The Progressive Case For Passing The Senate Health Bill (Podesta)

[jefferson_dem]

The Progressive Case For Passing The Senate Health Bill

Since Joe Lieberman demanded stripping the public option and Medicare buy-in provisions from the merged Senate bill, some strong progressives like Howard Dean have argued that without a public option or a Medicare buy-in provision, the bill is a giveaway to private insurers and should be killed. Other progressive leaders like Senators Jay Rockefeller, Tom Harkin and Sherrod Brown believe that the bill represents the best chance for passing health care reform in the foreseeable future. “I’m going to vote for it,” Brown told reporters. “I can’t imagine I wouldn’t. I mean there’s too much at stake.”

Change of the magnitude envisioned by health care reformers does not come easily. There have been many frustrations and there will be more. But, as a senior White House staffer with a ringside seat for the slow death of comprehensive care in 1994, I am keenly aware of the real alternative to the bills now before us: millions more Americans without health care and billions more for health care spending as the same challenges President Clinton tried to resolve continue to metastasize unchecked.

So while I have great respect for Governor Dean, and we have worked together to provide the strongest health care reform bill for the American people, I come down on the side of the Senate passing the bill.

Here’s why:

The Senate health care bill is not without its problems. But if enacted, it would represent the most significant public reform of our health care system that Congress has passed in the 40 plus years I have worked in politics. The bill will give health care coverage to a record 31 million Americans who are currently uninsured, lay a foundation that will begin to lower costs for millions of families, and provide all Americans with the access to adequate and dependable coverage when they need it most.

All of us are anxious to see the final language from the Senate. And a final bill must ensure that the subsidies provided are sufficient to make insurance truly affordable for working families. But based on what we know, here are my top ten reasons for why progressives should support the Senate passing the bill:

<SNIP>

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/12/16/podesta-passing-senate-bill/

[still_one]

1. Is this progress:

1. No Single Payer

2. No public option

3. No expanded Medicare coverage

4. No drug re-importation

5. No cost controls

6. No renegotiation of drug prices

7. Capped annual coverage for care

8. Individual mandated coverage

9. Anti-trust exemption for insurance companies

10. A tax on middle class insurance plans

11. Taxes that start up in January, but benefits that don’t start until 2014

NOTE: These are points brought up by another DU poster yesterday

[jefferson_dem]

3. Did you even bother to read the piece?

If you did, you would have seen these reforms, that defintely amount to progress -

1. Largest Expansion Of Coverage Since Medicare’s Creation:

2. Low/Middle Income Americans Will Not Go Without Coverage:

3. Insurance Companies Will Never Be Able to Drop or Deny You Coverage Because You Are Sick:

4. Lowers Premiums For Families:

5. Invests in Keeping People Healthy:

6. Insurers Can’t Offer Subprime Health Care:

7. Helps Businesses Afford Coverage:

8. Improves Medicare:

9. Reduces The Deficit:

10. Reduces National Health Spending:

[still_one]

10. Have you read it? I don't think so since it isn't out yet. However,

I did read the bill out of the house, and that was acceptable to me

Your points are vauge bullet points without specifics

The specific points I mentioned were either from what Demoratic senators said, or actually news events, such as 30 Democrats insuring that drug importation from Canada or renegotiating drug prices would not occur

[DontTreadOnMe]

2. Let me summarize:

The bill will give health care coverage to a record 31 million Americans

and the rest of the country gets THEIR HEALTHCARE COSTS INCREASED!

[jefferson_dem]

4. Summarize your imagination.

Read. Brah. Read.

[levander]

9. I have read

Costs go up for families. Stop paying attention to that CBO report that Harry Reid's been manipulating and tweaking details for until he gets the numbers he wants. You can't just rely on what the politicians tell you. They're trying to sell you something, make it sound like whatever they're doing is perfect. And, Harry's got his hands all over that CBO report.

The Lewin Group is a non-partisan, highly respected health care consultancy firm. You can see on page 34 of the anaylsis report they released last week that, on average, costs goes up for all families making over $40K. It's here: http://lewin.com/content/publications/Lewin_SenateHouse_Compared_appendices.pdf">Click

But, those cost increases are nominal.

What really concerns me is the cost to the government. $900 billion when are deficits are already ballooned. Yes, they've slashed Medicare and created enough new taxes to pay for it. And, that's pay for it if you ignore the fact that they've got tricks where there CBO estimate takes in 10 years of income, but only provides 5 1/2 years of service in the 1st decade. And, the way they pay for the 2nd decade of the plan is that health care costs go up so much, taxes on health services and penalties from people who drop their coverage go up so much, that the plan is paid for! How's that for fiscal responsibility?

And, the Center for Medicare Services (a department under the auspices of the Obama administration) did their own analysis of the plan, without being under Harry Reid's thumb. They said it increases the deficit by $250 billion in the first decade.

This bill is 2,000 pages of bureaucracy creation and spending and the only thing we get out of it is that about half of the uninsured in America get covered. The bill is nonsense. We should have gone with the Healthy Americans Act.

[jefferson_dem]

11. LOL. The CBO is illegitimate but we should trust the Lewin Group?!

Next time, please try to be a bit a bit less obvious.

[levander]

16. Your gonna trust a politician over independent research?

Why?

And, you're also going to throw out what the CMS said? I guess that's not what you wanted to hear either?

[jefferson_dem]

17. The CBO is apolotical and independent.

Lewin, on the other hand, is a proven shill for the industry and front group for Repug hackery. I'm surprised you did not know this.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/22/AR2009072202216.html
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Lewin_Group

[levander]

20. For someone with such a critical eye for sources...

jeff, click on the "History" tab on that sourcewatch page you referenced. That whole article with the "Portrayal as an nonpartisan, independent firm" section is the opinion of one random person on the internet. I could go edit it myself right now. But, I have no problem with that article, except the 2nd paragraph under the "Portrayal as an nonpartisan" section. The paragraph seems to pointed and doesn't answer any of the obvious questions about the assertion it makes.

Your Washington Post article? So, Republicans cited the Lewin Group? So, what? The Lewin Group findings bolstered their opposition to the bill. Of course they're going to cite it. How does that mean the Lewin Group conducted their research in an attempt to back up Republicans?

But, I remember the smear campaign that showed up around the edges of the media during the frenzy when it looked like this bill first was having trouble getting mass support this summer. I bookmarked an article by the Huffington Post called, "Lewin Group's Parent Company Donated Big To GOP Leaders". It's here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/05/lewin-groups-parent-compa_n_252180.html">Click. If you ignore the sensationalist reporting and actually read the article, at the very end, in the very last paragraph, you find this:

The Lewin Group referred comment on its parent company's contributions to UnitedHealth, which didn't respond to requests. The company, however, spreads its money around. The Center for Responsive Politics records UnitedHealth spending $2,620,000 to lobby so far in 2009. It dropped $4,710,000 in 2008, $5,064,000, in 2007 and $3,340,000 in 2006. It has split its contributions more toward Democrats the last several years, handing $138,700 to House Democrats in 2008 and $100,500 to House Republicans. Senate Democrats took in $71,500 that year, while Senate Republicans got $58,300.

Now, if it's a "front group for Repug hackery", why is the parent company donating more money to Democrats than to Republicans? Why is that?

And, if it's a "front group for Repug hackery", why did it give another Democratic plan for health reform, the Healthy Americans Act, a very favorable analysis? While, at the same time, completely panning McCain's campaign proposals? http://www.lewin.com/content/publications/ComprehensiveHealthReformStaffWorkingPaper.pdf">Click

But, okay. You're determined to ignore the Lewin Group becasue you think it's biased towards conservatives....

What about the Center for Medicare Services report? Check page 2, where it says over the next 10 years, this bill will increase the federal deficit by $365.8 billion. The report is here: http://www.politico.com/static/PPM110_091211_financial_impact.html">Click.

Are you just gonna dismiss the CMS too?

I was one of the earlier Democrats to peel off this bill. Red flags went up for me when there starting being all kinds of back and forth between those in Congress trying to push the bill through, and the CBO. I have very little education in economics. A class in high school, a class in college, and reading a book here or there since I been out of school. But, when all that back and forth started happening, it just made me think about how the thing about economic models is that they're just not that reliable. There are very basic tenets about them like, the more detailed they are, the less accurate they become. But, the less detailed they are, the more vague and fuzzy they become. There's this art toward developing economic models where people dabble in becoming soothsayers trying to get them to work. You just can't keep going over and over an economic model trying to get the numbers you want. The models aren't that reliable.

I would suggest letting go of the current bill. Just cut our losses. And, we start working on a different bill to reform health care. I suggest the Healthy Americans Act. Which got favorable analysis from both the Lewin Group and the CBO in initial studies. Not just a favorable review on revision #257.

[Popular Front]

5. In fairness, Podesta is a hack

Trust me.

[jefferson_dem]

6. Oh, I trust you all right.

Did I say "welcome to DU" yet? :hi:

[Popular Front]

7. Podesta is in the wrong circles in DC

He talks a good game for the cameras, but he's with the wrong crowd.

[Clio the Leo]

13. Yes, one of them progressive left wing hacks. NT

[AllentownJake]

8. Break out the Clintonites

You could think they could find someone with a little more cred than Podesta.

Oh and I expect people who slur Dennis K, to ignore Podesta's UFO connection.

[Cha]

19. As opposed to those who gratuitiously SLUR President Obama?

[NorthCarolina]

12. There is no rational reason that the best they can do with a Super Majority

is Problematic Healthcare Legislation. The citizens of this country are being railroaded, sold out for insurance lobby dollars, and will suffer as a consequence. Change you can believe in? Not me...I'm voting strictly progressive/liberal candidates from here on out. No more "lesser of two evils" bullshit when my only choices are those candidates anointed by the public media.

[Pushed To The Left]

14. Pass it, then pass a Medicare expansion and/or public option via Reconciliation! n/t

[Pirate Smile]

15. Unrec'ed into the ground. Fucking pathetic.

[jefferson_dem]

18. No shit.

It's sad what DU has become.