TPMDC
Obama Makes Hard Sell To Liberal, Conservative Democrats On Health Care
President Obama
Share
Send to a friend!
President Barack Obama made a hard sell to House Democrats to support a compromise health care bill, the details of which are finally taking shape. He applauded the work members of Congress have put into creating health care legislation, acknowledged the concessions progressives have been forced to accept, and thanked vulnerable members for casting tough votes during a difficult political year.
According to a Democratic aide, Obama told progressives--bruised over the loss of the public option, and the persistence of the excise--that they could have another crack at the bill in the future.
"This is not the last health care bill ever passed," he said.
"Once we have a final bill, we can really talk about how it's going to help all Americans," Obama told the caucus. "This is something that will last. You'll look back and say this is one of the most significant accomplishments you've ever made."
At one point, Obama turned to members in vulnerable districts, including Reps. Tom Periello (D-VA) and Steve Driehaus (D-OH), to offer his appreciation and support.
"You've had to take tough votes. I understand it. I really appreciate it. The country is better off because of these tough votes you've taken. I want you to know I'm behind you 100 percent."
Obama fielded questions from members across the caucus, and when members emerged they were overwhelmingly positive about the progress, particularly regarding a deal reached between unions and the White House over the extent to which reform will be paid for by taxing employer-provided health care benefits.
"We haven't seen all the specifics but I think we're very, very encouraged by it," said Education and Labor Chairman George Miller (D-CA).
"The main thing is to get rid of the [Senate's] excise tax, because the level in the Senate bill was just going to impact too many people," noted Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ), who strongly opposed the tax on so-called Cadillac insurance plans. "The most important thing was to eliminate the negative impact it was going to have on so many people."
Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-CA) said "the President outlined how he is prepared to help us this coming year, to let America know what this Congress, working with this president has been able to achieve."
Obama won't just be spending the next year selling the bill to the country, though. He'll also be contrasting the Democrats' accomplishments on health care with the Republican record.
"I'm also going to contrast what the other side has done," he told the caucus.
Comments (60) | 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.
AhTrini1
January 14, 2010 8:34 PM
"Hardball"'s Chris Matthews asked the republican Todd Harris, what have republicans done for America in the last twenty years and his answer was - da, da, da - (empty air time).
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
January 15, 2010 3:56 AM in reply to AhTrini1
I got a new slogan for Obama and his new health care plan...
"NO WE DIDN'T"!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hunter
January 15, 2010 12:28 PM in reply to JorgeOrwell
Yeah, great slogan for the most significant healthcare legislation since Medicare. The one that will insure an extra 30 million people and prohibit insurance companies from ditching the sick, all while saving the government money and lowering premiums.
Go back to your fairytale world. In the real world this is damn good legislation.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
January 15, 2010 12:45 PM in reply to hunter
Hunter, you're deluded.
This bill mandates another 30 million new customers to the insurers with NO REGULATION.
We're saying, regulate later, but the fact is that if you couldn't regulate them now (and Obama hasn't EVEN tried to eliminate the anti-trust exemption - another one of his broken campaign promises, thank you) then there is not even the chance of a snowball in hell that you will get appreciable regulation AFTER you've given them the cash of another 30 million.
This is the opposite of reform. This is regulatory capture.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
January 15, 2010 12:52 PM in reply to again
Nailed it!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hunter
January 15, 2010 1:16 PM in reply to again
So requiring the insurance companies to operate on an exchange isn't regulation? How about keeping them from dropping sick customers? Thanks for defining "regulatory capture" for me...now perhaps you could enlighten me as to your definition of "regulation" since it clearly differs from the usage with which I was familiar.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
January 15, 2010 1:23 PM in reply to hunter
"So requiring the insurance companies to operate on an exchange isn't regulation? How about keeping them from dropping sick customers? Thanks for defining "regulatory capture" for me...now perhaps you could enlighten me as to your definition of "regulation" since it clearly differs from the usage with which I was familiar."
Darling, you're being intentionally thick.
Of course "requiring" the insurers to be on the exchange isn't regulation - unless the government is setting serious controls on premiums and the medical loss ratio.
Ditto for the "sick" patients (I think you mean "no rescissions or pre-existing conditions."
If you mandate that people must have insurance, but you do NOTHING to control the premiums or the medical loss ratio, if you do nothing about the anti-trust exemption, then, it is OF COURSE NOT regulation.
You asked for a definition of regulation? In this case, it would be:
Setting controls on premiums and the medical loss ratio. Do you need a definition of "premiums" and "medical loss ratio" as well?
Stop wasting our time.
Separately - Do you work for the insurance industry? You certainly write as if you do...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hunter
January 15, 2010 1:39 PM in reply to again
OK, well that clears things up. You really don't know what regulation is.
And I'm not sure what to say about your suggestion that insurance companies are hiring shills to comment in favor of this bill while they are spending tons of cash trying to kill it. But I guess it's in line with the rest of your crazy, so whatever.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
January 15, 2010 1:56 PM in reply to hunter
"OK, well that clears things up. You really don't know what regulation is."
You're fooling no one. It doesn't mean anything to say that I don't know what it is, if you yourself can't or won't define it.
"And I'm not sure what to say about your suggestion that insurance companies are hiring shills to comment in favor of this bill while they are spending tons of cash trying to kill it. But I guess it's in line with the rest of your crazy, so whatever."
"Tons of cash"? The money they have spent was not to kill THIS bill, but a bill with a public option (competition) and controls on premiums (regulation). And calling another poster "crazy" for telling the truth isn't going to win you any points.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
January 15, 2010 2:24 PM in reply to hunter
Where's the revoking of the anti-trust exemption? Where is the public option? I'll take the mandate, but without these two provisions this thing is CORPORATE WELFARE.
Man, you Dem operatives are shameless!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
January 15, 2010 2:27 PM in reply to JorgeOrwell
The sick part is they aren't even real Dems.
They're corporate shills who've effectively changed the definition of Democratic Party.
Now, real Democrats have to call themselves progressives.
I mean, they're just changing the goalposts to make moderate goals like the public option look radically "progressive" and thereby somehow dirtily leftist.
George Orwell was right...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
January 15, 2010 2:51 PM in reply to again
You got that right! Couldn't have said it better myself. Just wait, this bill is going to screw those of us who ACTUALLY donated time and MONEY to the Dems in '07.
I feel like a complete fool. I've been totally played. Won't happen again in November, I can tell you that.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
January 15, 2010 12:51 PM in reply to hunter
Yeah right. I'm thirsty, Can I get some Kool-aid too? Why not just expand Medicare? Don't you remember? The "PUBLIC OPTION" was the compromise. This plan is a complete loss for working Americans.
Sure, it will cover those who don't pay taxes, but what good does that do those of us too "rich" to see the benefits and too poor to afford insurance?
Now they're gonna tax the middle class who already can't afford coverage?
Read the article and get back to me...
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?
hunter
January 15, 2010 1:27 PM in reply to JorgeOrwell
Why not just expand Medicare?
Sounds great. Now find 60 Senators to vote for it.
This plan is a complete loss for working Americans.
You are out of your mind. Your typical worker has insurance with somewhere in the neighborhood of 85% actuarial value. So even if they were paying out-of-pocket before, with the subsidies in this bill they pretty much always come out ahead. The only people who don't can afford insurance already, are inordinately healthy, or both. And news flash, the whole point of healthcare reform (and indeed, health insurance itself) is to get the rich and healthy to help pay for the sick and poor. If you're not into that, go find a tea party.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
January 15, 2010 1:33 PM in reply to hunter
"So even if they were paying out-of-pocket before, with the subsidies in this bill they pretty much always come out ahead."
Not if there's no control on premiums or the medical loss ratio. The only people coming out ahead are the insurers (and pharma.)
And who pays for those subsidies? AHIP? No, they pay you. The subsidies are paid by the taxpayer. But with no regulation, the taxpayer will be subsidizing the insurers first, and then, if we're lucky, something will trickle down to the patient.
"The only people who don't can afford insurance already, are inordinately healthy, or both."
That sentence didn't make any sense. Try again.
"And news flash, the whole point of healthcare reform (and indeed, health insurance itself) is to get the rich and healthy to help pay for the sick and poor. If you're not into that, go find a tea party."
That's a false equivalency. If you oppose another bill that moves masses of taxpayer dollars to unregulated industries, it does not make you a "tea partier."
I know that, and you know that. Cut it out. Go take your AHIP paycheck and go somewhere else. We're not taking it anymore.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hunter
January 15, 2010 1:42 PM in reply to again
Haha, more accusations of being a paid AHIP rep shilling in favor of a bill they hate. You're just plain stupid, huh?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
January 15, 2010 1:58 PM in reply to hunter
No, I'm not stupid.
The insurers don't hate this bill. They paid money to kill a bill with a public option (competition) and controls on premiums (regulation).
They love this bill - it's mandating that another 30 million citizens have to buy insurance within a completely unregulated industry that remains exempt from anti-trust laws.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnonymousCoward
January 15, 2010 2:49 PM in reply to again
I know my definition of "unregulated" is "required to spend 85% of gross income on paying claims, required to cover anyone regardless of health, and required to justify premium increases to HHS, among other things."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
January 15, 2010 2:21 PM in reply to hunter
60 votes for what? There's no constitutional decree about the 60 votes. Dems need to find their sacks and get this done with 51. Screw those losers from Conn. and Neb. Hell, Ben already won Medicare for his own state!
What more does this whiner want?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
January 15, 2010 2:35 PM in reply to hunter
Uh, problem is, I'm hardly rich and I still can't afford coverage. Guess what? this bill doesn't do jack squat for folks like us. Hell, we got this Congress elected! Where's MY "hope"?
Did you even read the article? I'm guessing not. Of course why would you? Its your job to paste the talking points right.
Here's my answer to you shills...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8R8baHPr2E&feature=PlayList&p=E56F094C9CF8F974&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=77
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
January 15, 2010 3:02 PM in reply to hunter
What about those of us without insurance but make just slightly too much for aid?
That is the bulk of this country. This 45 million uninsured number is complete malarkey. Real number is probably upwards of 60 million. And don't even get me started on UNDERINSURED.
How many workers who serve you bluebloods lunch everyday have insurance? I worked as a bartender through college and beyond and I never had insurance for all those years. None of my friends in the biz had it either.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cube3u
January 14, 2010 9:03 PM
Very refreshing to have an intelligent, mature and stable individual in the White House.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
January 15, 2010 2:25 PM in reply to cube3u
Yes, it's certainly put a more attractive face on the accelerated rate of regulatory capture taking place.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Walter Mitty
January 14, 2010 9:10 PM
I still worry about the Senate keeping it's 60 votes. Nelson and Lieberscum are squirrely as hell and neither are on the negotiating committee.
Is Reid ready to force a filibuster with 59 Democratic votes? And then will Obama use the ultimate bully pulpit of the State of the Union to blast the Dem hold out and all Republican senators?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dtOZONE
January 14, 2010 9:37 PM in reply to Walter Mitty
If so, it wouldn't work anyway.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mcc
January 14, 2010 9:38 PM in reply to Walter Mitty
They may not be in the room, but I think we can be quite certain Nelson and Conrad and such are going to be signing off on any compromise before it goes to the CBO.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Armchair Firebrand
January 14, 2010 9:21 PM
In order to avoid a debacle like the current situation in the Senate is to amend the procedural rules to prevent frivolous Republican filibusters. Read more @ http://armchairfirebrand.wordpress.com/
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
EastWest
January 14, 2010 10:22 PM
If Obama had shown this much initiative at the beginning of this process we wouldn't be having this discussion right now. Too little, too late - and being done only to cover his political ass.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluestorm
January 14, 2010 11:49 PM in reply to EastWest
Agreed- this is a corporate sell-out, bail-out bill. Progressives should vote no and go back to the drawing board for Medicare for all option. Obama is a corporatist shill, as are any Dems that vote for this. It will much harder to change it once its passed with corporate control of the message entrenched even more.
Back room deals with big pharma, undercutting progressives at every turn-- what a hypocrite. Vote no. Take the power back from the Nelsons and Liebermans... disgusting process.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ericf
January 15, 2010 1:32 AM in reply to bluestorm
Look at the history of health care reform. It has failed or gotten just partial success every time. Look at the time between serious attempts, and those attempts are roughly 15 years apart. The fight is always like this. If this bill fails, Congress won't try again until the 2020's, and it will be the same fight, probably a similar bill, and until then all our problems will continue unabated. We have to start somewhere. Let's get it passed, make improvements ongoing, and learn form the mistakes for the next initiatives.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
January 15, 2010 12:05 PM in reply to ericf
I don't think (and I could be wrong) that Social Security and Medicare are apt comparisons. Those were free standing entitlement programs. It is true, they started out small and grew with time, but what we're talking about here is not a new entity, but subsidizing an existing system and subjecting it to new regulations. (A public option - depending on how it was structured - might be more analogous to the Social Security Administration.) This looks suspiciously like regulatory capture. The bill- Baucus' in all its essential components (as far as I understand it, and I admit I haven't read it)- was written for him by a former WellPoint VP, Liz Fowler.
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2009/12/0082740
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ericf
January 15, 2010 1:22 PM in reply to Tanjaoui
The bills are different, but the process is what I'm getting at. The Civil Rights Act is another comparison. It couldn't get past hte filibuster without dropping voting rights. Imagine how tough that must have been. However, the voting rights act passed as a separate bill. I think that's the route with extending Medicare.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
January 15, 2010 1:26 PM in reply to ericf
You're talking about a very different time and a very different issue.
Our opposition with civil rights weren't major corporations that were exempt from anti-trust laws.
There's simply no comparison to civil rights.
The corollary here is the regulatory capture we're facing from banking, insurers, pharma, military contractors.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnonymousCoward
January 15, 2010 10:59 AM in reply to bluestorm
How exactly do you think that "going back to the drawing board" will result in a more progressive bill?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
January 15, 2010 12:11 PM in reply to AnonymousCoward
I think the assumption is (and it seems a fair one to me) is that the current system is not sustainable. Everyone seems to admit that. Health care devours 16% of our economy. And providers keep jacking up their prices, people are using it more and more, our population is aging. So something will have to give. And single payer or all-payer are by far the most obvious (and totally proven) means to cost-effective management. If we do nothing now, we will have to look very seriously at the issue in the near future. There's really no way around it. The proposed legislation has been tried in MA, and it hasn't led to lower costs. And somewhere (wish I had the link) I've read that it has led to underutilization: people putting off care because of out of pocket expenses, then needing to use the emergency room or have much more expensive treatment later...exactly the sort of thing they say they're trying to address.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hunter
January 15, 2010 12:31 PM in reply to Tanjaoui
Way to not answer the question. Your point is correct: single-payer is the right answer. His point is that we can't legislate single-payer, and he's absolutely right about that. So "going back to the drawing board" isn't going to get us anything.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
January 15, 2010 12:47 PM in reply to hunter
But we have "nothing" now.
This is actually worse than nothing.
It's capture.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnonymousCoward
January 15, 2010 3:10 PM in reply to again
How is this bill worse than nothing? It guarantees coverage regardless of illness, subjects insurance companies to floors on medical claim payouts (85% of premiums must be paid as claims or refunded to enrollees), requires premium increases to be justified to HHS, and establishes nationwide minimum standards of insurance coverage.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
January 15, 2010 12:56 PM in reply to hunter
We might be able to legislate single payer. I haven't seen anyone try.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
January 14, 2010 11:10 PM
This isn't something I can believe in.
Too many backroom deals, and behind close doors meetings.
All that seems to be delivered in this bill is throwing money at problem, with a promise of coming back in the future to actually do the work.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hunter
January 15, 2010 12:35 PM in reply to Indie Pro
Sounds like you don't like watching sausage being made. So...don't watch.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
January 15, 2010 12:42 PM in reply to hunter
I think he doesn't like seeing 30 million new customers "mandated" to the insurers with NO APPRECIABLE REGULATION.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Scott in PacNW
January 14, 2010 11:54 PM
Interesting that Obama's telling them that they can come back to improve stuff later.
All I've heard for weeks is: 'This is it! Rube Goldberg scheme or nothing! Last chance for 20 years!'
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
January 15, 2010 12:48 PM in reply to Scott in PacNW
Semaphores!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dick c
January 15, 2010 12:12 AM
Sixty votes are a joke. The legislation coming about because of needing sixty votes is terrible. We're still going to have the worst and most expensive health care system among advanced countries, but with the new power we've given these "HC" corporations we'll never be able to get back to it to improve it. We're going to hell in a Rube Goldberg hand basket, all greased up with Obama's soothing rhetoric.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hollywood
January 15, 2010 12:58 AM in reply to dick c
We always were going to hell in a handbasket, but the truth is that we are going a little slower with Mr. Obama running things. If you want a republican majority and a republican president to be writing these things with NO INPUT FROM THE LEFT AT ALL then just keep tearing Obama down and the right wing will march in and take over. Yes it is the 60 vote thing that killed the public option and Medicare at 55. We could have them both with a simple 51 vote majority. The Senate is already tilted way way in the direction of the small redneck states. Wyoming gets the same 2 votes as California with 600K vs 38 million for christ's sake ...... and Mississippi equals NewYork, Alabama takes out Illinois... you get the picture. Then add on to that a super majority rule of 60 votes vs a simple 51-49 majority and you are fucked .FUCKED!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
January 15, 2010 12:14 PM in reply to hollywood
Hollywood, I want to agree with you that things are going better with Obama, but the facts keep getting in the way.
We continue to see a higher rate of regulatory capture and "cognitive regulatory capture" under Obama than we did even under Bush.
This bill is not reform; it is the opposite of reform.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
January 15, 2010 12:19 PM in reply to hollywood
I think a lot of people feel (including me) that this could've been handled in a more populist way: greater transparency, and especially with single payer/all payer on the table, at least. By using his formidable powers of persuasion, and taking this directly to the public, Obama could've framed the debate in a different way. Yes, vote counts are relevant, but if you're whipping your majority, no matter how slim, in a given direction, there's always a little room to budge forward.
To me, just tactically, it makes sense when bargaining for something to start out very high (as the seller); if you have to come down, do so. But shoot for the sky. That isn't Obama's operative cliché. His seems to be "Don't rock the boat."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
January 15, 2010 12:35 PM in reply to Tanjaoui
I think casting it as "not his operative cliche" (or as others have noted "not his style") obscures the issue, which is that he's consistently given it away to the following sectors:
1) Banks
2) Military contractors
3) Insurers
4) Automakers
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
January 15, 2010 12:54 PM in reply to again
Part of not rocking the boat. He's playing to the powers that be.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Fried Chicken Lover
January 15, 2010 12:50 PM in reply to hollywood
Then...get rid of the Senate entirely?
This dilemma is always there with government. Obviously rule by a few is undesirable, since the ones in control have no incentive to care about the populace. Yet at the same time simply having a majority agree with something doesn't make it just*. In practice we get the worst of both: pseudo-populists thriving off of lowest common denominator irrationality & hate vs pseudo-populists pretending to be Men of the People while lining their pockets. Voting amounts to little more than unintentionally co-signing policies that if the average person knew the whole story they'd reject the entire system.
(* - this is not a reference to the health reform bill, though I do disagree with it. In principle, I would prefer a system involving neither the government nor their corporate butt buddies, but I know that's a non-starter in the near future. Failing that, I'd rather we just cut the crap and go single-payer. The "market" for health insurance is an artificial one that just screws us, I wouldn't miss it at all.)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hunter
January 15, 2010 12:45 PM in reply to dick c
We're still going to have the worst and most expensive health care system among advanced countries, but with the new power we've given these "HC" corporations we'll never be able to get back to it to improve it.
What new power did we give the corporations? To recap, we are now requiring them to offer insurance to everyone without dropping it, and making them sell plans on an exchange. Surely you don't think the individual mandate somehow grants these guys power beyond a slight increase in revenue (which will be more than offset by the above changes), do you? I'll put it this way: the companies sure don't. They're fighting this tooth and nail.
Your other point, that we'll still underperform vs. other advanced countries, is probably right. But it'll be better than it is now, something's better than nothing, bird in the hand, etc.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
January 15, 2010 12:51 PM in reply to hunter
We're still going to have the worst and most expensive health care system among advanced countries, but with the new power we've given these "HC" corporations we'll never be able to get back to it to improve it.
"What new power did we give the corporations?"
The cash premiums of 30 million new customers. Which I think you know, and are simply denying.
"To recap, we are now requiring them to offer insurance to everyone without dropping it, and making them sell plans on an exchange."
With no controls on the premiums. With no significant change to the medical loss ratio.
"Surely you don't think the individual mandate somehow grants these guys power beyond a slight increase in revenue (which will be more than offset by the above changes), do you?"
A slight increase in revenue? I personally would welcome the slight increase in revenue of 30 million new customers. I think you would, too.
"I'll put it this way: the companies sure don't. They're fighting this tooth and nail."
Actually, they wrote this bill. And that, m'boy, is cognitive regulatory capture.
"Your other point, that we'll still underperform vs. other advanced countries, is probably right. But it'll be better than it is now, something's better than nothing, bird in the hand, etc."
If it were something, it would be better. But this "bird in the hand" that you refer to ain't no bird, but a large pit bull that has clamped its mighty jaws on your pale hand.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
January 15, 2010 1:01 PM in reply to hunter
The following article helps put this legislation (and regulatory capture) in perspective.
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2009/12/0082740
What's 'cognitive' regulatory capture?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
January 15, 2010 1:06 PM in reply to Tanjaoui
Cognitive regulatory capture is what the Financial Times' Willem Buiter uses to describe capture that goes beyond actual regulatory agencies.
The White House and Congress are not regulatory agencies. The Treasury is not a regulatory agency. But they have clearly been captured.
I think Former IMF Chief Economist Simon Johnson calls this same thing "intellectual capture."
Thomas Frank had a good piece in the WSJ about "Obama and Regulatory Capture":
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124580461065744913.html
You see the same phenomenon with military contractors and the insurance industry.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
January 15, 2010 1:33 PM in reply to again
Thanks for the link!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
January 15, 2010 1:35 PM in reply to Tanjaoui
It's an honor!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tatere
January 15, 2010 3:27 AM
Who gets to control the basic shape of the bill? Who gets to deform it ways that work against its supposed purpose?
And who gets leaned on with a "pep talk", a few lollipop concessions, and promises that NEXT time, no, really, we mean it?
The only thing that's surprising is how many people - and which people - want so much to pretend that what they see isn't really there...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
January 15, 2010 12:54 PM in reply to tatere
Who are you going to believe - me or your own lying eyes?
-Chico Marx
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dem4life
January 15, 2010 10:09 AM
Better come out in vote because if one of Rush Limbo's peps wins, then Mass loses.
40 yrs of dem control the republipigs will stop life.
They don't care if you die, as Alan Grayson stated "The GOP plan for health care is die, die quickly"
Mit Romney ucked up the mandatory mess in MA and this slob willdo more.
Maybe cut you folks welfare bebefits or unemployment.
COME OUT AND VOTE your future depends on this.
The grande ole party will not bring $$$$$$$$$$$$ back to the state or much less fight for money for the middleclass.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?