)
As long as a profit can be achieved, the price of a product is determined by the market situation. Costs only influence the amount of profits. So, raising costs don't have to result in rasing prices.

And I'm afraid, too, that much of the subsidies will be "converted" into additional profits for the insurers. What do the Dem lawmakers expect when their bill does nothing to increase competition after dropping the po?

[ Parent ]
They'd go out of business (4.00 / 1)
There's no way to structure insurance -- even a true non-profit plan -- if the only people enrolled are people taking benefits payouts. Where is the payout money going to come from?

Self-refuting Christine O'Donnell is proof monkeys are still evolving into humans
[ Parent ]
Uh, Steve, if that would be true, all insurers would be out of business. (0.00 / 0)
After all, that's how it is today. Nobody is forced to be insured now, so the motivation to gamble and take a risk stays the same. But the reasonable, risk averse majority will always want to have insurance.

Agreed, the halthcar bill prolly would stop insurers from discriminating against "bad risk" customers, but that would be offset by all the money the government injects into the system. And without a po, in many states, where customers don't have a choice, companies like Aetna would see the subsidies as a chance to raise premiums and further increase profits. Medicare for the risky 55+ group would only play into their hands, too, I'm afraid.

Those crooks going out of business? Imho that's a drama that won't be played in your theatre, Steve...

[ Parent ]
Sorry, but you're wrong (0.00 / 0)
Right now, if you want to be sure you have coverage for your potential cancer treatments you must pay for insurance, whether you get cancer or not. Lots of people paying in, only a small percentage actually getting cancer payouts. Don't buy insurance and get cancer? Sorry, you're SOL...

However, if you remove the insurance company's right to deny policies and force them to provide coverage for pre-existing conditions, then people will wait until they actually get cancer to apply for coverage, since by law they cannot be denied and their cancer treatments must covered. Only a few people paying in, everyone getting cancer treatment payouts. An impossible organizational model -- for either business or government.

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

[ Parent ]
Cancer? At 25? It's the young pros who go without insurance! (0.00 / 0)
Why should they worry about cancer, or other serious stuff? They're in the 20s, they never have money to waste, and they are more lightheaded than the older generation. And they believe they can always get insurance at 35 or so. From what I read in the media, they are the most likely group to go without coverage, and that won't change. Ain't that correct?
[ Parent ]
Not correct (0.00 / 0)
Eliminate the pre-existing condition exclusion and everyone, in every age group, can (and will) avoid buying insurance until they need it. There's no risk at all, for anyone, because if they get cancer they have to be covered.

Right now, people in their 20's "take the risk" if they don't buy insurance. Sure, cancer is a long-shot, but some cancers have their highest incidence in young people (e.g. testicular cancer), so the risk isn't zero. And if they get cancer without having insurance they're SOL.

Let me put it as a simple question: If you were assured that whenever you actually needed health insurance (i.e. had significant, expensive health issues) you could get it and have your problems covered, why would you pay for it before you need it? Why would anybody do that?

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

[ Parent ]
I think this FDL piece missed something big (4.00 / 1)
By contrast, there's an argument that Medicare buy-ins could be pushed downward, Medicaid and age limits for staying as a dependent on plans pushed upward, until they met in the middle, and basically everyone was covered. As this argument goes, the architecture still exists, just in a different form.

I'm not sure I agree. But one thing is clear - nobody has agreed to anything. There's no use debating the wisdom of this measure until someone like Joe Lieberman or Olympia Snowe comes out and says they'd vote for a bill with this in it. On the opt-out, we saw all this activist attention paid to it, without any ConservaDem agreeing to it, making it useless.

I happen to think that the argument described above makes a lot of sense.  The path to Medicare for All through an expansion of Medicare is much clearer than one through a non-Medicare public option, which seems to me more like a backdoor path to Medicare for All.

Assuming we all agree that an expansion of Medicare instead of a public option is an equally, if not greater, positive step forward, then I don't see why we need a ConservaDem to give the green light in order to get behind it.  If liberals and progressives successfully rallied around a Medicare expansion and/or buy-in, the ConservaDems will have to do one of two things:

1. Support the Medicare solution, either by being completely ignorant as to how Medicare is "big government" or by acknowledging the political perils of attacking Medicare.

2. Oppose the Medicare solution and fall back on the public option as a "compromise". (To keep them from falling all the way back to triggers/co-ops/whatever BS/nothing, offer carrots (e.g. Stupak, pork) and/or sticks (e.g. loss of committee chairmanships, primary challenge support, no pork).

Seems to me that either way, we win.

[ Parent ]
Fight Lieberman and Medicare Buy-in Fake (4.00 / 5)
We progressives need to prevent Lieberman from forcing us to accept the Medicare buy-in "compromise" instead of a strong public option.  

Joementum, I'm talking to you!  Do this and I and every other progressive will hate you forever and work for your defeat!!!!!

--------

is he gone, now?

sure?

got to make sure he thinks this plan would stick-it-to-liberal.

listen, this "compromise" would potentially be better than what we wanted

better than even the best medicare +5% plan that didn't even pass the house.

that plan would only cover a small percentage of people who are on the exchange

this might cover even more people

the only real reason for the public option as seen in any bill was the potential to expand it

this is real medicare, really expanded

but shhhh...  don't let lieberman know...

-----

I HATE YOU LIEBERMAN!!!  DON'T YOU DARE FORCE THIS ON US!!!!!!!

What about all the people under 55? (0.00 / 0)
They will still be forced to by junk insurance policies from companies who will still deny them care in order to make a profit.

This is a divide and conquer tactic, just like the opt-out.

[ Parent ]
Exchange (4.00 / 1)
The "Strong Public Option" progressives were fighting for was only available to those participating the the health insurance exchanges, which was a very small percentage of the population.  In general, if you have insurance now you could not get the PO later with any of the bills.

So we were already dealing with a very small percentage of the population.  Medicare buy-in is much better than the "strong public option" tied to Medicare rates.  This is the real thing.  Once a 55 year old can buy into Medicare, 45 year olds will wonder why they cannot.  It is a great path for expansion.

The one thing policy wonk "realists" and single payer "purists" agreed upon was none of the debated public options actually did much of anything in the short term.  The debate was never about short term policy, but about the shape of health care policy and the ability to grow something better going forward.

A lot of people convinced themselves that the public option made a real difference on day one, but that was never actually true, at least from a technical point of view.  Morally, of course, not being forced to buy an evil corporation's product is a pretty big deal.  So I'll give you the moral hazard arguement, but that's about it.

[ Parent ]
"Just wake up everyday, and keep fighting." (0.00 / 0)
Sleepless in Philadelphia, Chris?
"Well, I'm gonna get out of bed every morning... breath in and out all day long. Then, after a while I won't have to remind myself to get out of bed every morning and breath in and out... and, then after a while, I won't have to think about how I had it great and perfect for a while."
Applause! (0.00 / 0)

Thanks Chris (4.00 / 2)
I usually only post when there's something I disagree with, but you're the main reason I read this site.
Yep, I wouldn't want to confine myself to one main reason, but Chris' (0.00 / 0)
passion and unwavering conviction are a hell of inspiration, that's fer damn sure.
[ Parent ]
Medicare premium's stark contast with private insurance (4.00 / 5)
One thing not being mentioned much is that a Medicare buy-in will put a real world price on Medicare insurance at Medicare rates. It should be lower cost than the private insurance people just slightly younger will be paying. That should exert political pressure to expand access, as people see in real world dollars and cents that Medicare is less expensive. And it should continue every step down the age scale.

Look at it this way -- what are the politics of this going to look like when people 55-60 are paying less for health care than people 50-54. And on down the age scale if/when they lower the age limit.  There should be a real movement behind Medicare for all.

...Adding, keep in mind, nobody really sees a true Medicare premium in traditional Medicare, so people aren't really aware how much could be saved. I think people will be pleasantly shocked when the difference comes into relief. I could very well change future health care debates in our favor.

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

All of this sounds excellent, except that it ignores that largecuts to Medicare and Medicaid (0.00 / 0)
are integral to the plan. I'm not sure why progressives are, widely at least, willing to ignore this basic fact. Health care in rural areas will take a serious, serious beating, especially in area like geriatrics, which, y'know, kinda, sorta matter with an aging baby boomer population. If you can't get a doctor to treat you, then an awful lot of these points become moot.
[ Parent ]
I thought the cuts were in waste and overpayments to Medicare Advantage (0.00 / 0)
not in, you know, actual services...

or have the ringleaders at the Obama administration fooled us again?

[ Parent ]
don't look now (0.00 / 0)
but in 19 days the average age of Senators will be 63, not 62. Merry Christmas!
Thanks. (0.00 / 0)
I needed this.

Montani semper liberi
Obama stands by Bernanke. (0.00 / 0)
Good news Bernanke, bailouts, cliamte change, the public option, and more! | 44 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox