
Last year's health care debate was dominated by a bruising--and ultimately losing--fight over the public option. But simmering on the back burner for weeks while the public option ran its course has been a battle among Democrats over how to pay for health care reform. And now, with the public option swept into the dustbin, the fight over taxes has come to the fore, and is testing relationships all the way up the Democratic ladder to party leadership and the White House.
At issue is whether expanding insurance coverage to over 30 million Americans should be paid for by wealthy Americans (as the House would like), or, as the Senate calls for, by people who have expensive health care plans--many of whom are middle class. The vast majority of House Democrats--and the public at large--oppose the Senate proposal. But the idea has one powerful ally: President Obama.
"The polling just hasn't moved an inch," Rep. Joe Courtney (D-CT) told me. Recent data indicates that the public opposes the Senate's so-called "Cadillac tax" plan by a two-to-one margin. "Frankly, it's the same polling that was there when Obama went after McCain on this."
According to Courtney many in the House believe that, after sacrificing the public option, Democrats should draw a line in the sand over the excise tax--including one Democratic leader.
"I've heard that dynamic expressed [just this week] by one member of the leadership," Courtney said.
He points out that the funding issue is in some ways more complicated than the public option. "The public option is not something that people have today, so letting go on that issue was not conceding a benefit that people have presently," he points out. "Changing the tax status of health care--that's a different dynamic...it's going backwards for people."
Courtney said the excise tax has become the major flashpoint in negotiations between party leaders over how to structure a final health care bill. In a Democratic caucus conference call yesterday, about 20 members asked questions of House leadership about their concerns over the direction reform will take. According to Courtney, seven of those were with regard to the Cadillac tax.
Courtney is the author of a letter, signed by 190 House Democrats, expressing strong opposition to the Senate tax plan, which he and many in Congress--including Speaker Nancy Pelosi--believe violates Obama's campaign pledge not to raise taxes on the middle class.
Earlier this week, referring to the excise tax, Pelosi quipped that Obama hadn't lived up to his promise. The next day, in a meeting at the White House, the tension boiled over, resulting in an exchange that put Pelosi and White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel at bitter odds, according to a source briefed on the meeting.
In an interview this afternoon, Rep. John Dingell (D-MI), the Dean of the House, raised a number of similar concerns. "The House has given up two things that I regard as critically important. The first was the single payer. The second was [the public option]," Dingell said. (Dingell clarified later that the House hasn't officially given up on the public option.)
"I personally am troubled that the Senate will come to conference as they usually do, saying to the House you have to take our bill because we can't do anything different," Dingell said. "I am troubled by the fact that I think the administration needs to spend more time talking to the House."
"It hasn't gotten to the point where it's creating friction," Dingell cautioned. "But if the White House doesn't begin to talk more carefully with the House and listen more carefully to the concerns of the House it almost certainly will create serious friction and problems."
There are potential fixes on the table, including changing the threshold of the Cadillac tax, and combining it with a progressive tax on the wealthy. But the White House isn't budging--and rank and file Democrats have a warning for him.
"I hope the White House doesn't have to learn that fact in an unfortunate and unpleasant way," Dingell said. "[The Cadillac tax] also outrages, alienates, and infuriates millions" in the Democratic base.
In particular, it infuriates union leaders and members, many of whom regard high-end insurance policies as a major employment benefit. In that regard Obama will soon be meeting with high-level union officials to attempt to sell them on the policy. But their opposition is deeply entrenched. And, in a familiar dynamic, they are less willing to compromise now that their other key priority--the public option--has been scuttled. At the same time, Senate leaders say they can't pass health care reform without their tax--and they can't scale it back and replace the revenue with a tax on millionaires. In other words, this is shaping up to be the battle of January.
Libertine
January 8, 2010 1:22 PM
LET'S GET READY TO RUMBLE!!!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
January 9, 2010 3:39 PM in reply to Libertine
You bet its tearing them apart. If he simply follows the FDR lead there is no reason Dems can't hold onto their seats in 2010.
FDR made BOLD moves and the public responded. Whatever happened to "YES WE CAN"?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
January 9, 2010 3:43 PM in reply to Libertine
You bet its tearing them apart! Got a kick out of Obama's appeal to the public today on MSNBC. What a load of "NO WE CAN'T"!
If he simply follows the FDR lead there is no reason Dems can't hold onto their seats in 2010.
FDR made BOLD moves and the public responded at the 1934 mid-terms. Whatever happened to "YES WE CAN"?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tralbry
January 10, 2010 11:53 PM in reply to JorgeOrwell
"Yes we can" was for US, the volunteers and workers, not for HIM. Yes, I too remember the early press reports that Obama was studying the model of FDR. It was very encouraging - another hint that he'd be a progressive. But as Lloyd Bentsen might say, "You sir, are no FDR". I just don't see the intestinal fortitude.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
storm
January 8, 2010 1:24 PM
what is current definition of 'cadillac'?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
January 8, 2010 1:27 PM in reply to storm
Two aspirin.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CT Voter
January 8, 2010 1:37 PM in reply to storm
8,500 for single; 23,00 for families.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
January 8, 2010 2:47 PM in reply to CT Voter
Which would be twice as expensive as the cost of the median employer-provided plan.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
January 8, 2010 2:56 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
Twice as expensive AND twice as good at providing health care? What care are we giving up? Can I still see my doctor if he doesn't practice at Walmart?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
storm
January 8, 2010 3:01 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
how many of these exist? (or will after the bill is passed?)
i find it hard to believe this could be enough to make much of a dent to balance the subsidy pool.
I thought my insurance was ridiculously expensive at 17k/year (for mediocre coverage).
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Andreams
January 8, 2010 9:19 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
Unfortunately, a lot of us don't fall into the median. Older people, people with pre-x, people who live in high cost states....and those people who fall into every one of these categories. Unions may have problems and everyone focuses on that but there are a whole lot of other people who will be harmed by the excise tax.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
January 9, 2010 5:35 PM in reply to Andreams
“Health care for everyone – that sounds wonderful,” says the 35-year-old, an outreach coordinator for a low-income community health clinic. “In reality, when it comes down to it, it is another big bill that just doesn’t fit.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34771054/ns/health-health_care/
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jimbomoron
January 9, 2010 2:31 PM in reply to storm
Here:
Should taxpayers really be subsidizing 45% (assuming that is their marginal tax rate) of the costs of these plans when those hotel workers who cleaned your room at Netroots Nation get zero subsidy from taxpayers because they aren't lucky enough to get health insurance through their employer?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
LoTek
January 10, 2010 8:50 PM in reply to storm
A Cadillac plan is one that is nearly as good as a Frenchman gets for free.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
VictorLH
January 8, 2010 1:47 PM
This is Rahm, the Corporate whore. The Democrats will be finished if Obama lets the Senate get away with this.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
January 8, 2010 2:14 PM in reply to VictorLH
You're aware that corporate executives are the main beneficiary of the plans that would be taxed, right?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
January 8, 2010 2:17 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
Not exactly. Check Bob Herbert.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C02E0DE1638F93AA15751C1A96F9C8B63
Not to mention a host of other people who follow this more carefully than you do.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
admiralmpj
January 8, 2010 2:29 PM in reply to again
Not exactly (re: Bob Herbert). Check Ezra Klein:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/01/if_youre_looking_for_the.html
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
January 8, 2010 2:37 PM in reply to admiralmpj
I'll stick with Mahar and Herbert on this. But thanks, I always enjoy reading Klein, even when he's wrong.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
admiralmpj
January 8, 2010 2:39 PM in reply to again
Here's the one thing that got my attention from Klein's piece directly addressing Herbert's: "Distilled to its essentials, Herbert is arguing that, even at the high end, more expensive insurance policies are better insurance policies, and that the government should be subsidizing their purchase. Does that sound like a world in which we're going to control costs?"
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
January 8, 2010 2:45 PM in reply to admiralmpj
That depends on how Klein defines "more expensive."
We might be able to address the real cause of hc inflation, if this legislation were more than "health insurance reform" and if this legislation were more than just a give-away to pharma and insurers.
But Klein's arguments regarding the current legislation, like the legislation itself, miss the point entirely.
The current HCR in the Senate is the opposite of reform.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
admiralmpj
January 8, 2010 2:47 PM in reply to again
Scroll down and see NCSteve's comment from 2:42, because this new Liberal era of just saying something sucks without benefit of explaining why it sucks...escapes me.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
January 8, 2010 2:58 PM in reply to admiralmpj
As a health care worker, and as a Democrat, I'd counter that.
I think the continued denial of specific objections to policy... as some kind of generalized whining that "sucks"... is counterproductive to the survival of the Democratic party, which appears to be currently involved in some kind of desperate race to the bottom in terms of Chicago-style dealmaking with big pharma and insurers.
And I have responded with specific objections to arguments made here. So to characterize my objections as "not explaining why" does not speak well of your reading comprehension.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
shekissesfrogs
January 9, 2010 5:17 AM in reply to admiralmpj
Klein attends message discipline meetings put on by the white house in return for access. He's not as neutral as he ought to be.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Scott in PacNW
January 10, 2010 10:11 PM in reply to admiralmpj
I see nothing that qualifies Ezra Klein as an HC, legislative, cost control, or econ expert.
Klien claims to make a mean kung pao. Fine. But he failed to explain why the Senate bill will do anything to contain costs. Because it doesn't.
The Senate bill is fail, and Team Obama is onboard the failboat.
Sounds like Joe Courtney and Nancy Pelosi understand this stuff quite well. I know where my contributions will be going this year.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
January 8, 2010 2:39 PM in reply to again
From the Herbert piece:
"Proponents say the tax will raise nearly $150 billion over 10 years, but there's a catch. It's not expected to raise this money directly. The dirty little secret behind this onerous tax is that no one expects very many people to pay it. The idea is that rather than fork over 40 percent in taxes on the amount by which policies exceed the threshold, employers (and individuals who purchase health insurance on their own) will have little choice but to ratchet down the quality of their health plans."
This is what galls me about the dirty dealing in this bill. They're trying to trick Americans into getting worse heatlhcare plans. The only way they can perform the magic trick of covering 30 million more people and reducing the deficit is to give us all lousy care enforced by the IRS.
If the Repubilicans were doing this to us we would scream bloody murder.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
admiralmpj
January 8, 2010 2:45 PM in reply to bluebell
The best thing I can think of to answer you is to quote Klein:
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
January 8, 2010 2:57 PM in reply to admiralmpj
They crack down on spending by denying care.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
pittprof
January 8, 2010 3:44 PM in reply to admiralmpj
Amen. That's the best rationale I've read yet for the Senate's excise tax over the House's surtax.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
theone718
January 8, 2010 7:19 PM in reply to admiralmpj
BINGO. No it's not by "denying care". It's by having people shop smarter. Most companies are GROSSELY overpaying for Heath Care. This is behavioral economics 101, you nudge people to be smarter shoppers. That's the true goal of the excise tax.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Silence
January 9, 2010 8:35 AM in reply to theone718
This would require opening up the market across state lines. The republicans suggested this legislation, but the Dems won't hear of it.
Still think your beloved reps care about you?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
January 8, 2010 2:50 PM in reply to again
Touche. Your expertise on this issue is every bit as impressive as your judgment of how closely I'm following this issue.
I mean hey, I disagree with you, so clearly I must not be paying the slightest attention to it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
January 8, 2010 3:00 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
That's how you responded to my provision of a link? Is yours an irrational - or an intentionally dishonest - response?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
VictorLH
January 8, 2010 2:52 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
Guess they would be the ones to get the wage increases the Economists are promising then.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
VictorLH
January 8, 2010 2:56 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
And your aware the wage increases promised by the same economists who brought us NAFTA will go to the same???
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cwnidog
January 8, 2010 3:37 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
While I do note the presence of that all-important "main", I'm not so sure that you point holds. Being self-employed, I have to pay for my own insurance, which goes for about $7,500 a year. Believe me, it ain't no Cadillac plan.
I figure by the time they raise the rates in 2011, it will exceed the threshold.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rbeats
January 8, 2010 1:49 PM
Hey Look it's the President and Barack Obama in the photo.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
January 8, 2010 1:53 PM in reply to rbeats
ha!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
EastWest
January 8, 2010 2:57 PM in reply to rbeats
Heh.
Question: What's the difference between Rahm Emmanuel and Dick Cheney?
Answer: Nothing. It's a trick question.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Socratic_Squirrel
January 8, 2010 1:50 PM
The excise tax is good policy - experts from across the political spectrum favor it, and while I doubt that it will lead to an immediate rise in wages, it will probably lead to a larger increase in wages over time than the status quo. It would be nice if the substantive aspects of the debate - as opposed to just the political theater - had been mentioned in the story.
This doesn't mean I oppose the house's taxes - in a perfect world, the compromise I envision would be to tax health plans AND the wealthy in order to pay for larger subsidies, an earlier start date, or other perks. I suppose this makes me a "tax and spend liberal." Oh well.
At the end of the day though this is about policy for the whole country - most of which is not unionized. The fact that some interest groups (i.e. insurance companies, health care providers, drug manufacturers...) got to water down good policy is no excuse for allowing other interest groups to do so.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
January 8, 2010 1:56 PM in reply to Socratic_Squirrel
"The fact that some interest groups (i.e. insurance companies, health care providers, drug manufacturers...) got to water down good policy is no excuse for allowing other interest groups to do so."
Uh, "other interest groups"? Like the American people this legislation purports to serve? Of course they should not be allowed the same absurd excesses of pharma and insurers.
Of course we should not address the insurers' exemption from anti-trust law.
Are you kidding?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Socratic_Squirrel
January 8, 2010 2:20 PM in reply to again
No - other interest groups like unions, large corporations, and insurance companies, all of which benefit from the tax exempt status of employer provided health benefits.
Most of the american people are not unionized or corporate executives, and they will be better served in the long run by a policy that at least attempts to control health spending.
Of course we should address the antitrust exemption - I'd much rather see the house focus on that than on providing tax breaks to the above-mentioned special interests. There is a long list of issues I wish the house had decided to take a stand on, including the antitrust exemption, subsidies, insurance exchanges, and start date, to name just a few. On all of these issues the house bill is noticeably better. I am disappointed that they picked this issue instead of the others.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
admiralmpj
January 8, 2010 2:33 PM in reply to Socratic_Squirrel
How much of this debate, especially over the Excise Tax is just about people not understanding the church organ nature of this idea. Push a button over here...music comes out over there? Lots of complicated mechanics in between.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
January 8, 2010 2:38 PM in reply to admiralmpj
oooohhhh! Church organs! That explains it! I'm convinced now...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
January 8, 2010 2:36 PM in reply to Socratic_Squirrel
But taxing "Cadillac" plans doesn't control spending, Squirrely.
Have you ever worked in health care? Do you have any idea the range of factors that are leading to hc inflation? Mahar's "Money-Driven Medicine" is a good place to start if you don't have first-hand experience.
And no, taxing "cadillac" plans will not increase wages.
And pretending that "Cadillac" plans will affect largely "corporations" and "unions" is to deny that the beneficiaries of those plans are actually middle-class human workers of said corps and unions.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
January 8, 2010 1:57 PM in reply to Socratic_Squirrel
Oh, wow, I'm so impressed. The experts have decided and we little folks should listen to our betters who of course know best. What is best for us little people is to have less health care so that we may divide what the little people have among more little people. The big people will of course continue to receive concierge care, island vacations, deluxe pensions, book deals and all manner of rewards for keeping the little people in their place.
And I believe that bit about increased wages about as much as I believe in "free" trade.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Socratic_Squirrel
January 8, 2010 2:13 PM in reply to bluebell
Obviously you're not interested in having a discussion - by all means, keep the house taxes, keep the senate taxes, and pay higher subsidies - that way EVERYONE gets better benefits. Remember that most of the "american people" do not have "cadillac" plans.
And while experts should not go unquestioned, it is the height of arrogance to dismiss their opinions out of hand.
How good will it be for the "little people" if health care spending continues to grow like it has? The "big people", as you so artfully put it, won't even notice - but everyone else will. Painful as it is, this is one of the few things in ANY health care bill that makes an attempt to control spending.
As for wage growth - remember, employee compensation has increased over the past decade - but that increase has gone almost entirely to health benefits, in part because they are tax favored. While I have no problem with skepticism about the size of any wage increases, it seems to me that there will be some.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Libertine
January 8, 2010 2:21 PM in reply to Socratic_Squirrel
Why should anyone but the wealthy have to pay more taxes...especially in this economy? Just because people are fortunate enough to have a good union job, which gets them a few added bene's they deserve, they should be made to pay? No way...tax the wealthy.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Silence
January 10, 2010 9:39 AM in reply to Libertine
So, the 'wealthy' should pick up the insurance tab for 30 million legal and illegal residents and the tab for the GM bailouts, medicaid, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, all of the state deficits, the trillion dollar stimulus package, two wars, alleged global warming, green jobs for prisoners, govt pensions, infrastructure, medicare shortages, university shortfalls, medicaid shortages and re-stabilize the unemployment funds.
Did I miss anything? Oh yeah, raises and new jets for congress.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Overreach THIS!
January 11, 2010 4:19 AM in reply to Silence
Sure, toss in Palin's bridge to nowhwere, while you're bloviating idiotically.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
January 8, 2010 2:25 PM in reply to Socratic_Squirrel
I'll go with the experts on this one, Squirrely.
Maggie Mahar, author of Money-Driven Medicine, is considered an expert. And you, clearly, are not.
http://www.healthbeatblog.com/2009/12/fact-check-the-cadillac-controversy.html#more
Everyone needs to give a little - not just the middle class.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
January 8, 2010 2:28 PM in reply to Socratic_Squirrel
Well maybe most Americans SHOULD have cadillac plans. Americans deserve to know what they are going to lose in this bill. If the goal is to cut costs by delivering less care they need to know that.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
January 8, 2010 4:18 PM in reply to Socratic_Squirrel
Bluebell has a one track mind. Forget about a meaningful discussion
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cawleybo
January 8, 2010 10:04 PM in reply to lousgirl84
Besides, he doesn't worship Obama so don't listen to him.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
January 8, 2010 2:14 PM in reply to bluebell
"And I believe that bit about increased wages about as much as I believe in "free" trade."
That's because you're insufficiently delusional.
I think the guy who posts as "Socratic_squirrel" should be forced to change his tag to just "squirrely."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Socratic_Squirrel
January 8, 2010 2:25 PM in reply to again
That's actually not a bad idea - wish I'd thought of it.
Anyway, I'd be happy to listen to any arguments about why the house funding method is better POLICY - but so far all I hear is along the lines of "they got concessions that weakened the bill, why shouldn't we?" Two wrongs, unfortunately, still doesn't make a right.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
January 8, 2010 2:42 PM in reply to Socratic_Squirrel
You're confusing the issue.
There have been unfair advantages handed to big corporations that continue to bleed patients and providers.
e.g., pharma and insurers. The former actually provides a service, regardless of its abuses. The latter? Not so much.
But in the end, the beneficiary is the CEO and the shareholder.
When you are talking about taxing "cadillac" plans, the beneficiary in the end is the worker.
So to equate the two, as you continue to do, is wrong.
And you're utterly mistaken in stating the taxing said plans will rein in costs.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wilsonjm2003
January 8, 2010 3:31 PM in reply to Socratic_Squirrel
Socratic -- I have no idea what your politics are generally (I don't spend enough time on these boards), but I would like to applaud and thank you for bringing some sanity to this discussion. I am as "progressive" as they come on virtually every issue of import to my party in 2010, but this one really escapes me. There appears to be virtual consensus that the "Cadillac tax" is one of the few ways to control costs of healthcare, which, last I checked, was the primary goal (certainly one of the primary goals) of this entire exercise. I happen to agree with you that the union BOSSES (not the unionized workers) are the ones at the fore of this dispute, and are no more entitled to special priviliges as a "special interest group" than any of their corporate counterparts. But even setting that aside, few if any liberals seem to be able to articulate the policy basis for the "Cadillac tax" being a bad idea.
I favor your approach: build in the "Cadillac tax," the upper income tax (which would result in paying higher taxes myself) and any other ideas that permit us to contain health care costs and raise revenue to ensure everyone in America has access to quality healthcare. But stop with the demagoguery against the "Cadillac tax" that, from all I have read, has little basis in fact. It makes us look petulant and no more reasonable than the screaming lunatics on the opposite end of the spectrum.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
January 8, 2010 4:00 PM in reply to wilsonjm2003
Dear Wilson,
You are sadly mistaken. Taxing "cadillac" plans will not control costs. And Ezra Klein is no expert.
The issue of taxing "cadillac" plans has been covered by one of the premier financial and health care journalist in the country - Maggie Mahar.
I would ask that you at least read her recent blog post on this issue, if not her entire book, "Money-Driven Medicine."
I have listed out-takes from the recent blog post and links here, and will provide it again.
http://www.healthbeatblog.com/2009/12/fact-check-the-cadillac-controversy.html#more
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wilsonjm2003
January 8, 2010 9:42 PM in reply to again
Krugman says the same thing, and I inherently trust his analysis of the economics of health care. Is it fair to say that if policy experts on the same side of the aisle come to starkly different conclusions that maybe the issue is not open and shut? If so, is it appropriate to demagogue the issue and those who support it as though it is unquestionably a paean to the industry and a selling out of the People? I'd venture that the answer to that is "no." It's an honest policy disagreement, and nothing is accomplished by questioning the motives, progressive credentials or analytical ability of those who disagree with you. That's the gist of the commentary from Socratic that deserves applause.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
January 8, 2010 10:14 PM in reply to wilsonjm2003
Dear Wilson,
I disagree with you that theirs in an "honest policy disagreement" - a euphemism if ever I heard one. This isn't supposed to be primarily about "honest policy disagreements", Wilson. It's supposed to be about patients. It's supposed to be about the citizenry, and how they're served. Or screwed over.
And I'm not questioning anyone's progressive credentials, because I myself am not a progressive. I've consistently made that clear.
I'm a Democrat. And to this Democrat, who's spent more than enough time in health care, this legislation is very bad - for patients, for "providers" (we like to call them doctors and nurses), and for the Democratic party itself.
I've also spent a fair amount of time talking with and listening to highly-regarded economists and physicians about this very subject. Including Krugman and Mahar. They don't all agree. But to paper over what will be very harmful to patients as a mere "honest policy disagreement" is to miss the point entirely.
So I disagree with you about the value of "Socratic_Squirrel's" contributions here.
By skimming over the deep flaws in the legislation, and by equating unions that exist to serve workers with corporations that, by law, exist to serve their shareholders, "Socratic-Squirrel" demeans the very notion of honest discussion.
Socratic? To paraphrase Woody Allen's "Hannah and Her Sisters", if Socrates were here and heard what was going on in his name, he would never stop throwing up.
"Socratic_Squirrel" should instead call himself "Sophist" - and we all know what Socrates thought of sophists.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
henk
January 8, 2010 4:08 PM in reply to wilsonjm2003
I suggest that you read this article. http://www.healthbeatblog.com/2009/12/fact-check-the-cadillac-controversy.html#more
Its been cited several time here but the "progressives" here don't seem to be reading it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
shekissesfrogs
January 9, 2010 5:32 AM in reply to Socratic_Squirrel
oh, you mean those policy experts that the WH commisisioned that didn't disclose thier conflicts of interests to WAPO or The Atlantic which resulted in a feedback loop. Create the data or opinion you would like to hear, and then refer to it as "expert" .
What an f^%$ing racket!
BTW, Goldman Sachs and Blackstone will be going into the Health Insurance Business together. Really.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
LindaR
January 8, 2010 1:59 PM
What is a deluxe health care plan? One that pays for health care when you get sick and preventative care before you get sick?
Because it seems to me these so-called deluxe plans are only seen so in comparison to the shitty plans nonunion workers have.
(Another example of why unions are bad, I suppose)
Kill the insurance extortionists. Medicare for all.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rbe1
January 8, 2010 2:00 PM
Obama does not appear to have the stomach for a fight with anyone, period. What a big disappointment. I wonder at the extraordinary ability of presidents to select chiefs of staff who end up running the white house through tactical, as opposed to strategic, colored glasses. Incredible. This guy is on his way to a big failure. The time he's spent on his initiatives toward the middle east, Iran, Russia, North Korea, global warming have all been pissed away. Now we're pissing away health insurance reform. What's next ?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Silence
January 10, 2010 10:57 AM in reply to rbe1
Obama has played quite a few rounds of golf and has taken some very swanky vacations. The White House is a beautiful place to live. Have you ever been there? It's no wonder Hillary has so much trouble letting go.
I don't think Bush misses the White House one bit. He loves his ranch. I can't say I blame him. Jefferson, Washington and Adams couldn't wait to get back to their farms.
Perhaps, we should elect people who have real professions and want to return home after serving a term. Personally, I'm sick and tired of the retreads of the past 20 years.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Mad As Hell
January 8, 2010 2:03 PM
To be fair, the Senate bill increases the Medicare tax on earners over $200,000.
I fully expect a reasonable compromise to be reached.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
LindaR
January 8, 2010 2:04 PM
Another thing: Obama may think the unions and boots-on-the-ground Democrats won't walk away from the party in November because the alternative would be worse, but that's wrong.
Letting these pseudo-Democrats lose and then the Republicans once again making things even worse might be the only path to getting a truly liberal Democratic party elected.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jeromeoneil
January 8, 2010 2:13 PM in reply to LindaR
This is exactly where I'm at. Apparently corporate whores haven't figured out that if you wear the blue pumps and not the red pumps, it doesn't mean we really really love you.
I plan on voting a straight socialist ticket in the upcoming election. When the Ds lose the senate and Obama loses the Whitehouse in 2012, I'll give it four more years of republican lunacy to see if the D's can't figure it out in 2016.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
EastWest
January 8, 2010 3:12 PM in reply to LindaR
Not picking a fight with you on this, because I happen to agree 100%, but I don't think you get it. The Dems really do think the "base" will rally 'round the donkey in 2010. They really do think we'll figure we have to pick them over the alternative. Frankly, for many on these forums that's probably true. But it's true only because people here are actually engaged in the process.
The thing they simply cannot see is that the average American is not politically engaged. The average person knows a raw deal when she sees it, just as she knows the difference between pragmatism and weakness, and between ideology and opportunism.
The tea baggers will turn out in droves to vote for their looney-tunes candidates. Engaged Progressives will also turn out. The average left- or center-leaning Dem or Independent will not turn out, if the WH and Dem "leadership" don't wake up soon.
Imagine Gingrich's Contract On America written by the likes of Michele Bachmann. The Dem "leadership" thinks it can't happen because we won't let it. Well, we aren't the majority. The majority is the rest of those people out there who are already disenchanted, and who actually thought all that campaign rhetoric (Hope! Change! Ponies for everybody!) might just possibly be real. Now they're learning it was just talk.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rbe1
January 8, 2010 4:09 PM in reply to EastWest
Yeah, I have to wonder what is going through the minds of Obama's political helper/handlers, Emanuel in particular. It took a lot of promises and rhetoric not to mention 8 years of Bush/Cheney/Rice/Rumsfeld to mobilize the left. If the people in the white house don't think they've pissed just about all of that away, they're delusional.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
henk
January 8, 2010 4:28 PM in reply to rbe1
Here's what's going through Rahm's mind: Campaign$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. Votes (i.e. voters) don't matter campaign dollars do.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
agio
January 8, 2010 2:06 PM
Can someone explain how to figure out if our current insurance plan will be subject to the Cadillac tax? Is it simply how much you and your employer together pay annually for your health insurance?
Also, I see there is a rate for individuals and a rate for families, but my wife & I are covered under a plan for married couples without children, so where do we fit?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CT Voter
January 8, 2010 2:15 PM in reply to agio
I believe it is based on what you and employer pay, combined. So you'd have to find out what your employer is paying to know whether your insurance would qualify as cadillac.
I don't know if there is a distinction between families and married, no children.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Salmo
January 8, 2010 2:26 PM in reply to agio
See CT Voter above, where the definition is: 8,500 for single; 23,00 for families.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
January 8, 2010 2:29 PM in reply to agio
from Maggie Mahar's blog (Mahar wrote the now-classic "Money-Driven Medicine" and is one of Warren Buffett's favorite financial reporters)
"Would You Be Affected By the Tax?
You may be thinking, “I don’t know how much my employer pays for my family’s insurance, but I’m certain it’s not $23,000.”
Yet, as Bob Herbert notes: “because of the steadily rising costs of health care in the U.S., more and more plans would reach the taxation threshold” in the near future.
“Within three years of its implementation, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the tax would apply to nearly 20 percent of all workers with employer-provided health coverage in the country, affecting some 31 million people. Within six years, according to Congress’s Joint Committee on Taxation, the tax would reach a fifth of all households earning between $50,000 and $75,000 annually. Those families can hardly be considered very wealthy.”
Everyone realizes that insurers will pass the 40% excise tax along in the form of even higher premiums. At that point, MIT’s Gruber explains, most experts assume that employers will say “no thank you”, and begin looking for a cheaper plan. To avoid the tax, self-insured corporations also will begin shopping for a better bargain.
But under health care reform, all plans must provide a fairly rich package of “essential benefits.” How are they going to find less expensive insurance?
Their only recourse: switch to policies with high deductibles and co-pays. The benefits these plans offer will meet the reformers’ requirements-- even though many employees may not be able to afford to reap the benefits by actually using the insurance.
link:
http://www.healthbeatblog.com/2009/12/fact-check-the-cadillac-controversy.html#more
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
VictorLH
January 8, 2010 3:32 PM in reply to again
Gues who will pay those higher copays, etc???
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
pittprof
January 8, 2010 3:41 PM in reply to again
No, the recourse is to turn to the exchange, where there will be more competition (because that's where all the new clients will be for the insurance companies, so no insurer will want to miss the opportunity to get more clients) and less abuse (because it will be overseen by the the same government agency (the OPM) that already deals with the health benefits of federal employees. Sure, a robust public option or a Medicare buy-in would have been preferable to the exchanges, but still, the point is that there will be an alternative to the current system, and thanks to competition and large risk-pooling, this alternative will help contain costs --and the further we go in the direction of eliminating the tax exemption for employer-provided benefits, the more employers will decide to drop their current plans, and the stronger the risk-pooling and the competition in those exchanges will be.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
VictorLH
January 8, 2010 2:13 PM
Anyone rememeber how great all those Economists said life would be if we passed NAFTA?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Libertine
January 8, 2010 2:36 PM in reply to VictorLH
Touché. All the same ones who said that NAFTA was a good deal for Americans workers are now humping the leg of this so-called reform like dogs in heat.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Salmo
January 8, 2010 2:20 PM
In politics, it's usually your opponents who want you to commit political suicide. What does that make Rahm?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
willia451
January 8, 2010 2:20 PM
If anything, the HIR effort has underlined and exposed just how corrupt and branded our Congress has become. We can have the kind of election we had in Nov 2008, and mandate our government to do something; for us. And they just can't get it done.
The real power brokers, the corporations, simply will not allow it to BE done.
Each corporate sector has its handful of Senators they own (you don't have to own everyone; just a few on both sides of the aisle to block).
And that is that.
The Corporations get bailed out and put back on their feet.
The rest of us get taxed. Just like in "Training Day".
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
VictorLH
January 8, 2010 2:49 PM in reply to willia451
They are getting something done. Look how many Trillions of dollars they have given to the Financial Industry and now with this shit Heatlh Care Bill the Insurance, Medical and Pharmacutical industrys.
Yea Rahm you DLC FUCK - This is Change we can Believe In.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
January 8, 2010 2:42 PM
And thus is the next idee fixe of progressivism born. Once again, a shiny object is spontaneously declared to be the touchstone of one's progressive credentials, the be-all and end-all of ideological rigor, the great prize that must, must at all costs, be obtained by progressives to prove to themselves and the world that they are good enough, smart enough and, doggone it, people like them.
Forget facts. Forget policy. Forget researching the issue themselves and coming to an independent judgment. Forget having any particular reason for the position at all, other than the fact that some ideologically pure git on the Internet said so. Nothing any expert says is of any consequence because, hey, why should only Republicans get to ignore people who know what they're talking about on the basis of their gut, inchaoate rage and general conspiracy-mindedness?
Well, hey, count me in. Once we're done being mad over what these darn experts are trying to shove down our throats with this excise tax thingee, though, we'll need a new shiny object to obsess about. If we can't come up with something new, maybe we can get in on some of that global warming denial or anti-vaccine action.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
January 8, 2010 2:50 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
That's an onerous characterization on many points.
To begin with, I'm not a progressive, but a fourth-generation Democrat in a family of five generations of Democrats.
Second, not only do three generations in my family have experience in health care as physicians and nurses, but those same three generations do in fact listen to the "experts."
Real experts, like Maggie Mahar. And Uwe Reinhardt. And Robert Reich. And so on.
And they tell us you're wrong.
So cut the sarcastic insults. We've had enough of your accusations.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
admiralmpj
January 8, 2010 2:55 PM in reply to again
Meanwhile, I've got experts like Ezra Klein, John Kerry, the Congressional Budget Office, Joint Committee on Taxation, and a bunch of other Economists who say you're wrong.
And?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Libertine
January 8, 2010 2:57 PM in reply to admiralmpj
Wow...so 'the establishment' is saying their critics are wrong? Color me stunned...go figure.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
admiralmpj
January 8, 2010 3:01 PM in reply to Libertine
If we're going to play this game of dueling experts, because unless any of us have PhDs in Economics, specializing in Health Care Policy, that's all we can do at this point.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Libertine
January 8, 2010 3:10 PM in reply to admiralmpj
A person doesn't need a degree to recognize a bad deal when one is being passed off as the panacea for all that ails us.
People will be forced to buy insurance on the private market and people who are fortunate to have a good one through their employer will be taxed. So a big pile of money for health insurers, who play no positive role in health care to begin with, and more taxes for working Americans. Yet the 'experts' are ready to tell me what a good deal this is, right? The people who 'buy' this prove P.T. Barnus right...there's a sucker born every minute.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
January 8, 2010 3:14 PM in reply to Libertine
I agree that it doesn't take an expert to recognize this legislation for the steaming pile that it is.
But the fact is that there are plenty of experts who do recognize the legislation as a potential time bomb that will severely injure the Democratic party - and their criticism has consistently been marginalized by "Dems" who are loyal to corporate donors first - and the citizenry last.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Libertine
January 8, 2010 3:39 PM in reply to again
Agree the Democratic Party's 'Party Othrodoxy Patrol' (POP) is running amok. Go along or be branded a heretic or tea bagger. I don't care what they call me...shitty leglislation is shitty no matter if the D's or R's propose it. And no one will silence me...shit I was called a terrorist sympathizer from 2001-2008 becuase I attacked the horrible policies of Herr Bush. Does the POP think calling me a tea bagger is gonna bother me.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Libertine
January 8, 2010 3:15 PM in reply to Libertine
That was suppoed to be P.T. Barnum.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
admiralmpj
January 8, 2010 3:19 PM in reply to Libertine
It does when a lot of you don't know what the hell you're talking about.
I figure if the rest of you can be casually dismissive of others opinions, why shouldn't I?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Libertine
January 8, 2010 3:25 PM in reply to admiralmpj
But, but, but they're the experts!!! Maybe so but also 'bought and paid for'. I will say this is a good deal when someone explains to me what positive role health insurers play in our health care system. How do they enhance the health care product we purchase? Just answer me that simple question and I will say what a good deal this is.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
January 8, 2010 3:28 PM in reply to admiralmpj
Wait a second - you're saying people who disagree with you don't know what they're talking about, but you haven't bothered to address the criticisms that Mahar has brought forth, and which I posted.
Her critique of the US health care system is far more comprehensive than just insurance. But she also addresses the issue of "cadillac" plans.
But instead of dealing with her substantive criticisms regarding taxing "cadillac" plans, you've just decided to insult people who do bring forward valuable criticisms by recognized experts.
Who do you think you're fooling?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
January 8, 2010 3:00 PM in reply to admiralmpj
Ahh.... the bean counters want us to get rid of our deluxe health care not the providers. It becomes clear.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
January 8, 2010 3:07 PM in reply to admiralmpj
I'm sorry - what makes Klein an expert? Or Kerry?
Why are you dismissing the larger picture that Mahar presents? Or have you simply not read it?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
k-town
January 10, 2010 1:41 AM in reply to admiralmpj
Ezra Klein has an undergraduate degree in political science. John Kerry is a poltician - not an expert or an authority. There is a lot of illegitimate appeal to authority going here, but dropping the names of mainstream economists - who by and large have the worst track record of any profession - is not sufficient and nor is using the words of politicos.
But more to the point, something I think most people are missing is that (1) The tax will likely be avoided and nor earn revenue and result in ins. companies dumping greater costs on workers (deductibles, copays, less generous coverage and routine denials) (2) the wage return theory is so silly. Everyone bases it on economic modeling and various maxims of supply and demand, but all of this ignores something very salient: the real world. Most workers have no bargaining power, and do not set their salaries. Moreover, the theory that benefit reductions will be turned into salary is predicated on (1) workers leaving and (2) that workers even know the differential or have access to company financial information. But very few people have the luxury, or the ability, to switch jobs so cavalierly, and almost no one knows or has the power to use company finances to bargain wages. This is not the heady days of the stock bubble, and even then most workers outside of the luxurious few could not earn money with their feet.
Relying on the words of others without careful examination does not show intellectual superiority. And the profession of economics is a social science masquerading as a hard science. It is undeniably true that most of the prognosticators are not median or middle class income earners. And anyone who believes these folks have the power to demand wage increases is living in a bubble.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
January 8, 2010 2:53 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
As a true, formerly blue, liberal, I give liberal elitists full blame for the anti-middle class policies that created Reagan Democrats.
But now that the party is controlled by Blue Cross Dogs and their experts all you are doing is the very same once again.
Americans don't trust this "expert" b.s. They figure that if it is ever so complicated that only an "expert" understands it that somewhere in there they are being screwed.
You have a lot of high paid policy wonks who don't care how badly they screw the folks out there. This is a big deal. The healthcare of our families is a big deal. You don't get the experts in there to screw us on a big deal like this.
Americans are so sceptical now. They don't trust the corporate bailouts and they have deep distrust for both parties. You screw this up now by trying to screw people in the fine print and you have lost a generation of voters.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
January 8, 2010 3:10 PM in reply to bluebell
Aside from coming from the opposite end of the ideological spectrum, in what respect is your "I choose to be mad and disbelieve the experts and insist that policy be made on the basis of what my anger and my gut and my 'common sense' tell me" thing materially different from the kind of "reasoning" we're getting from Glen Beck and the Teabaggers?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
January 8, 2010 3:24 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
I think you're missing the point - multiple, consecutive administrations have badly sold out the American people, using a selective group of soi-disant 'experts' to back them up.
So to feign surprise that a large number of Americans on both sides are suspicious of experts is a bit much.
(I am not myself suspicious of experts, but recognize that the selection of policy advisors has consistently been in favor of certain experts - experts who favor corporate interests over the citizenry.)
The fact that soi-disant "expert" Ezra Klein favors this legislation does not make it right. There are just as many, far more credentialed experts who disagree.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
January 8, 2010 3:52 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
No different because we are coming from the same place. We have lost trust in our political leaders. Trust. There is no trust. We do not trust their experts. We do not trust your experts. We have no reason to trust them because they are all quite in line on one thing. The MIDDLE CLASS must sacrifice. The MIDDLE CLASS is doing too well. We get paid too much. Our health benefits are more than we deserve. We have pensions that must be curtailed. Out social security must be capped. Our Medicare must be cut. And all of your experts agree that the wealthy will make no sacrifices. They won't be drafted. They won't be taxed. And above all the only "persons" who will be represented are corporations.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
aikbay
January 9, 2010 3:33 AM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
Oh,yes Bill Clinton and John Kerry told me I'd love me some NAFTA too. And he was a Democratic president. Wow. I am just so impressed that every shole DLC'r is supporting this because it's the bestest thing since sliced bread. What was that Bush told us a few years ago? Fool me once, its your fault, fool me twice its mah fault. For some odd reason I ain't willing to bend over with no lube,yet again for Obama and Emanuel. Not until Emanuel gets his buddies on Wall Street to bend over with no lube and no kisses. But ofcourse, Emanuel won't do that because it's so much easier to screw the stupid union blue collar rubes.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Signalman
January 11, 2010 4:36 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
Sir, I find your reasoning impeccable and I would like to subscribe to your internet newsletter.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JustAChicagoVoter
January 8, 2010 2:54 PM
I'm a little disappointed that the biggest flashpoint isn't over when the most important parts of reform will take effect - 2014 in the Senate bill vs. 2013 in the House version. I have a pre-existing condition and the sooner they can't deny me coverage over that the better. That's what's most important to me.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
admiralmpj
January 8, 2010 2:59 PM in reply to JustAChicagoVoter
Yeah, I'm with you there. But doesn't the delay have more to do with the keeping the thing Deficit Neutral?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
January 8, 2010 3:11 PM in reply to admiralmpj
Both of you are missing the point.
Without any meaningful regulation or competition, the fact that you can get covered doesn't mean squat.
What will the premium be for patients like yourself? The deductible? The co-pay.
You might very well be better off paying cash.
They've turned the whole thing into Vegas.
It's a disgrace.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wilsonjm2003
January 8, 2010 3:24 PM in reply to JustAChicagoVoter
Ban on exclusions for pre-existing conditions takes effect immediately (for children) and in 2011 for adults, I believe. The protections against widespread policy rescission also go into effect well before 2013.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
January 8, 2010 3:31 PM in reply to wilsonjm2003
And how will the premiums be controlled? Deductibles and co-pays?
How useful is it to be allowed to buy insurance when there is no cap on the premiums or medical loss ratio?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
xargaw
January 8, 2010 3:46 PM in reply to wilsonjm2003
Yes, but at what cost? There appears to be no fine print about premium costs, deductables and co-pays. The Insurance Industry has turned every aspect of this Bill into a win for them. They will not loose money on the pre-existing condition clause either simply because they won't have to.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wilsonjm2003
January 8, 2010 9:47 PM in reply to xargaw
These are certainly valid points I don't disagree with. The notion that the exchange system -- whether it works or not (and I'm sure we all hope it does) -- doesn't go into effect until years down the road is pointless.
BUT, and it's a big but, the fact that people who otherwise would have NO access to insurance/competent medical care (i.e. because of their pre-existing condition) will get it almost immediately is a worthy social goal, is it not? I would rather people have that opportunity than none at all.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tommyo
January 8, 2010 2:55 PM
This disgraceful betrayal by Obama, number xxx in a long list of them, rests squarely with Obama. Not Emanuel, not the Senate, not the blue dogs. They are not the President. Obama is and it's his call.
I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell to anyone who still thinks Obama, or the rest of the Democratic leadership, is a friend of traditional Democratic constituencies. They have proven themselves to be nothing more than the obedient errand boys of monied and corporate interests.
They substitute weak reforms, usually just enough to allow them to claim to be performing such, that benefit their corporate and banking friends far more than the working class.
They are frauds.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
VictorLH
January 8, 2010 3:08 PM in reply to tommyo
Don't forget all his other betrayals, FISA, Don't Ask - Don't Tell, The Public Option.....
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
January 8, 2010 4:18 PM in reply to VictorLH
Another troll heard from.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Overreach THIS!
January 11, 2010 4:31 AM in reply to lousgirl84
Indeed.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
xargaw
January 8, 2010 3:33 PM
The healthcare debate and the tax plan of healthcare is not tearing the DEMs apart. It is exposing the President as either a corporate shill or a wuss and it is shedding DEMs from the Party faster than anyone could have imagined. We aren't conflicted. We have been betrayed and we are disgusted and we are departing. The problem with Obama is that his base is comprised of people that acutally inform themselves. We expected him to be an honest broker. He has lied to us and we know it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
willia451
January 8, 2010 3:55 PM in reply to xargaw
That's partially true. But we are just as much to blame.
We all knew deep down that nothing happens in this country without the at least tacit sign-off of the effected corporations. That's why Obama has been trying to buy them off for over a year.
Expecting the election of one man to change all that overnight (or even in the long term) was a little naive to say the least.
What we all seem to have wanted was a champion for the people. Even if it meant that champion got nothing done at all. At least we would have engaged the "real" fight from a position of power.
Obviously, Obama is NOT that guy.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
January 8, 2010 4:07 PM in reply to willia451
willia, I think there was naivete all around.
But most naive was the idea that you could throw away a once-in-a-century mandate for change.
Which is what this country gave Obama. In return, he could at least FAKE an effort toward change. But he will give not even that.
And not only do we not have the promised transparency, but the rate at which we have transferred power from the middle class to the corporate interests has actually accelerated steeply since Obama came into office.
That is shocking to those of us who supported him.
It will accelerate more steeply if this bill passes.
And I don't think we needed change overnight. But Tim Geithner at Treasury? More military contractors than under Bush? And now this steaming health care "legislation" pile?
Yes, you're right. Obama is NOT a champion for the people. But seriously, I would settle for his faking it. This is just robbery in blind daylight. They got a good-looking front man for the job. That's all.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Libertine
January 8, 2010 4:16 PM in reply to again
Yep...a once in a century mandate for change being pissed away. That is EXACTLY the way I am viewing this administration right now. And I am f'ing pissed about it.
I wasn't expecting the Moon, stars and Sun from Obama but I sure wasn't expecting what we are getting either.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
January 8, 2010 4:21 PM in reply to Libertine
Okay, so it took Bush 8 years to completely destroy this country almost bring this country to its knees. and the world for that matter, and Obama is expected to change it all in a year.
Grow up and get some real! You might enjoy life a little more instead of whining every day. You should thank your lucky stars Obama is president and not McCain. Give the guy some time. He's not exactly playing tiddlywinks.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
willia451
January 8, 2010 4:33 PM in reply to lousgirl84
"Give the guy some time."
I would agree with you if it was all up to Obama. Its not.
We can't even get a very weak PO out of congress with vast Democratic majorities, relative to ONE bill.
That's all the proof I need.
I agree. Having Obama sitting in the WH is better than having McCain. But its turning out that it is not "significantly" so.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Libertine
January 8, 2010 4:34 PM in reply to lousgirl84
You are right there. It is much less offensive to have your nose shoved in shit than it is to be made to eat shit...but only by a matter of a small degree.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
January 8, 2010 5:06 PM in reply to lousgirl84
lousgirl,
I think the concern isn't that he isn't fixing everything immediately.
It's not just that he's reinforcing the status quo.
It's that he's accelerating, he is actually accelerating the rate of the handoff of power from the middle class to vested corporate interests, whether by relying on military contractors even more than Bush did, or keeping Tim Geithner at Treasury, or this time-bomb of a health care bill.
I am willing to give him time - if he comes clean. But in many ways it is true that, while smarter and better looking, he is shaping up to be just as bad if not worse in some ways than Bush.
The dangerous aspect of this is that, because the campaign so successfully presented him as something different, people are resistant to recognizing the substantive policy decisions Obama has made. And those substantive policy decisions will be ruinous both for our Democratic party and for the country.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
January 8, 2010 4:25 PM in reply to Libertine
IF he were to turn this around - say, fire Rahm, replace Geithner with Liz Warren, and come clean to the American people, renew his pledge to serve the citizenry over the corporations - he'd have my full-fledged support anew.
Right now he's all we have. Which is like saying, right now all I have is someone who treats me like an imbecile and expects me to like it.
But if he were to change - and FDR and Lincoln fell far short of expectations in the first year - then I would back him again.
But that's got to happen first. And, sadly, it's not looking likely. Rahm's got his meat hooks into the President, and the President doesn't appear to dislike it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Libertine
January 8, 2010 4:41 PM in reply to again
I agree. If he changes course I would be right back onboard. I don't hate the man. I want him to succeed but I feel he is setting himself up for epicfail. I just think many of his policies and people advising him suck. Geithner, Summers, Rahm and his pentagon based national security team jump to mind. 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan and a big fat giveaway to health insurers was not the 'change' I beleived was gonna happen. In fact that is more like keeping the status quo.
When Summers and Geithner were picked for the economic team, then Rahm was tabbed for CoS and Krugman told to go to hell my heart fell into my stomach.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
willia451
January 8, 2010 4:24 PM in reply to again
All this proves is we can't effect the kind of real change our nation needs through the current political system we have. Its become too corrupt.
You said so yourself. If we can't get real change with even a "once in a century" mandate, how or when, CAN we?
Electing more Democrats or Republicans is not the answer.
The Tea Partiers have the right idea. We just need to get on board with it on OUR side.
Just don't vote for anymore Democrats or Republicans.
I'm not.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
January 8, 2010 4:11 PM
"What we all seem to have wanted was a champion for the people. Even if it meant that champion got nothing done at all. At least we would have engaged the "real" fight from a position of power."
Agreed. What happened instead has been far, far worse than nothing at all. It is an increased rate of the transfer of power from the middle class to vested corporate interests - banking, military-industrial, auto and health care.
You can't claim that the champion would have lost - there was significant momentum for change. Obama turned his back on his own supporters.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
henk
January 8, 2010 4:18 PM
Reading through these comments I find two camps: One that believes and trusts that legislators and their surrogates know what they are doing and when believe them when they say that a tax on higher cost plans will drive down costs.
The other camp doesn't trust what legislators and their surrogates are saying. They believe that while the intentions may be good, the actual consequences of what is being proposed may be entirely different than what legislators expect.
History is on the side of the later group.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
exregis
January 8, 2010 4:21 PM
Either we pass some sort of health care bill in the 2009-2010 session of Congress, or we do not get another chance for decades. Especially now, for defeat of HCR implies fewer than 60 Democratic senators for some time to come.
Q: What kind of HCR bill will get Nelson's and Liebermann's support? And Lincoln's and Landrieu's?
A: Certainly not a progressive bill.
Anyone who thinks Obama has any influence with those senators is dumber than Michael Steele. And there is no other way to accomplish HRC. The Senate has to pass something in order to even get a bill to reconciliation, and passing means 60 votes. And reconciliation can apply only to fiscal parts of the bill, not reforming predatory insurance practices.
So do we do nothing and keep progressives here happy or do we pass shit and hope to improve it bit by bit, like Social Security and Medicare?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
January 8, 2010 4:31 PM in reply to exregis
exregis,
What you're failing to take into account is the fact that forcing the citizenry to buy insurance through a mandate when there are NO controls of premiums, deductibles and copays is a time-bomb that will explode on the Democratic party.
I am no progressive, but a fourth-generation Democrat. And this is not reform. And I could care less whether something is "progressive" - I care about whether it holds up to a rather good tradition of Democratic reforms. And it does not. In fact, it is quite the opposite of reform.
Calling it reform, and denying how much harm this will do our Democratic party - in both short and long-term - is counterproductive, and that is putting it mildly.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
January 8, 2010 4:36 PM in reply to exregis
The answer is in your last sentence. All we had to do with this bill was to expand Medicare. What's more likely is that this monstrosity will not only fail to deliver healthcare but undermine Medicare in the process. It is so complicated that it totally confuses Americans about who gets what when and how and at what price and for how long and under what conditions....Republicans will probably re-label Medicare the Lexus Plan and get it repealed with the overwhelming bipartisan support of the Democratic Party.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
willia451
January 8, 2010 4:38 PM in reply to exregis
Passing "something" can't be at the expense of new taxes on the middle class plus individual mandates, without a strong public option and strong employer mandates to go along with it.
It just can't.
If that is the way it has to be, then I'm against it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
willia451
January 8, 2010 4:49 PM in reply to willia451
Moreover, I would have expected THIS President to have said the same thing. We may not have gotten a bill in the end, but at least we would not have gotten our asses taxed and forced to carry insurance, even if we didn't want it.
I'm MORE than willing to give to get. You can tax me. And you can force an individual mandate on me.
But I want employers and corporations to share in that pain with likewise mandates.
And I want a strong PO I can fall back on if I need it.
If you can't do at least that much, then have the decency to at least do no harm.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
VictorLH
January 8, 2010 4:40 PM in reply to exregis
Problem is they will not improve it bit by bot as they would still need the 60 votes that as you say we won't have. Fact is Obama and the establishment have pushed the Baucus piece of shit we have since get go and thats what we have staring us in the face. That will mean higher copays, less insurnace and more profits for the insurance, medical and pharma industrys. We got screwed by this administration just like we did with NAFTA and the Telecom acts under Clinton.
Get with it, this government is corrupt.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DP1
January 8, 2010 8:31 PM
There are no conusmer protections in this bill to offset the advantage these insurance companies will take of us because of this mandate:
Why is there no annual or lifetime limits on coverage?
Where are the windfall taxes and the taxes on people over 250k income?
Why isn't there a mandate that premiums based on income, and strict regulation of this. No charging sick or old more than young & healthy.
Where is the annual caps on out of pocket expenses including, deductibles, co-pay's, medicine
Why is there no mandate that no rate can be raised for 5 years for new customers and only every 2 years for existing ones
Why is there no restriction to cap rate increases when they happen, at 1%
Where is the minimum fine of $100k if a customer in good standing is dropped
Why are there no cri m inal charges on the individual who makes the decision to drop a customer and the customer dies as a result.
And where is protection for unemployed and underemployed to keep the premiums as is or lower them (back to the income based rates)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
January 8, 2010 10:28 PM
Wilson wrote:
"BUT, and it's a big but, the fact that people who otherwise would have NO access to insurance/competent medical care (i.e. because of their pre-existing condition) will get it almost immediately is a worthy social goal, is it not? I would rather people have that opportunity than none at all."
No, it is not. Because by mandating that 30 million people sign up for what will essentially be catastrophic insurance at very high fees, you are essentially turning over more cash to an industry that has yet to this day to be properly regulated - in large part because they have enough cash to lobby everyone - while denying essential care to patients.
To point out what is obvious to everyone who has worked in health care: Forcing 30 million into bad insurance is not the same thing as getting those same people access to health care.
Further, the burdens to physicians and other problems that insurers have added to our out of control health care system will only be aggravated when this industry gains an additional 30 million customers.
When you give them more cash, Wilson, you are merely setting up the same problem the Obama administration has established with the banking sector.
1) Give insufficiently regulated, parasitic industries a mindnumbing amount of taxpayer money
2) Do not regulate said parasitic industries while you have a chance
3) After they have absorbed the massive transfusion of taxpayer money, and are back on their feet and lobbying ad nauseum, start discussing how they should be regulated. By the very people who used to work for them.
4) Destroy what's left of the Democratic Party through continued "Rinse. Repeat" cycles.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
January 9, 2010 10:38 AM in reply to again
As several columnists have pointed out, the bill puts the full force of the IRS behind regulating individual behavior but punts and leaves it up to the states to regulate the insurance companies.
It's so sad that Democrats are so blinded by party affiliation that they can't see the light.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Silence
January 9, 2010 8:48 AM
The elephant in the room is Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. How does one create a budget of any kind with 'unlimited' funds directed toward an unpredictable entity?
Wake up, folks.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/24/fannie-mae-and-freddie-ma_0_n_403413.html
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
January 9, 2010 5:29 PM
This is precisely why Obama, the Dems and America will lose in 2010....
"He and his wife, working parents of two children, lack health insurance, which they say they cannot afford. At the same time, the combined annual earnings of this southwest Philadelphia family are such that they do not qualify for Medicaid, the state-federal health insurance program for the poor. "
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34771054/ns/health-health_care/
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
January 9, 2010 5:39 PM
"But a large chunk of the uninsured population would just miss the Medicaid expansion. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, 7.2 million adults earning less than twice the federal poverty level — about $21,000 for an individual and $44,000 for a family of four — would earn too much to qualify for the expanded Medicaid envisioned by the Senate. Millions more have incomes slightly above that level. (KHN is a part of the foundation.)"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34771054/ns/health-health_care/
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Silence
January 10, 2010 11:01 AM
You folks do know where 'the wealthy' will find that extra 5%, don't you? They have big payments to make on those mansions.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
LoTek
January 10, 2010 9:00 PM
The Senate bill is a new wrinkle in an old theme - as inflation rises it will be a new alternative minimum tax, which Republicans will use to hold Democrats hostage every year by threatening to cut off health care for the working class.
If that's all we can get, it's time to pull the plug on it and put everything we've got into publicly funded elections. Then after a couple of cycles, we will have Senators who are beholden to voters again.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
masanf
January 11, 2010 1:31 AM
"Is healthcare fight tearing Dems apart?"
One can only hope
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Overreach THIS!
January 11, 2010 4:33 AM in reply to masanf
Worst Presidency ever -- your guys! Great going, you have a lot to be lecturing us over. WORST EVER.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?