91 Responses
Leave a Reply
Name (required)
Mail (will not be published) (required)
Website
Please email us at profiles@whorunsgov.com to bring to our attention any content or conduct that you believe violates our Discussion and Submission Policy.
The Associated Press and New York Times are reporting tonight that the 10 senators tapped to negotiate an alternative to or compromise on the Senate health reform bill’s public option have dropped the idea of a government-run health insurance plan altogether. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told reporters that the group is sending proposals to the Congressional Budget Office to determine their fiscal impact. (The 10 senators – five centrists and five liberals – are reportedly considering an expansion of Medicare as part of their negotiations.)
But the public option is not Reid’s only headache.
- Click here to read the full article
WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama on Wednesday praised a Senate health care compromise that would jettison a full-blown government insurance plan in favor of expanding Medicare and creating new private plans modeled on the federal employee program.
"The Senate made critical progress last night with a creative framework that I believe will pave the way for final passage and a historic achievement on behalf of the American people," Obama said at an event near the White House to announce spending for community health centers and other initiatives.
"I support this effort, especially since it's aimed at increasing choice and competition and lowering costs," the president said. He spoke with the Senate at a critical juncture in the second week of debate on a sweeping health overhaul bill. Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., is hoping that the deal announced Tuesday night can hold together a fragile 60-vote coalition and clear the way for passage of the legislation before Christmas.
There were some positive signs Wednesday. A much-courted moderate — Connecticut independent Sen. Joe Lieberman — signaled he might be able to live with the compromise, and liberal Democrats also spoke out in favor of the idea.
"I am encouraged by the progress toward a consensus," Lieberman said in a statement that also underscored his opposition to any new government insurance plan that would compete with private carriers.
Meanwhile, former presidential candidate and one-time Vermont Gov. Howard Dean said the Medicare option for people age 55 to 64 was "a positive step forward."
Dean, a physician, has been one of the most vocal supporters of the idea that the government should get into the health insurance market. But as it became increasingly clear in recent weeks that a new government insurance plan did not command the necessary votes in the Senate, Dean contacted Reid and Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., to offer the Medicare expansion as a way forward.
"Using Medicare makes more sense than reinventing more bureaucracy," Dean said Wednesday on CBS' "The Early Show."
Rep. Anthony Weiner, a vocal New York liberal who has strongly supported a public insurance option, issued a statement calling the Medicare expansion "one idea I like a lot."
However, as the Senate continued to debate, the American Hospital Association and the American Medical Association — both groups that have been generally supportive of Congress' health overhaul efforts thus far — raised red flags. Both groups are concerned about adding more patients to Medicare, because the program pays providers significantly lower rates than private insurers do.
"The AMA has long-standing policy opposing the expansion of Medicare given the fiscal projections for the future," said the group's president, Dr. James Rohack. "We believe a health insurance exchange without an expansion of Medicare will provide more affordable choices and better access to care for Americans ages 55-64."
A powerful small business group also swung into opposition. The National Federation of Independent Business, which was instrumental in defeating then-President Bill Clinton's health care bill in the 1990s, said the Democratic bill would raise costs and make it harder to create jobs.
Nonetheless Reid, D-Nev., was upbeat.
"We've overcome a real problem that we had," Reid said in announcing what he called a "broad agreement" Tuesday night.
Officials said it included nonprofit national health plans administered by the Office of Personnel Management, which runs the popular federal employees' health plan, as well as the idea of opening Medicare to uninsured Americans beginning at age 55, effective in 2011.
Greater government involvement could kick in if private insurance companies declined to participate in the nationwide plan. If they didn't, one possibility was for the personnel office to set up a government-run plan, either national in scope or on a state-by-state basis.
Reid planned to describe the plan in greater detail after getting a cost analysis from the Congressional Budget Office. The compromise was negotiated over the past days by five moderate and five liberal Democrats.
The Senate's 10-year, nearly $1 trillion legislation would dramatically remake the U.S. health care system and extend coverage to millions of the uninsured, with a new requirement for nearly everyone to purchase insurance. New purchasing marketplaces called exchanges would make it easier for small businesses and people without government or employer coverage to shop for health insurance, and unpopular insurance company practices such as denying coverage to people with pre-existing medical conditions would be banned.
The deal reached Tuesday would put even more requirements on insurers by requiring that 90 percent of premium dollars be spent on medical benefits, as opposed to administrative costs, officials said. The officials who described the details of the closed-door negotiations did so on condition of anonymity, saying they were not authorized to discuss them publicly.
More challenges lie ahead. On Wednesday, senators began debating an amendment by Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., to legalize the importation of prescription drugs from Canada and several other countries as a way of holding down consumer costs. The idea enjoys widespread support but is opposed by the pharmaceutical industry, which has worked closely with the administration on health care and has spent millions of dollars on television advertisements in support of legislation.
The Food and Drug Administration issued a letter saying it would be "logistically challenging" to assure the safety of imported drugs, raising concerns without stating outright opposition.
As the Senate works towards compromise with Blue Dogs, while keeping in mind the House reconciliation process, a bill that continues to improve is evolving acceptably:
"Senators are making great progress and we're pleased that they're working together to find common ground toward options that increase choice and competition," said White House spokesman Reid Cherlin.I have always hinted that the best 'competitive option should mirror, if not actually be, the same plan that Fed Employees participate in. This makes it rather difficult for opponents to cackle about it as then they would be questioning the current Federal Employee Benefit system.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Tuesday that the Democrats had reached a "broad agreement" on the public option portion of the bill, but at least one liberal senator who took part in the negotiations wasn't so sure.
"It goes without saying it's been kind of a long journey," Reid said. "Tonight we've overcome a real problem that we had. I think it's fair to say the debate at this stage has been portrayed as a very divisive one."
Without revealing any details, Reid said the negotiating senators had reached "a broad agreement" that "moves this bill way down the road."
Two Democratic sources said the deal includes a proposal to replace the public option by creating a not-for-profit private insurance option overseen by the federal Office of Personnel Management, much like the current health plan for federal workers, and another allowing people 55 or older to buy into Medicare coverage that currently is available to those 65 or older.
Health Care lobbyist, industry insiders, and greedy politicians will have to take a back seat to common sense reform. This bill is shaping up to be more in line with what I had hoped, a competitive option but not necessarily a government run one, along with checks and balances necessary to ensure coverage for as many folks as possbile. It is our duty!
Flash
65 Responses
Tena |
December 7th, 2009 at 02:12 pm
Any guesses?
mike from Arlington |
December 7th, 2009 at 02:14 pm
Maybe it’s that reform =
(R) Revolutionary
(E) Evil
(F) Fascist
(O) Oligarchy
(R) Racial
(M) Marxist
sgfk |
December 7th, 2009 at 02:14 pm
I am certain it’s going to be the healthcare apocalypse. It’s a big news day for lots of reasons and Glenn needs attention. So here we go.
Greg Sargent |
December 7th, 2009 at 02:14 pm
Not a clue, Tena. The only question is whether I’ll be able to hold out until 5 PM without dropping dead from curiosity…
lmsinca |
December 7th, 2009 at 02:17 pm
I can’t wait………..
In other news:
The Huffington Post reports that Senate Democrats are talking about lowering the eligibility age for Medicare from 65 to 55 in an attempt to satisfy progressives.
rukidding |
December 7th, 2009 at 02:18 pm
I hate to state the obvious but Glen Beck along with Rush Limbaugh are the greatest examples of hubris in our nation today and I don’t believe I’m being hyperbolic when I say that.
A quick Google search revealed Beck’s average audience on a good day to be roughly 3 million people or approximately 1% of our nation. Why do we really care about Beck. His demographics are ancient and we saw how effective he and Faux propaganda were in the 08 Presidential Election.
Imsinca wants a boycott of Palin coverage…can we add Beck and Limbaugh to the embargo?
djshay |
December 7th, 2009 at 02:19 pm
That the Whitehouse was responsible for his poor ticket sales of his craptastic presentation of his Christmas book because of his relentless truth telling on HCR?
lmsinca |
December 7th, 2009 at 02:20 pm
Sam Stein gets an awful lot of breaking news.
“The proposal would lower the age of eligibility for Medicare from 65 to 55, though an age limit of 60 has also been suggested. Crucial details — such as the timing of the implementation of such a reform — were not provided due to the sensitivity and ongoing nature of the deliberations. A high-ranking Democratic source off the Hill confirmed that such discussions are taking place.”
lmsinca |
December 7th, 2009 at 02:21 pm
ruk
That totally works for me, they have nothing to offer IMHO.
Tena |
December 7th, 2009 at 02:24 pm
“The only question is whether I’ll be able to hold out until 5 PM without dropping dead from curiosity…”
LOL
Please do try – I do have a bit of curiosity myself.
lfo |
December 7th, 2009 at 02:24 pm
guys if you want real breaking news plus detailed analysis read Ezra Klein, he had this news since earlier.
Greg–love your snark about not droping from curiosity. Call me naive but I am sure the WH is not quaking in their boots about this.
Mike–LOL.
lmsinca |
December 7th, 2009 at 02:25 pm
And here’s the RNC’s snazzy new ad called the Pelosi-Reid Health Care Maze.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yh3gIvLNnJ8
Greg Sargent |
December 7th, 2009 at 02:34 pm
lfo — I don’t sense a lot of panic emanating from the white house about this.
News Reference |
December 7th, 2009 at 02:34 pm
Sam Stein is awesome:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/the-news/reporting/sam-stein
Tena |
December 7th, 2009 at 02:34 pm
“The Huffington Post reports that Senate Democrats are talking about lowering the eligibility age for Medicare from 65 to 55 in an attempt to satisfy progressives.”
O god that would be loverly. And it would put so much more pressure on governors and those who aspire to be governors in red states to not opt out, I think.
Liam |
December 7th, 2009 at 02:36 pm
The Only Question That I Have:
Why is Plumline giving broader publicity to Glenn Beck’s vague program tease?
News Reference |
December 7th, 2009 at 02:39 pm
Glenn Beck is crazy (or at least ‘crazy like a fox’)
http://mediamatters.org/search/tag/glenn_beck
Liam |
December 7th, 2009 at 02:42 pm
I think I have scooped Beck.
The Health Care Reform Bills, in the Senate and House, will not cover desperately needed medical care for millions of people who suffer from the heartbreak of TBS.
TBS(Tea Bagger Syndrome)
Tena |
December 7th, 2009 at 02:48 pm
I think the only cure for that is reincarnation to something with a fully functioning brain.
Liam |
December 7th, 2009 at 02:54 pm
All I have to say is:
Holding A Teabaggers’ Convention Will Require A Lot Of Balls.
Greg Sargent |
December 7th, 2009 at 02:55 pm
fyi all, some folks think it will involve Kevin Jennings.
sbj |
December 7th, 2009 at 02:57 pm
@lmsinca: Those Medicare eligibility changes are being discussed with progressives because the Senate is about to drop the PO…
Tena |
December 7th, 2009 at 02:58 pm
greg – I bet you’re right – the logical target.
Oy gevalt!
Tena |
December 7th, 2009 at 02:58 pm
Well lowering the age of Medicare IS a public option, sbj.
BBQ |
December 7th, 2009 at 02:59 pm
Glenn Beck does this every other day to boost ratings.
“Tune in tonight for BIG HUGE BREAKING NEWS!”
Yawn.
BBQ |
December 7th, 2009 at 03:01 pm
And I second Liam’s comment:
“Why is Plumline giving broader publicity to Glenn Beck’s vague program tease?”
Liam |
December 7th, 2009 at 03:02 pm
BBQ,
That is why I asked why is Plumline giving broader coverage to Beck’s vague program tease. Why help him draw attention to his show?
OT.
A picture is worth a thousand words:
http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/v/3/3/Obama-Afghanistan-Surge.jpg
Tena |
December 7th, 2009 at 03:03 pm
Well excuse me everyone, if Beck is so irrelevant, how come he was able to get Van Jones kicked out? And doesn’t that make him a little relevant?
News Reference |
December 7th, 2009 at 03:06 pm
Greg, please consider asking the bosses to make a bookmark/favorite image (they are called: FAVICON.ICO) so that people who bookmark The Plum Line can easily pick it out by the image.
I vote for a PLUM image as a bookmark/favorite/icon.
A tiny purple plum would be a perfect bookmark image
Seconds?
lfo |
December 7th, 2009 at 03:06 pm
well Beck has been trying to go after all sorts of people in the admin and has not been able to claim any more scalps. this may be his new tack since he was trying to get Jarrett out for months now.
TonyB |
December 7th, 2009 at 03:07 pm
Well excuse me everyone, if Beck is so irrelevant, how come he was able to get Van Jones kicked out?
Beltway media amplification effect.
lmsinca |
December 7th, 2009 at 03:08 pm
Yes sbj, I can read and linked the Personnel Management compromise on Friday or Saturday, so I’ve been watching it. I also said this morning that just because Ezra and Cohn thought it seemed like a decent compromise, I don’t agree. I cannon however, from my lowly keyboard, influence the Dems to my way of thinking.
lmsinca |
December 7th, 2009 at 03:10 pm
cannon=cannot
sbj |
December 7th, 2009 at 03:11 pm
@lmsinca: No insult intended.
Tena |
December 7th, 2009 at 03:11 pm
He also got the head of the NEA kicked out.
MB |
December 7th, 2009 at 03:11 pm
I bet it is about Rick Warren – the renowned christianist and admirer of Hitler, Lenin, and Mao. Here is Rick Warren in April 2005:
——————
“In 1939, in a stadium much like this, in Munich Germany, they packed it out with young men and women in brown shirts, for a fanatical man standing behind a podium named Adolf Hitler, the personification of evil. And in that stadium, those in brown shirts formed with their bodies a sign that said, in the whole stadium, “Hitler, we are yours.”And they nearly took the world.
Lenin once said, “give me 100 committed, totally committed men and I’ll change the world.” And, he nearly did.
A few years ago, they took the sayings of Chairman Mao, in China, put them in a little red book, and a group of young people committed them to memory and put it in their minds and they took that nation, the largest nation in the world by storm because they committed to memory the sayings of the Chairman Mao.
When I hear those kinds of stories, I think ‘what would happen if American Christians, if world Christians, if just the Christians in this stadium, followers of Christ, would say ‘Jesus, we are yours’ ?
What kind of spiritual awakening would we have?”
Follow more at http://www.talk2action.org/story/2009/1/15/183634/970
—————Glenn will ask White house why did they invite this Hitler admirer for inauguration prayers.. Yeah, right.
News Reference |
December 7th, 2009 at 03:13 pm
Real news:
Obama administration formally declares danger of carbon emissions.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/07/AR2009120701645.html
Liam |
December 7th, 2009 at 03:16 pm
Tena,
No one said what you are claiming they said. If he is important to you, then by all means watch him.
What is being asked is why is Plumline providing him with free publicity to promote his upcoming show, without any news about what the hell the show will be about.
The last time I fell for a tease; it was: tune in for earth shattering video tonight.
I thought it was going to be about a devastating meteor threat, or the Swiss Particle Accelerator going haywire;
Instead it turned out to be video of Jennifer Lopez falling on her Arse, and yes of course that impact did nearly shatter the damn planet, but still…….
Greg Sargent |
December 7th, 2009 at 03:17 pm
News Reference: In fact, we have kicked around the idea of a purple plum hanging at the end of a plumb line.
lmsinca |
December 7th, 2009 at 03:17 pm
Doesn’t matter sbj, I’m just tired of you pointing out the shortcomings of a bill you don’t support anyway, so I quit debating it with you. I know too many people, my own daughter included, who can’t get health insurance, so I’m beyond caring about your little digs.
News Reference |
December 7th, 2009 at 03:17 pm
Really, really serious news:-!
“The Obama administration formally declared Monday that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions pose a danger to the public’s health and welfare, a move that lays the groundwork for an economy-wide carbon cap even if Congress fails to enact climate legislation.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/07/AR2009120701645.html
Now that’s change I can believe in!
Tena |
December 7th, 2009 at 03:20 pm
“No one said what you are claiming they said.”
What is it I’m claiming someone said, Liam? I’m not challenging anyone. That means you too.
I just ask if the fact that he has gotten two resignations didn’t make this somewhat relevant, but I’m not trying to get up your grill with this.
so don’t get defensive; if I’m misreading you, I apologize in advance.
Liam |
December 7th, 2009 at 03:23 pm
Damn Democrats, they just will not let the Republicans have any fun.
First they try to prevent Republicans from letting millions die from lack of health care coverage,
and now they are not even going to let the Republicans use toxic emissions to get rid of all those people.
This is so unfair to Republicans. The only place that Democrats have left them to go make a killing is on Wall St.
lmsinca |
December 7th, 2009 at 03:23 pm
From New Ref’s link. I like what we’re hearing, now let’s get something done.
“The endangerment finding stems from a 2007 Supreme Court decision in which the court ordered the EPA to determine whether greenhouse gases qualify as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act. It could trigger a series of federal regulations affecting polluters, from vehicles to coal-fired power plants.”
sbj |
December 7th, 2009 at 03:23 pm
@lmsinca: “I know too many people, my own daughter included, who can’t get health insurance.”
You don’t have to discuss anything with me, but please understand that a vast majority – Repubs and Dems alike – is in favor of insurance being made available, with subsidies, to even those with pre-existing conditions. As am I. (You don’t need the PO for that and if your daughter is under 55 then I don’t see how the Medicare change helps her.) If we could get rid of some of the **** in these bills then this reasonable sort of stuff could pass with bipartisan support. It’s what I have said all along and why folks like Lieberman and some Repubs have asked that we pursue an incremental approach.
Liam |
December 7th, 2009 at 03:25 pm
Tena,
Why not focus on the key question. Why is a vague Beck show promo worth a special thread of it’s own, even though Greg admits that he has no idea what the show is going to be about.
Liam |
December 7th, 2009 at 03:26 pm
SBJ The Faux Libertarian Is seeking Federal Subsidies.
Good One.
Thank you for confirming that you are just A Fibertarian.
lmsinca |
December 7th, 2009 at 03:27 pm
From the Health Care Wire:
“Sens. Harry Reid, Max Baucus and Chris Dodd are meeting with senior White House officials right now off the Senate floor.”
Liam |
December 7th, 2009 at 03:30 pm
Reality Check,
The Republican have never tried to pass any sort of Health Reform bill, when they were in charge, from Reagan through Bush2.
So SBJ, The Faux Libertarian can take all his rubbish about what “The Republicans have proposed” and shove it where the sun don’t shine.
Tena |
December 7th, 2009 at 03:32 pm
Liam – you already asked Greg. I just have my own opinion.
Will you let me have my own view of this please?
Jebus, dude, I don’t mean for my very existence to be a challenge to you personally.
Tell you what – I’m going to bounce for a bit
lmsinca |
December 7th, 2009 at 03:33 pm
The only thing that could pass with bi-partisan support would be tax cuts and de-regulation, thanks but no thanks. And I don’t really care what they do with Medicare, I was just reporting the news. Since I’m not 85, my daughter is well below 55.
It’s pretty clear, reading between the lines, that the PO is mostly gone, so you’re the one who should be happy now. Hence why would I keep arguing with you about it, looks like you’ll get those subsidies, mandates, and insurance reform I guess you wanted.
News Reference |
December 7th, 2009 at 03:34 pm
“a purple plum hanging at the end of a plumb line”
Good solid branding.
I can even picture the line just above the “WhoRunsGov” logo at the top with a purple plum hanging just to the right of the Capital Building.
And the purple is perfect because it’s suggestive of bi-partisanship (not a red plum or a blue plumb, a purple plum). (LOL:)
Though finding/creating a good plum image that scales down to the 16×16 pixels of a FAVICON.ICO bookmark/favorites image might be a little tricky.
lmsinca |
December 7th, 2009 at 03:35 pm
Last was for sbj
Talk to y’all later.
Liam |
December 7th, 2009 at 03:41 pm
# Tena | December 7th, 2009 at 03:03 pm
Well excuse me everyone, if Beck is so irrelevant, how come he was able to get Van Jones kicked out? And doesn’t that make him a little relevant?
……………………Then don’t ask the bloody question, if you do not want a response. You clearly posed it as a question.
Liam |
December 7th, 2009 at 03:43 pm
Greg Sargent | December 7th, 2009 at 03:17 pm
News Reference: In fact, we have kicked around the idea of a purple plum hanging at the end of a plumb line.
………………..
Greg,
How did you get a hold of Tiger’s Sext message?
lfo |
December 7th, 2009 at 03:43 pm
Tena–I think Beck is important because he is a voice for a certain form of opposition, even if he himself is in it for the money (see his ooks, movies, shows, etc). But I tend to think he believes he has real effect beyond the one he has, delusions of being more important than he is.
Liam |
December 7th, 2009 at 03:48 pm
Politico may have gotten their seat on The Pulitzer panel,
But Glenn Beck is a shoo in for to win a Golden GobShite Award.
News Reference |
December 7th, 2009 at 03:51 pm
Glenn Beck is the Republican Party’s current leader. He’s largely displaced Republican Leader Limbaugh.
Beck says “jump” and Republican politicians say “how high”?
Beck is helping push the already extreme corporatism of the Republican Party even farther into right wing crazy-land.
I don’t believe that ignoring it makes it better, that hasn’t worked for 30 years. Ignoring it just means it festers and grows in the darkness.
Sunlight ‘disinfectant’ is what the festering right wing extremist movement needs.
Focusing on the insanity of right wing puppetmaster Glenn Beck is important, even more important: Focusing on right wing puppetmaster Rupert Murdoch and his support for violent extremists like Glenn Beck.
Never forget: Glenn Beck fantasizes about murdering people on his shows. Even after Beck’s fantasizing about murdering people Time-Warner-CNN hired him.
That Murdoch’s FOX Republican Propaganda Channel now showcases right wing murder-fantasist Glenn Beck perfectly illustrates not just how crazy the right wing has become, it also illustrates how crazy right wing the FOX Republican Propaganda Channel has become.
Greg Sargent |
December 7th, 2009 at 03:54 pm
Check this out: GOP aide predicts public option’s “Waterloo”:
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/health-care/will-senate-bill-be-public-options-waterloo/
Scott C. |
December 7th, 2009 at 04:08 pm
Greg:
The only question is whether I’ll be able to hold out until 5 PM without dropping dead from curiosity…
If you find it so uninteresting, why in the world would you bring it to everyone’s attention?
Liam |
December 7th, 2009 at 04:20 pm
The Comments Parasite Has Returned. Time to call the exterminator once more.
Scott C. |
December 7th, 2009 at 04:54 pm
Still on Social Security and Medicare, Liam?
Ethan |
December 7th, 2009 at 06:17 pm
Apparently the conspiracy is that the Democratic Party has an agenda to do health care reform.
“Unhinged” doesn’t even begin to describe this freak of nature.
andy |
December 7th, 2009 at 09:13 pm
I know too many people, my own daughter included, who can’t get health insurance.
Hot sale discount MBT shoes
Jimmy1920 |
December 8th, 2009 at 12:04 pm
Focusing on right wing puppet master Rupert Murdoch and his support for violent extremists like Glenn Beck.”
Not just his “puppet master” but also his enablers, the mainstream media by not taking him to task for his lies, distortions and political motives.
They seem unable to differentiate a political slant from a political agenda.
Leave a Reply
Name (required)
Mail (will not be published) (required)
Website
Please email us at profiles@whorunsgov.com to bring to our attention any content or conduct that you believe violates our Discussion and Submission Policy.
As the Congress wrestles with health care reform this week, a record number of California women of color and immigrant activists continue to impact the debate by flooding our Senators with phone calls after months of pressing California's representatives through our Health and Justice Now! campaign. Our message: health care reform must protect access to comprehensive reproductive health care, including abortion services coverage, and ensure that all Californians are covered.
The House version of health care reform that passed last month created a worst case scenario for Latinas and women of color by effectively banning abortion coverage through any insurance plan that does business with the government. Both the Senate and the House bills continue to contain provisions that exclude millions of immigrants from accessing the health coverage they need and deserve. In the Senate deliberations, we urge our leaders to seize this critical opportunity to regain moral ground in this national debate: health care is a human right, and no Californian should be left behind.
Low-income women of color and their families, in particular, have much at stake and an urgent need for reform. The current system has created tremendous challenges for us as mothers, sisters and daughters who are the primary coordinators of health care for our families. Consistent, persistent and historical health disparities demand that women of color be front and center on the road to reform.
The voices of women of color must be at the forefront of the public dialogue on health care reform. It's not enough for politicians to talk about the uninsured, they must demonstrate their leadership and take action. Over 2.9 million California women under the age of 65 were uninsured in 2007. And, while women of color comprise over half of the state's non-elderly women, we are disproportionately uninsured. If you are a young or immigrant woman of color, you are at even greater risk to lose or lack health insurance. Latinas have the highest uninsured rates across all racial and ethnic groups. In fact, nearly forty percent (39.3%) of Latinas of all ages are uninsured compared to 13.4% of white women.
Despite these statistics, the House of Representatives jeopardized women's health by passing its health care reform with exclusionary measures such as the Stupak-Pitts Amendment that will effectively ban abortion coverage in the new health insurance system.
As reproductive justice advocates, we know first hand that policies to reform health care must help eliminate the reproductive health inequities that persist among Latinas and other underserved women of color. Access to health coverage is a critical component in promoting the ability of women, their families, and communities, to lead healthy and fulfilling lives.
Fixing our broken health care system can only be achieved if every person living in the United States has equal access to health care. It is not only fair, but good policy to allow everyone who wishes to purchase insurance the ability to do so, including immigrants. For California, the inclusion of immigrants is not only critical to the state's economic survival but more importantly a moral imperative. Millions of immigrants -- including over 5 million immigrant women in California -- are in danger of being excluded from accessing the health coverage they need and deserve under provisions included in both the Senate and the House bills. California's economic crisis has devastated the safety net, leaving those with the least resources, particularly immigrants, with very few options.
Together, California Latinas for Reproductive Justice and our partner ACCESS/Women's Health Rights Coalition called upon thousands of California women of color and immigrant activists to right this wrong and collectively raised our voices during a statewide day of action to demand that health care reform efforts include the needs of women and immigrant communities. But this is only the most recent step in the Health & Justice Now! campaign that has been growing in momentum and force. As long as our communities' health and lives are at stake, our voices will continue to remain strong.
There is much talk about the recession reaching bottom. The economy at a turning point. Again. The proof, at least this time, was the drop in the national unemployment rate to 10 percent.
But that data point doesn't really reflect the jobs picture in this country. Here are two better ones: State unemployment funds are running out of money; and 9.24 million people are working part time (slightly down from a month ago) who would much rather go full time job. A year ago the figure was 7.3 million.
Both of these numbers have huge implications for the health care reform debate. Too many people are working part time, without benefits, because it's the only job they can find.
Mike Sherlock, an investment advisor, publishes a fascinating blog called MISH'S Global Economic Trend Analysis. He reports: "15 states have collectively borrowed more than $15 billion and another 9 states are in the red over unemployment benefits." One of the examples Mish cites is North Carolina, where high unemployment has cost the state $1.4 billion in debt, growing as much as $20 million a day. The state is hoping the federal government at some point will forgive these loans because there's no real plan to pay it back.
"Let's do the math. The state budget is $19 billion. Potentially $4 billion will be borrowed to pay unemployment benefits. In other words the state is borrowing an amount equal to 21% of its total budget just to pay unemployment benefits. Wow," Mish reports.
That's only one state of the 24 now in the red. Add to that the state projections for Medicaid and Children's Health Insurance and the picture is more complete. And bleak.
Consider those who are working part time. If the economy is improving, folks should start getting more hours on the job (hopefully enough hours to qualify for benefits). But that will happen before new jobs are created. We have a long way to go.
Another element in this crisis is health insurance. Many of those who lost their jobs in the first wave are starting to run out of a federal subsidy for their health insurance under COBRA. Unless Congress acts (quickly) to extend that subsidy, health care costs for unemployed folks will be prohibitive. A family of four could see their health insurance costs go from roughly $500 a month to $1,500 a month. An increase that's nearly impossible to cover without a job. A really, really great job, at that.
The context for all of this is that we have tied our entire health care system to employment. Most people get their health care through work. If health care reform passes, this should improve through new subsidies and exchanges -- in a couple of years. But the trade off is a requirement to buy health insurance.
Indian Country is a special case. American Indians and Alaskan Natives will be exempted from the mandate. But there are employment-related questions that remain.
Would it make sense for an American Indian or Alaskan Native entrepreneur to buy health insurance for her workers? There would be no requirement. The individual member would still be eligible for Indian Health Service. And, by the same measure, would any individual on the reservation buy into a health insurance exchange plan, even if it were subsidized? Tribal governments would probably buy plans for employees, but that would not close the gap.
I started with this project with the idea that the country has much to learn from Indian Country about health care reform. The relationship between health insurance and your job is a good example of that thinking. There is no employment-based system that can accommodate those outside of the regular work force, those who fish, herd, or bead. At the same time fixing Indian Country's structural unemployment -- with rates that are unthinkable in any other context -- must be a priority. This is a health care issue, too.
Cross-posted from Race-Talk.
Liam |
December 7th, 2009 at 03:57 pm
The House should not back away from the PO. It is the most popular part of Health Care Reform, and all the House members have to run for reelection, starting in just about one month from now.
There are far less Democratic Senators who have to run in 2010, so there is no reason for all the Democrats in the House, to upset their base, just to appease a small handful of Bluedog Senators.
Why is the Senate supposed to get what they want, and not the house, in a reconciliation process? Then it would not be a reconciliation process, but just letting the Senate dictate to The House Of Representatives. That would be a travesty, an make the congress members look like supplicants to the Senate..
lfo |
December 7th, 2009 at 03:58 pm
well Greg I think that by now the Reps are the ones setting themselves up for a waterloo. So you rtake is right. And what is this unAmerican fixation with Napoleonic defeats?
Andy |
December 7th, 2009 at 03:59 pm
Let’s say PO is actually off the table.
If we lower the medicare eligibility age and open access to the Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan, along with the other reforms everyone has agreed on then what issues are left out? Competition for the insurance companies and using government money to pay for abortions, right?
Someone needs to find out what’s being done on the competition front and the abortion issue. Otherwise I don’t see the down side. What am I missing?
Tena |
December 7th, 2009 at 03:59 pm
“And what is this unAmerican fixation with Napoleonic defeats?”
LOL!
Vraimant!
mike from Arlington |
December 7th, 2009 at 04:00 pm
I’d like to see a score of the Senate bill without the PO.
Tena |
December 7th, 2009 at 04:03 pm
“Someone needs to find out what’s being done on the competition front and the abortion issue. Otherwise I don’t see the down side. What am I missing?”
I see it pretty much the way you do.
Liam |
December 7th, 2009 at 04:03 pm
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_MED_HEALTHBEAT_HOSPITAL_RETURNS?SITE=CACRU&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
“Talk about unnecessary misery: One in five Medicare patients winds up back in the hospital within a month – even worse, one in four patients with heart failure.
A major push is under way around the country to cut rehospitalizations, in part by arming patients with simple steps to keep their recovery on track – like getting past harried receptionists for quicker follow-up doctor visits, and reducing medication confusion.
Less than a year into a Medicare-sponsored “Care Transitions” project in 14 states, participating hospitals already are seeing readmissions start to inch down, says Dr. Barry Straube, chief medical officer of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.
One of those projects, in Baton Rouge, La., sends health coaches to five area hospitals to guide high-risk patients through discharge and check how they’re faring through that critical first month. Of the first 145 patients coached so far, only seven had to be rehospitalized.”
lfo |
December 7th, 2009 at 04:04 pm
not to get repetitive but follow Ezra he has a few good posts on what would happen or not once this compromise happens. And also what moving parts to look for.
Tena–I wonder why they do not use the alamo? too close to the bone?
Tena |
December 7th, 2009 at 04:05 pm
I really like the idea of lowering the Medicare age. I already said that I think that makes is almost impossible for someone like Rick Perry or Fluffy Hutchison to opt out. They don’t want to be seen opting out of Medicare.
Liam |
December 7th, 2009 at 04:05 pm
Of course these sort of improvements are going to greatly interfere with the vital work of Death Panels.
Tena |
December 7th, 2009 at 04:06 pm
“too close to the bone?”
Too sacred – there was only one black man at the Alamo and he didn’t fight – he was a slave.
jzap |
December 7th, 2009 at 04:06 pm
It’s subversion coming from the huge foreign influence permeating our so-called own MSM. I mean, who better to push another up-is-down meme than the Australians?
sbj |
December 7th, 2009 at 04:07 pm
“Beyond the behind-the-scenes skirmishing, though, lurks a larger question: Once the Senate reaches a compromise, can the House do anything to have an impact on it in conference negotiations over the final bill? Or will House Dems more or less have to go along with the Senate version?”
Best idea would be for the House to simply accept the Senate bill as written – no amendments – and take a quick up or down vote (simple majority). Avoid conference altogether and get the thing passed before Christmas.
sbj |
December 7th, 2009 at 04:09 pm
“So even if a pure public option is sacrificed, it could mean no Waterloo for reform overall — or for Obama and Dems.”
Greg – are you really going to try and frame the loss of the PO as a victory for Dems?
Travis |
December 7th, 2009 at 04:10 pm
“GOP aides can chortle, but the fact remains that Dems are all still at the table, still negotiating a compromise, and still moving towards creating an overall bill that 60 Senators can support. So even if a pure public option is sacrificed, it could mean no Waterloo for reform overall — or for Obama and Dems.”
I dunno. Progressives have deemed anything short of a “strong public option” (which means different things to different people) to be “not REAL reform.”
So, in essence, the left has made the public option its Waterloo. Anything short of a “strong public option” may overshadow the other positive aspects of the bill and cause many progressives to attack, rather than hail, the passage of historic legislation that would, even without the public option, significantly reform the healthcare system.
Additionally, when people on the left are saying that it’s better to kill the bill over the public option than to pass legislation now (even without that “strong public option”) and amend it later, I think this is could get pretty ugly.
Finally, given that progressive blogs and websites have generally been more inclined to highlight and assail negative political developments than to hail positive ones, I no longer anticipate that the passage of healthcare reform will be much of a political boon to Democrats, even it is ultimately and actually a boon (i.e., real reform) for people who need it.
rukidding |
December 7th, 2009 at 04:11 pm
My wife just turned 63 and I’ll be 62 this month…yes she robbed the cradle and I never let her forget it.
Point is we are getting close to single payer regardless of what happens to HCR. Still I don’t wish to be perceived as a member of the Grand Ole Party which basically believes..”I got mine screw you”.
Having said all of that I would trade the P.O. for moving the Medicare eligibility up to 55 in a heartbeat!!! The P.O. will be limited in scale while moving an entire decade of population into single payer would be a HUGE accomplishment.
I find it difficult to believe this could actually happen but then again it does make sense. Illness gets increasingly more prevalent after 55 and so the insurance companies might not mind shedding a higher risk group. Once we get private insurance down to the even healthier part of our population there is a chance…I admit remote…that competition would take a small hold and some company would enjoy cherry picking those younger healthier folks. It also has the added advantage of not totally eliminating the insurers and their investments overnight.
And so I’d gladly trade the P.O. for Medicare @ 55…as long as we keep the restraints on pre existing conditions and recission.
sbj |
December 7th, 2009 at 04:11 pm
“If we lower the medicare eligibility age and open access to the Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan…I don’t see the down side. What am I missing?”
The price tag?
Liam |
December 7th, 2009 at 04:14 pm
So, how would the Medicare for people age 55 etc, be funded?
News Reference |
December 7th, 2009 at 04:15 pm
a compromise of a compromise of a compromise of a…
I can’t recall anyone on the left suggesting we adopt Britain’s popular government healthcare. I’ve personally seen Britain’s national healthcare in action and it was responsive, efficient, and effective.
In America we have a similarly responsive, efficient, and effective government run healthcare plan (caveat: when it’s run by Democratic leaders): The VA.
Under Democratic President Clinton, the VA become extremely effective and cost-efficient.
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_29/b3993061.htm
Under Republicans we got the Walter Reed Hospital scandal.
The popular Canadian system of “single payer” was never even given a seat at the table.
And the ‘public option’ has been so watered down that it’s largely lost it’s efficacy (which was right winger’s objective).
I still have “hope”, but it’s clear that with allies like the predatory Aetna insurance company tool Joe Lie berman it’s going to be a tight squeeze.
For those on ‘the left’ that are discouraged: Focus on primarying right wing Dems, defeating Republicans, and retaining Democratic majorities.
Liam |
December 7th, 2009 at 04:17 pm
A Question:
With Regards to covering abortions:
Does the health Care coverage of Senators and Congress members cover Abortions for their families, and or Mistresses?
mike from Arlington |
December 7th, 2009 at 04:17 pm
Oh my rukidding. I feel shameful for continuing the tea-bagging jokes in the presence of someone who is my elder.
*blush*
And wow. I think I agree with sbj.
“Best idea would be for the House to simply accept the Senate bill as written – no amendments – and take a quick up or down vote (simple majority). Avoid conference altogether and get the thing passed before Christmas.”
sbj |
December 7th, 2009 at 04:18 pm
@reefer: Walter Reed Army Medical Center is run by the Army, not the VA.
sbj |
December 7th, 2009 at 04:19 pm
“Does the health Care coverage of Senators and Congress members cover Abortions for their families, and or Mistresses?”
No.
Liam |
December 7th, 2009 at 04:23 pm
Well that would explain why no one ever sees their unwed daughters or mistresses getting pregnant. They all just practice sexual abstinence, and take occasional trips to Zurich, just to ski, and sweat off those little fatty belly paunches that they have added on.
lfo |
December 7th, 2009 at 04:23 pm
jzap & tena–Lol. But I really wonder why they keep using it, as if I don’t know, the whole thing isn’t french. Like arugula and mustard.
News Reference |
December 7th, 2009 at 04:27 pm
The Republican’s Walter Reed Army Medical Center scandal was part of a long pattern of Republican neglect of American troops.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/17/AR2007021701172.html
Republican neglect of American troops is the flip-side of Republican corporatism handing no-bid contracts to war-profiteers.
lmsinca |
December 7th, 2009 at 04:27 pm
Looks like everyone here suddenly thinks the PO is expendable. Wow. Good luck with the House.
mike from Arlington |
December 7th, 2009 at 04:28 pm
Wow, via Ben Smith…
With the Senate shifting sharply away from a “pure public option,” an insurance industry insider who has been deeply involved in the health care fight emails to declare victory.
“We WIN,” the insider writes. “Administered by private insurance companies. No government funding. No government insurance competitor.”
roxsteady |
December 7th, 2009 at 04:29 pm
Is he still alive? Pitty!
mike from Arlington |
December 7th, 2009 at 04:29 pm
This must be a great victory for the teabaggers and their corporate controlled oligarchy.
Tena |
December 7th, 2009 at 04:29 pm
“But I really wonder why they keep using it,”
Well the French were defeated, which suits the ratwing.
Tena |
December 7th, 2009 at 04:31 pm
Lowering the age of Medicare is not complicated, like the other things they’ve devised to get around giving us what we want. IT doesn’t address the problem of people younger than 55. But wouldn’t it be easier in the long run to just keep lowering the age over time rather than trying to continually amend some complicated PO amendment in the bill to make it better?
lfo |
December 7th, 2009 at 04:31 pm
I am going to wait to see what actually comes out fo the senate to declare anything dead, or anyone a winner. didn’t the insurance companies declare victory in august?
lmsinca |
December 7th, 2009 at 04:33 pm
Mike from A
I guess my husband was right to keep his Aetna stock.
Tena |
December 7th, 2009 at 04:33 pm
lfo – me too.
and yes they did and they’ve been doing that all along.
mike from Arlington |
December 7th, 2009 at 04:35 pm
yes, lmsinca. 3.14% gains today alone.
http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=AET#chart3:symbol=aet;range=3m;indicator=ke_it+volume;charttype=line;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=on;source=undefined
News Reference |
December 7th, 2009 at 04:37 pm
corrected:
“This must be a great victory for the teabaggers and their“ masters: Corporate oligarchs.
News Reference |
December 7th, 2009 at 04:39 pm
And again:
Under Democratic President Clinton’s leadership the VA became an extremely effective, life-saving, cost-efficient government run healthcare provider.
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_29/b3993061.htm
And again:
Under Republicans we got the Walter Reed Hospital scandal where wounded American troops were neglected.
jzap |
December 7th, 2009 at 04:39 pm
I find this surprisingly palatable.
Any replacement for the PO would have to be national in scope to be effective. I don’t even care if you call it a foxtrotting co-op, so long as it’s not a state-by-state quilt.
Expand existing administrative infrastructure instead of inventing a brand-new one or two. Medicare seems to be working OK operationally, though Dubya’s unfunded donut-hole mandate is a fiscal albatross.
lfo |
December 7th, 2009 at 04:41 pm
Tena–I don’t know there is always a rush to conclude things are done when we are still in the middle of the road to it. I will judge on the end result not negotiations. Remember just 1 month ago no one thought a PO would be in the Senate Bill AT ALL..
Bernie Latham |
December 7th, 2009 at 04:44 pm
travis’ post above seems pretty rational to me. There really are a couple of battles going on, the substantive negotiations/compromises with all attendant blather and the overall PR battle to coming from the Republicans to paint anything and everything Obama does as some species of failure versus Dem efforts to tell a different story.
And the one thing we know with utter certainty is that, quite regardless of what this final bill looks like when passed, the Republicans will declare it an Obama failure.
Tena |
December 7th, 2009 at 04:44 pm
“so long as it’s not a state-by-state quilt.”
Thanks for that, cause that is exactly the way I feel. I am not happy about the state opt-out plan because if this is really a national problem – even a national moral imperative- letting states opt out sort of belies the national part of that. It definitely throws us red state Democrats to the lions. In short, it seems way less fair to me.
And I don’t think states will opt out of Medicare.
Liam |
December 7th, 2009 at 04:45 pm
They better not pay for abortions for those people over 55 or I will be really nonplussed, and chagrined with a lemon twist.
Liam |
December 7th, 2009 at 04:46 pm
Fox News Anchor Asks if Nelson Amendment Will Lead to More ‘Low-Income Babies’
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBMB9-R6wD8&feature=player_embedded
lmsinca |
December 7th, 2009 at 04:47 pm
“Someone needs to find out what’s being done on the competition front and the abortion issue. Otherwise I don’t see the down side. What am I missing?”
That’s the point Andy, there will be no competition. The insurance industry will reap the rewards of all those new customers and still have a monopoly. The compromise of using the OPM is nothing, just an exchange, which we were already getting and lowering the Medicare age is “throwing a bone to progressives”.
Everyone here seems pretty willing to compromise though so it probably won’t be that hard of a sell. I’d prefer to be treated as an adult and not just have my ideas traded away, but like I’ve said before it is what it is. The Lieberman’s of the world seem to be able to get their way an awful lot, all he had to do was threaten the filibuster, and nobody called him on it.
It’s not over yet I know, but we’re getting closer to vote counting time so we all knew there would be some kind of compromise and I think the rumors are testing the waters. From the comments here, I guess it’ll work.
Tena |
December 7th, 2009 at 04:47 pm
” and the overall PR battle to coming from the Republicans to paint anything and everything Obama does as some species of failure versus Dem efforts to tell a different story.
And the one thing we know with utter certainty is that, quite regardless of what this final bill looks like when passed, the Republicans will declare it an Obama failure.”
You and Travis are completely correct about that. And I predict they will get help in that from some on the left, no matter what we end up with.
Bernie Latham |
December 7th, 2009 at 04:51 pm
Off topic but wanted to get this in today (busy). From Hitchens on Sarah Palin. Attend particularly to the information on Fred Malek:
http://www.slate.com/id/2237638/pagenum/all/#p2
Liam |
December 7th, 2009 at 04:55 pm
Bernie,
Well that is perfectly understandable. Quitter Palin would have stayed in College in Hawaii if it turned out that the place was not populated by Hawaiians. How was the poor woman supposed to have known, before she arrived in Hawaii, that the place was filled with Hawaiians!
MB |
December 7th, 2009 at 04:59 pm
Let the GOP chortle. From what I read in detailed analysis of the Senate bill by CBO, MIT, and Ron Brownstein, there is plenty of good stuff in the bill even without the PO. The health care problem has been ignored for so long that this bill is a huge improvement over status quo. And that is why GOP is howling so much. They know this is going to work and will be popular.
The PO in its current form is available to a small slice of the population. Without the Wyden amendment (which would open it to everyone) it is hard to see it being very effective. Back in late summer / early fall, I would not have bet on Harry Reid putting PO in the bill to be introduced in the Senate. Now if it passes with PO (highly unlikely), it will be okay. If it gets taken out, it will be used to get something else.
A comibination of lowering medicare and opening Federal Employee Health Benefit Plan will be better than a PO, I think. Btw, Obama hinted at FEHBP early in the process. (”Obama team looks to federal employee health program as a model” http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0309/031609ar2.htm)
And I can see now why, even though he supported PO, he never said it is a must have.
Tena |
December 7th, 2009 at 05:01 pm
Bernie = how did I put it last week? She manages to be both ridiculous and dangerous and the same time – which isn’t easy to do. But she does that well.
Tena |
December 7th, 2009 at 05:01 pm
MB –
Great comment.
lfo |
December 7th, 2009 at 05:11 pm
yes MB, I second Tena: very good comment.
Not a member of this echochamber |
December 7th, 2009 at 05:11 pm
I love the moving of the goal posts here. We have been told repeatedly by those on the left that the main reason Senators should vote for this bill is because the public option is so unbelievably popular. What will you say if the public option is stripped?
Furthermore, progressives have been indicating all along that the strong public option is an absolute must. How does its removal and subsequent passage of this bill, if that happens, become a disaster for the Republicans. You will dispirit a large portion of the Democratic base and you will only further energize the Republicans.
Not a member of this echochamber |
December 7th, 2009 at 05:13 pm
“And that is why GOP is howling so much. They know this is going to work and will be popular.”
No, they are howling because this is a terrible bill opposed by their constituents, and most Americans for that matter.
http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/healthplan.php
Tena |
December 7th, 2009 at 05:14 pm
“Furthermore, progressives have been indicating all along that the strong public option is an absolute must. How does its removal and subsequent passage of this bill, if that happens, become a disaster for the Republicans. You will dispirit a large portion of the Democratic base and you will only further energize the Republicans.”
A. When you are fighting for something, you tend to insist that it’s very important, perhaps more important than it really is;
B. You don’t always expect to get everything you are insisting is a must, even when you insist it is;
C. Republicans don’t want any health care reform at all. Period. End of story. So are you going to tell me that passing Health Care Reform is a victory for the GOP?
O pull the other one, it has bells on.
MB |
December 7th, 2009 at 05:15 pm
Thanks, Tena. I think I need to apologize to “real amurikans” for mentioning MIT study in my comment… MIT is nothing but home to “librul eleets” They can’t know what is good for amerika
Tena |
December 7th, 2009 at 05:16 pm
Yeah, that’s what you are doing here – nonmember – you are so sure it spells DOOM for us.
That’s because this is GREAT
NEWS
FOR
JOHN MCCAIN
lfo |
December 7th, 2009 at 05:19 pm
Well Tena–Everything is always good news for Republicans! Even when they are left behind making arguments from the last century.
rukidding |
December 7th, 2009 at 05:20 pm
“But wouldn’t it be easier in the long run to just keep lowering the age over time rather than trying to continually amend some complicated PO amendment in the bill to make it better?”
That’s exactly what I think Tena. If Obama can get Medicare lowered to 55 AND get rid of pre existing condition and recission rationing…he will have accomplished something amazing and incredibly significant.
As someone pointed out the infrastructure for Medicare is already in place and an incremental change like this shouldn’t be that difficult to achieve in a relatively short time…like 1/1/2011 not 2012 or 13 or 14 or whatever they’ve been tossing around.
How do we pay for it? SBJ you can bite me you heartless irrational nincompoop. Bring the boys and girls home from the military adventures as we can EASILY pay for it.
We lost less than 4,000 on 9/11 and yet we lose over 40,000 every year due to our horrible health care system. SBJ have you ever heard of priorities?
Tena |
December 7th, 2009 at 05:22 pm
“If Obama can get Medicare lowered to 55 AND get rid of pre existing condition and recission rationing…he will have accomplished something amazing and incredibly significant.”
O word straight up.
on the whole comment.
News Reference |
December 7th, 2009 at 05:24 pm
Fixed l!nk:
“Obama team looks to federal employee health program as a model” -By Alyssa Rosenberg, March 16, 2009
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0309/031609ar2.htm
sbj |
December 7th, 2009 at 05:25 pm
“We have been told repeatedly by those on the left that the main reason Senators should vote for this bill is because the public option is so unbelievably popular.”
Funny, isn’t it? In an earlier Lieberman thread there were howls of indignation that he would vote against a PO because his constituents were in favor of it.
It’s now apparent that in many many states the majority does not support the health care reform proposals. So when Dem Senators and Reps vote FOR the House and Senate bills will there be howls of indignation?
I didn’t think so. Foolish consistency, hobgoblins, and all that ****…
sbj |
December 7th, 2009 at 05:28 pm
“How do we pay for it? SBJ you can bite me you heartless irrational nincompoop. Bring the boys and girls home from the military adventures as we can EASILY pay for it.”
Perhaps, then, you should be inviting President Obama to “bite” you?
Aren’t we all agreed that Medicare is in big trouble? So we’re going to solve our health care crisis by adding millions more to it? I would really love to hear the details…
MB |
December 7th, 2009 at 05:28 pm
@Not a member of this echochamber
If it is such a bad bill, don’t you think GOP would not use procedural tactics to not even allow votes and introduce gimmicky amendments. Let the democrats pass this crappy bill and then win back the House and pick up senate seats in 2010.
Btw, something more for GOP to howl about: Obama To Propose New Jobs Program:In a speech tomorrow, CNN reports that President Obama will propose using $200 billion from TARP for “funding projects to build bridges and roads, weatherize homes, and provide other assistance for small businesses as well as the unemployed.”
Boehner is already crying..
News Reference |
December 7th, 2009 at 05:31 pm
I’d prefer “Medicare for All”.
The problems:
Republicans are tools of international corporations with no loyalty to Americans or America. Republicans choose corporate profits over the lives of the 44,000 Americans who die each year because of lack of healthcare.
And the thin Democratic majority is hampered by the Republican Wing of the Democratic Party.
Again, the best thing that those on the left who want more can do is: Primary right wing Dems, defeat Republicans, and retain Democratic majorities.
http://www.actblue.com
Tena |
December 7th, 2009 at 05:32 pm
” CNN reports that President Obama will propose using $200 billion from TARP for “funding projects to build bridges and roads, weatherize homes, and provide other assistance for small businesses as well as the unemployed.”
”
WoooHooooooooooooooo!
This is what I’m talking about – public works project; fix the country – it needs a lot of fixing!
lfo |
December 7th, 2009 at 05:35 pm
My understanding is that all the elements that are needed for insurance reform (end of recision, upping rates, pre existing conditions)is on the bill so that coupled with the lowering of age for medicare is big news and just ads to the effectiveness of HCR.
Tena |
December 7th, 2009 at 05:35 pm
“I’d prefer “Medicare for All”.”
So would I and I think this is a better, faster, easier route to get us there.
sbj |
December 7th, 2009 at 05:36 pm
“something more for GOP to howl about: Obama To Propose New Jobs Program”
I’m not a member of the GOP but I’ll howl about it! The stimulus was ALREADY supposed to fund “projects to build bridges and roads, weatherize homes.” What the hell was all of that money for – we need another $200 billion to do the same damn thing? What’s that the youngsters say? Epic fail?
Tena |
December 7th, 2009 at 05:37 pm
sbj – It’s fixed rather simply – we go through this, you and I, how many times a day? – by raising the tax rates on the top income earners back up to where they were when Clinton was president.
You know: that Golden Age of peace and prosperity?
Tena |
December 7th, 2009 at 05:39 pm
“What the hell was all of that money for – we need another $200 billion to do the same damn thing? What’s that the youngsters say? Epic fail?”
Tell that to the several thousand people who worked on the big road project in northern New Mexico, that was a project of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.
And by all means – oppose a Jobs Program. Please do – you and the rest of the right.
sbj |
December 7th, 2009 at 05:44 pm
“It’s fixed rather simply – we go through this, you and I, how many times a day? – by raising the tax rates on the top income earners back up to where they were when Clinton was president.”
So why hasn’t your party done that, tena?
Medicare is NOT fixed rather simply through increased taxes and you’re probably the only person I’ve ever seen claim such a thing. If that’s all it takes why are the Dems proposing $500 billion in cuts? If that’ll fix it do we raise rates AGAIN when we add millions more with this new eligibility proposal? C’mon now!
“Tell that to the several thousand people who worked on the big road project in northern New Mexico”
Well I guess, then, that the first stimulus worked out swimmingly – so why another one? Another one that does the same stuff as the first?
News Reference |
December 7th, 2009 at 05:46 pm
I’d really love to see that money invested in renewable domestic energy producers like wind farms and solar panels.
Let’s stop paying oil dictators that hate trillions in energy fees every decade.
Tena |
December 7th, 2009 at 05:46 pm
“They better not pay for abortions for those people over 55 or I will be really nonplussed, and chagrined with a lemon twist.”
You know, this solution neatly bypasses that argument for now.
Tena |
December 7th, 2009 at 05:49 pm
sbj – There’s obviously a hell of a lot more work out there to be done than one highway project in northern New Mexico, or indeed, 15 highway projects in half the states in the country.
As I noted the other day – we are way understaffed in every single national park and national forest in this country. Woefully understaffed – to a point where it becomes actually very detrimental to trying to keep those places the way they are supposed to be.
There are lots of roads and bridges in the US.
And you’re being a pill and you sound like a GOP Refusenik.
So like I said =- please please please oppose a Job’s Program. Do it loudly. Do it Publicly. Hold Tea Bagging Rallies on it.
Greg Sargent |
December 7th, 2009 at 05:50 pm
Happy hour roundup posted:
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/climate-change/happy-hour-roundup-fox-news-republicans/
Tena |
December 7th, 2009 at 05:50 pm
I want your just folks grass roots out there saying: We don’t need no steenking government jobs!
News Reference |
December 7th, 2009 at 05:53 pm
Medicare would absolutely be “fixed rather simply through increased taxes”.
Only right wing liars say otherwise. Right winger “sbj” has even admitted that they tell lies for money, just today “sbj” asked: “How much would YOU be willing to pay for my lies?”
Ultra-rich right wing puppetmaster’s figure it’s cheaper to pay right wingers like “sbj” to lie than it is to support America by paying their fair share in taxes.
Scott C. |
December 7th, 2009 at 05:54 pm
News:
I’d prefer medicare for all.
Or, in other words, you’d prefer to live in a fantasy world where everyone gets something for nothing.
If medical care of comparable quality and quantity as that available today can be made available to more people at a cheaper cost than that available today, why don’t you radical lefties start providing it rather than trying to get the government to do it for you? Are you guys simply so preternaturally dictatorial and opposed to freedom that you prefer government force to mutually acceptable exchange?
Scott C. |
December 7th, 2009 at 05:57 pm
News:
…fair share in taxes.
Define fair.
Tena |
December 7th, 2009 at 06:06 pm
“Or, in other words, you’d prefer to live in a fantasy world where everyone gets something for nothing. ”
No. Number 1 – my taxes would pay for this, among other people’s.
And Number 2 – if Canada, Britain, France, Italy, Germany, Switzerland, Spain, Australia found ways to pay for it, I think we can.
News Reference |
December 7th, 2009 at 07:19 pm
Right wing “voodoo economics” of Hollywood entertainer Ronald Reagan explained in a nutshell: “where everyone gets something for nothing.”
It’s the right wing’s “Two Santa Clause Theory” of governance: Spend, spend, spend, then lower taxes, then… Magic. Except that the magic never happens for 90% of Americans because they got screwed while only the top 10% (the true Republican base) took all the profits.
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/01/26-0
And again:
Hollywood entertainer Ronald Reagan increased government size, Republican Reagan INCREASED government spending, and even while Republican Reagan RAISED taxes on working Americans, Republican Reagan’s giant gifts to the ultra-wealthy managed to increase the US debt by 260%.
Weirdly, the left wing are the true fiscal ‘conservatives’. History shows that the left-wing have consistently paid down the gross federal debt as a percentage of gross domestic debt.
For the last 29 years:
REPUBLICANS INCREASED THE US DEBT.
Hollywood con man Reagan increased the US debt by 260%.
Republicans Reagan and Bush 1 increased the US debt by 400%.
Republican Bush 2 more than DOUBLED the US debt. And nobody yet knows how much Republican Bush’s cronies at the Fed funneled out the back door to his corporate buddies.
News Reference |
December 7th, 2009 at 07:20 pm
“omparable quality and quantity [of healthcare] as that available today can be made available to more people at a cheaper cost than that available today” by simply eliminating the corporate leaches sucking at the lifeblood of Americans.
The government healthcare plans provided by every other industrialized country on earth have better health outcomes than America does and they do it for a cheaper cost.
Foreign countries citizens receiving government run healthcare live longer than Americans and their citizens infant mortality rates are lower than Amrericans and it’s done for significantly cheaper than the corporate-medical-industry-profiteers that the right wing corporatists are protecting.
sbj |
December 7th, 2009 at 07:32 pm
Yes indeed – the cost of health care is cheaper in other countries – and neither of the proposals does anything to impact the cost of health care. (You know better than to repeat misleading infant mortality rates drivel.)
News Reference |
December 7th, 2009 at 07:44 pm
If right winger “sbj” had a conscience he wouldn’t lie about factual truths:
America has a MUCH higher infant mortality rate than dozens of other countries.
Most of the countries that have LOWER infant mortality rates have some kind of socialized medicine.
That FACT was consistently reported under Republican President Bush in the CIA World Factbooks published while Republican Bush was President.
Go look up the Factbooks during Republican Bush’s Presidency:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/download/
The US has had a worse infant mortality rate than dozens of other countries for years.
sbj |
December 7th, 2009 at 09:06 pm
@reefer: You obviously don’t understand the issues surrounding those self-reported figures.
Not to mention you fail to address my point about the COST of health care.
News Reference |
December 7th, 2009 at 10:04 pm
Again, not only do other countries have lower infant mortality rates than the US, those countries also have longer life-spans than US, AND those socialist-health care using countries accomplish superior health-outcomes at a lower cost than our private predatory corporate-medical system.
Those are the FACTS.
sbj |
December 7th, 2009 at 11:24 pm
And you are obviously unaware of the many reasons life expectancy might be longer in countries with a culture different than our own here in the US.
sbj |
December 7th, 2009 at 11:26 pm
Do you understand the difference between cost and price?
News Reference |
December 8th, 2009 at 12:41 am
Do you understand the concept of Return On Investment?
For a lower investment in healthcare, many socialist countries receive a return on that investment by having longer lives than Americans, fewer dead infants, and a significant reduction in overall health care costs.
The corporate-medical-industry that right wing predators are protecting jacks up the price of healthcare so that they can make more profits even while that means less money goes towards preventative care.
Thus: Under the right wing’s predatory corporate-medical-industry, Americans live shorter lives, more infants die, and the overall prices we pay are significantly higher than other industrialized countries who manage to keep their costs lower by eliminating the right wing’s predatory corporate-medical-industry model.
Marly |
December 8th, 2009 at 11:54 pm
This country needs a public option for health insurance. We’re talking about an option. We’re not talking about a government handout, but something people can opt to purchase. Physicians and hospitals will still be private. It’s a win/win for everyone.