TPMDC
TPMDC Sunday Roundup
Share
Send to a friend!
Axelrod: Calling Liberal Opponents 'Insane' Was 'Probably An Unfortunate Choice Of Words'
Appearing on This Week, Senior White House Adviser David Axelrod clarified his having called the urge by some liberals to defeat the health care bill, such as from Howard Dean, "insane." "I didn't say he was insane, I want to make that clear. Howard Dean is a friend of mine," said Axelrod. "I have a great respect for him. He is a medical doctor, and I know he feels passionately about that. What I said was, it would be insane to pass on an opportunity to enact the reform that would have such positive impact on our future and on the well-being of families across this country. And I still believe that. It was probably an unfortunate choice of words."
Dean: 'We're Going To Have A 30-Year Battle With The Insurance Industry'
Appearing on Meet The Press, former DNC chairman Howard Dean predicted long-term problems for a health care bill without a public option: "We have committed--in this last week of unseemly scrambling for votes, we have committed to go down a path in this country where private insurance will be the way that we achieve universal health care. That means we're going to have a 30-year battle with the insurance industry every time when we try to control costs and try to get them do things. It is not a coincidence, David Gregory, that insurance company stocks, health insurance company stocks, hit a 52-year high on Friday. So they must know something that the rest of us don't."
Axelrod: 'People Have A Right To Be Grouchy'
Appearing on State of the Union, Senior White House Adviser David Axelrod bluntly addressed President Obama's sagging poll numbers. "People have a right to be grouchy," said Axelrod, citing ten-percent unemployment numbers. But he also predicted that the numbers will improve: "The president has had to make a lot of tough decisions to try and rescue our economy from collapse, to move this country forward and we are going to reap the benefits of that."
Ben Nelson: 'I Couldn't Create The Opportunity To Be The 60th Vote. It Happened'
Appearing on State of the Union, Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) denied any allegation that he enjoyed the limelight of negotiating to be the 60th vote for health care reform: "Well, I don't think that's accurate at all. I mean, I couldn't create the opportunity to be the 60th vote. It happened. And to them, I would say, look, if you think it's fun having both sides on an issue mad at you when you're trying to do something in good faith, just think, it's like going home and getting bit by the family dog. So how -- who enjoys that? "
Conrad: Any Bill Will Have To Be 'Very Close' To Senate Bill, To Get 60 Votes
Appearing on Fox News Sunday, Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND) said that any final health care bill will have to be close to the Senate bill, in order to pass: "I think any bill is going to have to be very close to what the Senate has passed because we're still going to have to get 60 votes. And anybody who's watched this process can see how challenging it has been to get 60 votes."
McCain: Obama 'More Partisan,' There Have Been No Attempts To Negotiate With Republicans
Appearing on Fox News Sunday, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) claimed that there have been no attempts to negotiate serious issues with Republicans -- which should come as a surprise to liberals who resented the failed health care negotiations with Chuck Grassley, Mike Enzi and Olympia Snowe. "He [President Obama] said there would be a change in the climate in Washington. There's been a change. It's more partisan. It's more bitterly divided than it's been," said McCain. "I have never been asked to engage in a single serious negotiation on any issue, nor has any other Republican. Now they've brought single Republicans down to try to pick off one or two Republicans so you can call it, quote, bipartisan."
Snowe: 'The Problem Is The Bill Became Bigger'
Appearing on Face The Nation, Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) explained her opposition to the current Senate health care bill, after having previously voted to advance a bill from the Senate Finance Committee: "Well it was a number of issues. I have been in countless meetings, meetings and telephone calls, meetings with the president, meetings with the majority leader, a number of people across the aisle without question. The problem is the bill became bigger. It has the class act which is a whole new entitlement that frankly will turn in the red five years after the benefits begin."
Landrieu: 'There's Only One Reason We're Going To Be Here Until Christmas, And That's Senator Tom Coburn'
Appearing on Face The Nation, Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) lambasted Senate Republicans for obstructing health care and then attacking Democrats for holding late-night votes: "There's only one reason we'll be here for Christmas and that's Senator Tom Coburn . We don't have to vote in the middle of the night. He's the one making us do it, not Harry Reid, the Democrats. It is a Republican obstructionist that is making us vote in the middle of the night."
Comments (51) | Join the Conversation!
Leave a comment
Follow us!
Most Popular
TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com
TPM Top News
© 2010 TPM Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.
mcc
December 20, 2009 1:15 PM
we have committed to go down a path in this country where private insurance will be the way that we achieve universal health care. That means we're going to have a 30-year battle with the insurance industry every time when we try to control costs and try to get them do things
As opposed to the status quo, which... doesn't... have... a system of private insurance?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Richardxx
December 20, 2009 3:24 PM in reply to mcc
Dean's right. There's going to be continued battle with the private insurance companies every time they screw the public over.
But Axelrod was right, too. It would be an insane action to kill the current health care reform legislation because it wasn't good enough. As of right now we aren't going to get any better.
Every journey begins with a single step. This current bill is just that, a single rather tentative step to begin the journey. It is made much more difficult by the posturing and sophistry of the Republicans who want to prevent any movement at all as they succeeded in doing in 1993.
The fact that the Senate is designed to prevent the government from functioning and their arcane rules make that design even more powerful makes even this rather poor effort worse than it should be.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
PeninsulaMatt
December 20, 2009 3:36 PM in reply to Richardxx
This bill is a strong step in the direction of evolving our current system into one that covers everyone. People on the left didn't want evolution, they wanted health care industry REVOLUTION; change the system to single payer and hoped that the public option would lead to that.
Josh is right that the biggest risk with this bill is the long implementation period but once it does get implemented, people will wonder why we didn't do this sort of thing decades ago.
I also believe Krugman that whatever is enacted will be improved over time. I think the Senate Bill retained the provision to eliminate the so-called "doughnut hole" in medicare prescription drug benefit. If that is true, that is a big win for the Dems. It also shows that Congress will improve programs shortly after they are first enacted to clean them up. I'm not an apologist for Congress, I just think all things considered, this bill is progress.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Richardxx
December 20, 2009 4:09 PM in reply to PeninsulaMatt
I've recently been reading an interesting book called "1848: Year of Revolution" by Mike Rapport. He describes the series of revolutions that spread across Europe as the modernists attempted to democratize the many nations of Europe. At the time, Europe was in the grip of the conservatives who had finally defeated Napoleon earlier.
The 1848 Revolutions are considered failures. The conservatives defeated the Liberals and the radicals who were fighting for both universal democracy under constitutions and for social justice for the people. Early in the year it looked like the liberalizing forces were going to win. So they went for everything all at once.
The effect was to separate the liberals who only wanted democracy right then from the radicals who wanted total change in the entire system from top to bottom. The two groups were effectively split during the middle of the year, and the conservatives (who still had control of the governments and in particular, the armies) were able to take advantage of that split and defeat the goals of all of the modernizers.
And yes, I am aware this is a severe oversimplification of what happened. My point is that the radical demand for a complete change in the system scared off so many people that the conservatives were able to take advantage of that and effectively prevent immediate change from occurring.
That seems to be what happened to the Clinton health care initiative. We're in better shape here in America right now because health care reform is broadly supported.
The problem is that the Senate is designed by the Constitution to prevent popular reform from passing and the Republican Party has been taken over by radical conservatives who are trying to return America to the political and economic structure that existed in the 1920's. They are allied with the social conservatives who would like to see our culture returned to some kind of imaginary 1950's or before all-White safe stability that never existed.
Right now I see elements of the 1848 split between the radicals and the liberals being expressed as what Atrios called the "pretty shining object" of the public option is yanked away from us. Well, it has been yanked away. It's gone,and it probably was there, again as Atrios said, just in order to be pulled away.
It's now time to take what we can get right now and get ready for a long slog that's ahead of improving the mess until it actually resembles the kind of health care system a civilized industrial nation should have.
One last point. How many of you realize that Mexico has already passed and is in the process of implementing a universal health care system? I've read that they are talking of expanding it to cover Mexican citizens working in the United States. How far behind the rest of the world are we going to let America fall before we start acting to bring this nation up to speed?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
geofu54
December 20, 2009 3:38 PM in reply to Richardxx
That's my take too. Thanks for eloquently putting it. This thing ain't over, far from it, even if it gets passed and signed.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mcc
December 20, 2009 7:23 PM in reply to Richardxx
Dean's right. There's going to be continued battle with the private insurance companies every time they screw the public over.
Well, I'm just thinking. A 30 year battle with the insurance industry over public good vs profit? Isn't that what we've been doing for the last 15 years?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Overreach THIS!
December 20, 2009 1:19 PM
McCain on Fox can say that Switzerland is part of Mexico.
That's what Fox is for: disinformation, Republican talking points, propaganda. No matter how embarrassing (as in this case) or absurd.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Overreach THIS!
December 20, 2009 1:27 PM
One of the great failures of Dems is giving the caucus reason to believe that they are entirely free to vote against Dems even in cloture.
Reagan Republicans would not have tolerated a bunch of Republicans filibustering and endlessly threatening to filibuster their key votes. Lectures from Revoltin' Joe are bad enough, but we shouldn't be publicly subjected to threats from e.g. Conrad, good grief. Democrats could be doing a better job on this, as others have said. They don't have to vote for the bill but they should not be filibustering their own side with impunity and it's out of control.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Overreach THIS!
December 20, 2009 1:29 PM
Good going by Landieu by the way. Goodness do I despise that Coburn.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Viva!America!
December 20, 2009 1:54 PM
Where did this 30 year war come from? And if you had succeeded in killing the bill, Dr. Dean, the insurance company stocks would have also skyrocketed.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Michael A
December 20, 2009 3:20 PM in reply to Viva!America!
I disagree. If the bill got killed, the stocks would go down. They are getting 30 million, that's with an m, new customers with the hammer of the government requiring them to buy insurance. Talk about an outrage!!!
It's the same bullshit as car non-insurance. Just get in an accident and try to make a claim. You are stuck in court for years. You would think that people would learn.
Kill the bill. No bill is better than this outrage. I don't want my tax dollars going to an insurance industry welfare program. Talk about welfare queens.
Medicare for all should be the next go at it. F*ck the insurance industry and the pharma industry. We are heavily subsidizing world drug prices for everyone. Out-F*cking-rageous. You would think that the fact that drugs are substantially cheaper in Canada would set off questions, but it doesn't. Of course they are cheaper because the government doesn't let pharma rip off their people like our government does.
Pathetic
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Richardxx
December 20, 2009 3:39 PM in reply to Michael A
Because of the very short term gain the insurance companies expect to get you would kill the long term gain of having a system that covers 94% of American residents, eliminates recisions and refusals to sell insurance because preexisting conditions and which, by the way, directs the Secretary of HHS to collect data on claims not paid, as well as on the costs shifted on to the patients through deductions and copays?
The stock market barely views the world 90 days forward. You are getting mad at people who, as despicable as they are, are literally blind to both the problems of health care and to the long term benefits of what is still in the health care reform bill. Don't be as blind as they are.
The opportunities this bill still offers will not come again anytime within the near future. That means this is it for the Obama administration. Period. Do something the conservatives will never be caught doing. Consider the human costs of losing what has been gained in this poor bill.
This is a classic "Hold your nose and vote for it!" bill.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Michael A
December 20, 2009 4:06 PM in reply to Richardxx
Sorry, I disagree for a couple of reasons:
1. It will not cover 94% of people. It will not cover illegal aliens and it will attempt to force people who can't afford insurance to buy insurance. Hold your nose? Those people that can't afford it and will have a mandate won't be holding their nose and voting dem in the future. They just won't vote.
2. It is subsidizing the criminal insurance industry and allowing them to continue with business as usual.
3. The insurance industry offers absolutely nothing to the healthcare system. They are a drain of healthcare dollars. The do not provide care and have an administrative system in place to deny people care for company profits.
4. The pharma industry business model is to make all of their profits out of the US. All. They make minimal profits off of the other 3.7 billion people in the world. Why not increase world drug prices by a dollar and get US drug prices in line with world drug prices and they would still make a profit. It is an outrage that I am subsidizing drugs in Canada, the UK, Germany, France, etc., etc.
5. Medicare is a more than adequate, cheap and fair administrative system to handle universal healthcare. It is not driven by profits or designed to deny people care.
6. Our products will never be competitive in the world market place because of health insurance costs and drug subsidies. That's why business, not insurance and pharma, want real healthcare reform. I want our economy to grow and people to prosper and it will not happen as long as we keep giving insurance companies welfare. The US just can't make competitive products because of these built in costs. For example, every car manufactured has 2k in healthcare costs built into it. Get rid of those costs and the car is immediately more competitive. We need structural changes in the economy starting with healthcare. This bill does nothing to accomplish that and only contributes to the inevitable economic decline of the US.
Bottom line, I would rather have no bill and continue with business as usual rather than this until industry and the american people wake up and shut down the criminal health insurance industry.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Richardxx
December 20, 2009 4:53 PM in reply to Michael A
Here are my reasons for disagreeing with you. They come down to the fact that change in the basic system of financing health care is urgently needed, and it was urgently needed twenty years ago. Kill this now and nothing will happen until after Obama is out of office, if then.
Here is my response to each point.
1. You are correct that it won't cover illegal aliens. But it will cover a lot of Americans who are not now covered, and besides the personal advantages of that, the hospitals and other health providers will get stuck with a lot fewer and smaller bad debts that have to be somehow paid. I want movement to cover whoever can be added to the planned systems.
2. No disagreement. But punishing them is not the intent of this bill. I won't sacrifice one single additional person getting health care to make the insurance companies pay for what they have done.
3. No disagreement. Private insurance companies add nothing to the health care mix. But they exist, they are politically powerful, and they killed reform in 1993. If they do not survive this in this bill, this bill will not survive. It's that simple. Political realities are often disgusting thing, like insurance companies themselves. If they were going to be replaced by an efficient system they would have been long ago. All of this is in addition to the massive cost that would have to be paid somehow to make the transition to a totally government system. I will promise you right now that creation of a computer system that dealt with a government takeover of health care from the private insurance companies is beyond current computing capabilities. It would take years to get it in place and get it working. And that's just one piece of the problem.
4. Again, no disagreement. And again, this is not a bill intended to punish the pharma industry. That belongs elsewhere.
5. I agree with you. I've worked for Social Security and I'm currently on Medicare. The overhead cost is remarkably low, and it beats Hell out of being on a PPO where I have to get approvals before seeing health care providers and I was always worried about in network or not.
Killing this current bill in order to later replace it with Medicare means keeping the status quo and doing nothing. This bird in the hand, poor, skinny and bedraggled as it is, is worth more than an infinite number of fantasy sleek fat birds in the bush.
6. If you think that expanding Medicare to everyone will take the burden of the health care costs off of American business then you are living in a fantasy world. Do you realize that the hospital (Part A) of Medicare is financed by a 2.9% tax on every worker in the economy covered under FICA? Yet it only covers those over age 65 and those on total Social Security Disability. If everyone is covered for benefits, who pays for it? It will be greatly more than 3% of every income, I promise. This bill at least addresses that issue. Before expanding Medicare to everyone you have to explain where the money for it comes from.
And the lack of competitiveness of American industry has a lot more to do with the financialization of the American economy and the outsourcing of jobs than it does with health care costs. Our productivity could have covered the cost of health care. Instead it has been given to the wealthiest people in the nation as excessive profits and excessive executive salaries. Blame Wall Street for that first.
If you want to keep the status quo, then you don't understand the disaster that the present system is in. The nation cannot afford to continue without a major change because costs keep rising and there is nothing to stop that. This bill changes the way health care is reimbursed so that costs will be somewhat held down. It could be better, but it's a lot better than the status quo.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Michael A
December 20, 2009 5:26 PM in reply to Richardxx
Two points:
1. My biggest reason to kill the bill is the mandate. That is basically a huge tax increase on people that cannot afford it. Get rid of the mandate and regulate the industry if that's what the plan is. The mandate is an outrage and a government handout to the industry.
2. There are many structural problems with the economy, not just healthcare costs. Get rid of the insurance drag on the economy with single payer, you reduce costs dramatically. Also, single payer would kill the personal injury legal business. Healthcare is covered, so the PI industry will go down dramatically, reducing overall economic costs. Outsourcing is a huge problem and is profitable for business because of healthcare costs and tax breaks. Get rid of those issues and outsourcing will slow down. My point on the insurance costs built into american products was not that it was the only economic issue concerning our non-competitiveness, but that it was one of the issues.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Richardxx
December 20, 2009 6:13 PM in reply to Michael A
We simply disagree on these two points, and I don't think the elements of disagreement are major.
1. The key problem that I see with controlling costs and delivering health care is the fact that each insuring entity creates its own risk pool to insure, and they all profit by throwing the sickest out of their pool. Those individuals either go to the government risk pool, usually Medicaid, which raises the cost to the government because it gets the sickest to pay for. That also forces the government to pay below standard costs. The rest of the people (not covered under government plans) are for one reason or another self-insured.
The solution to this is community risk pools, but for that to work requires everyone to belong. The mandate is the only politically possible way to achieve that. The mandate is also required if everyone is required to cover preexisting conditions, otherwise only the sick pay for insurance.
It is my belief, though I can't prove it, that the absence of universal coverage increased health care costs a great deal.
I'll take anything now that approaches universal coverage for those reasons. The system can be cleaned up and improved later.
2. Single Payer is simply not politically possible now nor will it be in the foreseeable future without massive change in the status quo. The change, whatever it is, has to come first. This bill sets that change in motion. Nothing else on the horizon does.
My personal preference all along has been single payer. The countries that have it are a lot smaller than the U.S. and many of them adopted it following WW II when their nation was destroyed and rebuilding. Existing power centers did not have to be catered to. The U.S. is not so fortunate. We will not achieve a rational system. We are going to have to take what we can get. Bird in hand and all that.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Michael A
December 20, 2009 7:12 PM in reply to Richardxx
On point 1, that's the way insurance is supposed to work in theory. However, that is not reality. That's why we had to have medicare in the first place because insurance companies would not cover the elderly. We now have a system that has people who need healthcare the most, the elderly, are in the government system. Add the rest of the people to the risk pool and costs will go down.
The problem is, and always will be, with health insurance is that the companies owe a fiduciary duty to stockholders to maximize profits. The duty is not to provide care or cost effectiveness. It is to maximize profits. The way to accomplish that is to deny coverage. Simple as that. The system is totally screwed up and needs to be changed.
You are correct on the political viability of single payer. Dems just can't get it together on marketing and explaining things simply. Maybe they will in the future. Right now, as opposed to an artificial mandate, maybe a small step in reform would be tougher regulations. An artificial mandate is not the way to go.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
December 20, 2009 4:33 PM in reply to Michael A
You have health insurance so it's easy for you to say "kill the bill."
On behalf of the 30 million who will now get covered, I say "fuck you."
On behalf of the 45,000 people who die each year because they have no health insurance, I say "fuck you."
On behalf of the thousands in the individual insurance market who get cancelled when they get sick, I say "fuck you."
On behalf of the people with chronic illnesses, who exhaust their annual benefits by May, I say "fuck you."
On behalf of the millions who are denied coverage because of pre-existing conditions, I say "fuck you."
In sum, fuck you!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Michael A
December 20, 2009 4:37 PM in reply to FreeRider
1. I don't have health insurance and cannot afford it.
2. Your claims are not evidenced by the bill.
3. Learn to read and try to get an education, your post evidence a continuing lack of knowledge, intelligence and grasp of common sense.
Fuck you as well.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
December 20, 2009 4:57 PM in reply to Michael A
For the past 20 years, the Democrats' mantra has been "45 million people don't have health insurance!" It wasn't "45 million people don't have access to a public option or a medicare buy-in."
The lament was over the absence of "health insurance." Period.
Now, you say expanding Medicaid eligibility and covering an additional 30 million people with government subsidies when necessary is something to be pissed on and thrown away because there is no public option (THAT WOULD HAVE COVERED LESS THAN 2% OF THE POPULATION WITH PREMIUMS THAT COST MORE THAN PRIVATE INSURANCE).
You're willing to punish tens of millions of desperate people to hurt the insurance industry. Puhleeze!
REPEAT: On behalf of the 30 million who will get health insurance, the 45,000 who die each year for lack of insurance, those who exhaust their annual benefits by May, those who are denied coverage because of pre-existing conditions, those who have their policies cancelled because of pre-existing conditions, FUCK YOU!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Michael A
December 20, 2009 5:20 PM in reply to FreeRider
And, your point?
Fuck you. I don't need caps, apparently you have an inferiority complex.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
December 20, 2009 5:25 PM in reply to Michael A
Unlike YOU, at least I'm not rooting for 45,000 people to die each year because they don't have insurance and 1 million to go bankrupt each year just to stick it to the insurance companies who--by the way--are going to be fat and happy with or without this bill!
Asswipe!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Michael A
December 20, 2009 5:28 PM in reply to FreeRider
I'm not rooting for that either dipshit. The bill will do nothing to address that issue. Read the fine print. Oh, that's right, you can't read and understand. You are just a asshole who want to lob f-bombs at people.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
December 20, 2009 6:52 PM in reply to Michael A
The Harvard study said 45,000 people die each year BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE HEALTH INSURANCE!!
Not because insurance company stocks go up!
Not because there's no public option!
Not because there's no medicare buy-in!
They die because they don't have health insurance. This bill will give 30 million more people health insurance but you want to kill it!
Therefore, you're OK with people dying if it means sticking it to the insurance companies. What an ass! The insurance companies are going to be just fine without this bill. Those 45,000 people are NOT!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Michael A
December 20, 2009 7:07 PM in reply to FreeRider
I don't know why I bother. The point is that 45,000 people die because they do not have insurance. This bill will not accomplish providing insurance. People who can't afford it still will not be able to afford it with this bill and won't have insurance. The insurance companies will still be able to manufacture excuses not to cover people as well. This is all smoke and mirrors and bullshit.
The pre-existing exclusion will be in place until 2014 and the mandate will not go into effect until 2014, so there are still 5 more years of the same old, same old. Gee, I wonder why 2014. Is it to get through 2012 and the midterms in 2014 before people get hammered with the mandate? Nah.
Like I said, go get an education and some common sense and then come back and hurl f-bombs dipshit. Maybe if your mommy saw your language on the computer she bought you, she would take it away.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
December 20, 2009 9:05 PM in reply to Michael A
>> This bill will not accomplish providing insurance. People who can't afford it still will not be able to afford it with this bill and won't have insurance.>>
The CBO says 30 million more people will have insurance with this bill.
This bill expands Medicare to 133% of poverty.
This bill provides subsidies to families making $88K a year for insurance.
But, according to you, this bill won't cover any more people? STFU, you dumb dishonest fuck!!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Michael A
December 20, 2009 9:20 PM in reply to FreeRider
Who's your mom? I'm going to tell her to wash your mouth out with soap you ignorant child. You have health insurance on your parent's policies?
Go fuck yourself.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
December 20, 2009 9:54 PM in reply to Michael A
I'm being admonished about my foul mouth by someone who tells me to go fuck myself. Now, isn't that special?!!
30 million more people will have health insurance.
Subsidies will be available to people at 400% of poverty.
Medicaid will be expanded to 133% of poverty.
No more lifetime caps.
No more annual caps.
No more rescission.
No more banning for pre-existing conditions.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Michael A
December 20, 2009 10:02 PM in reply to FreeRider
Yep. I'm not a child living under my parents roof, like you are. I can hurl retaliatory f-bombs.
The bottom line is tax payer dollars are being funneled to the insurance industry. Also, the recission and preexisting condition stuff is not as "great" as you profess.
The mandate sucks and is the problem. Why not do all the wonderful things that you claim without the mandate and taxpayer subsidies to the insurance industry? Another idea, as opposed to funnelling dollars for "subsidies", just put those people in medicare and medicaid. Implement it now, not in 2014 and lets see what happens.
I'm for that.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
December 20, 2009 10:18 PM in reply to Michael A
I would clue you in about my personal circumstances if (a) it was relevant and (b) I cared what you thought.
1. Even at its best, the public option would have only covered 2% of the people.
2. The Medicare buy-in would have only covered the uninsured 55-64 and would have cost $635 per month.
3. 45,000 people die every year because they don't have insurance. If the government is going to help/insist those people get coverage, they have to help them afford it with subsidies.
4. I never said those provisions were "great" but they are a "great improvement" on what we have now. My friend's teenage daughter has diabetes. They have to have a separate policy for her and it costs a fortune. By May, they have exhausted her annual benefits and pay the rest of the year out-of-pocket, which amounts to an additional $3-4,000. This plan stops that!!!
4. I don't want the insurance companies to get more money BUT we have a choice: we can refuse to work with insurance companies and continue to allow 45,000 people to die each year or we could swallow hard and cover 30 million more people!
You obviously care more about punishing the insurers than you care about healthcare for 30 million people. I don't.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Walter Mitty
December 20, 2009 2:16 PM
The issue with the stocks is faulty unless Dean is claiming insider trading. Because the stocks shot up without the bill even being available. It's more a case of regular joe traders who have been bombarded with "The Public Option is the end all, be all" seeing it dropped and the accompanying outrage from the Left and thus thinking - hell this must be very good for health insurance companies.
I think this is going to be neutral for health insurance companies - which is what I think the White House was going for. This way more folks are covered and those with coverage are more secure and Insurance Co's are fine as long they don't lose on the overhaul. This keeps the insurance co's money out of the 2010 and 2012 election cycles which I think was a goal of Rahm and Co.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
GregGreg
December 20, 2009 2:23 PM
Olympia Snowe is right, the problem is that the bill is too big. This beast of a bill is never going to pass the House and Senate.
The Democrats would have a lot more success if the message was much simpler. The easiest way to do this would be to break this into several bills.
For example, one bill could be called "Medicare for Kids" and expand Medicare coverage to everyone under 18. That's easy to understand, appealing to most people, and hard to vote against.
Another bill could be called "Buy into Medicare" and allow anyone who wants to, regardless of age, to buy into Medicare coverage.
Another bill could be called "Consumer Protection for Health Insurance" and could prevent health insurance abuses like putting up absurd hoops before paying claims or dropping people once they get sick.
Keep it simple, use things people already understand (like Medicare), and stick to things with wide public support (like helping children and protecting people from our deeply unpopular health insurance companies).
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Richardxx
December 20, 2009 3:42 PM in reply to GregGreg
That was the strategy that was intended when Medicare was passed in 1965.
Sure worked well then, didn't it?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
sunnysteve
December 20, 2009 3:07 PM
John McCain is very good for the debate. He reminds us why we voted for Obama.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Overreach THIS!
December 20, 2009 3:39 PM in reply to sunnysteve
It's a good comment, not a mere snark. You look at him, listen to him, almost certainly he'll make some error, and you think, sweet Jesus, he was almost President at the time of the crisis!!
What would he have done?
"Make the Bush tax cuts permanent?"
Propose further deregulation of the Wall Street Horror?
Increase further the already frightful tensions with Russia?
Probably propose new tax cuts?
And there would have been a Second Great Depression and what would he offer then? Attack Iran? Accelerate Ukraine's entry into NATO? Wait-and-see policy? Even more tax cuts? Appoint Palin to lead some special task force?
The thought is terrifying.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
geofu54
December 20, 2009 5:40 PM in reply to Overreach THIS!
And there would have been a Second Great Depression and what would he offer then? Attack Iran? Accelerate Ukraine's entry into NATO? Wait-and-see policy? Even more tax cuts? Appoint Palin to lead some special task force?
Add his grand plan of "spending freeze" in that mix [:shiver:]
We would have been *fatally* screwed had that idiot won, people.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Michael A
December 20, 2009 5:46 PM in reply to geofu54
And by now we would be singing hail to the chief to rambo of the great northwest, with her finger on the nuke button. Also, we would probably have a draft by now and be in a world war against 1 billion muslims allied with 1 billion chinese and 200 million russians. Frightening thought.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Overreach THIS!
December 20, 2009 5:56 PM in reply to Michael A
And here I already had myself worked up, and then geofu54 scared me even more above, and now you come up with **this!!**
YIPES!!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Overreach THIS!
December 20, 2009 5:52 PM in reply to geofu54
Oh yeah, thanks for reminding of that genius spending freeze idea!
*Fatally* screwed; that's right. [:Shiver:], indeed!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
todd432
December 20, 2009 3:52 PM in reply to sunnysteve
Amen
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
geofu54
December 20, 2009 3:13 PM
After all, it seems Snowe did not negotiate in good faith. She keeps coming up with reasons to oppose it -- she opposed PO, opposed Medicare buy-in... and when everything she wanted out from the bill is out, she starts complaining it's rushed or it's too big, and will vote against it to kiss teabaggers' ass, after fully enjoying the spotlight. It's nearly as bad as Liebersuck, with the only think making her less evil being after all she is not in the Democratic caucus and does not benefit from it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
PeninsulaMatt
December 20, 2009 3:29 PM
McCain's comments kill me. Republicans have circled the wagons as far as working with Obama. Snowe got chastised by the right for voting HCR out of committee and voting for the stimulus. Why do Dems give Republicans anything in a bill when they don't even vote for it in the end. Dems gave away how much to the Republicans in the stimulus for 1 vote?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
December 20, 2009 3:32 PM
the democratic party is a huge disappointment. Industry and corporations have even co-opted reform in their favor, even when it means trading away what the democratic party once stood for.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
todd432
December 20, 2009 3:53 PM
This bill sucks and if Americans would have been told that we would be FORCED into buying heath care and from WHOM this bill would not even have made as far as it did. This is an outrage! We have been lied to by our President and by the Senate. Joe Lieberman is the biggest bum of all but I'm afraid his partners in crime in the senate are none the less to blame for allowing this garbage of a Bill to come as far as it has. The people will not forget this come 2010 just because Obama had a nice photo signing this crap. Down with the Dems and republicans in 2010, it's 3rd party or ANY other party time.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mcc
December 20, 2009 7:25 PM in reply to todd432
if Americans would have been told that we would be FORCED into buying heath care
This has been a widely discussed component of the Democratic health care proposals for two years.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Kevin Sutton
December 20, 2009 7:34 PM in reply to mcc
Not the one that won the primary as I recall.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Michael A
December 20, 2009 7:45 PM in reply to Kevin Sutton
Ditto. I recall clinton advocated mandate and obama was opposed to a mandate. Who won the primary? Hmmmm.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mcc
December 20, 2009 7:23 PM
Dean's right. There's going to be continued battle with the private insurance companies every time they screw the public over.
Well, I'm just thinking. A 30 year battle with the insurance industry over public good vs profit? Isn't that what we've been doing for the last 15 years?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mcc
December 20, 2009 7:24 PM in reply to mcc
Post fail.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Kevin Sutton
December 20, 2009 7:46 PM
I think what you have is essentially a bill that only takes on the unwillingness of some Americans to fund for universal health care. It does not however, take on either drug companies or other providers; nor in the end, insurance companies either. The former was never attempted, and the latter eventually walked away from. (Or lost if you presume nothing else could be done)
One of Nate Silver's arguments that rang true (Sort of) to me was that the bill as it currently stands is like a welfare program. Subsidies from the government's progressive taxes paying for poor people to be insured.
While a Democratic majority can do good in congress, it has yet to be able to show it can prioritize the public's needs above the corporations. So within that constraint, the only good reforms that one can expect is likely to be only that which is mutually beneficial to some industry as well as the public.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
December 21, 2009 1:14 AM in reply to Kevin Sutton
This is a welfare program for insurance workers. As stated elsewhere instead of paying them to do something harmless like digging holes and filling them up we are paying them to shuffle papers in ways which damage access to medical care.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?