Tag Archives: health care reform

Remember the Public Option

22 Friday Jul 2011

Posted by in budget, Deficit, health care, Obama, Politics

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Shortly after the New York Times broke the story yesterday that a so-called “grand bargain” (which if reports are accurate is neither grand nor much of a bargain) had been reached between President Obama and Speaker Boehner, White House spokesmen immediately sprang into action. Press Secretary Jay Carney said “there is no deal, we’re not close to a deal” and Dan Pfeiffer tweeted:

“Anyone reporting a $3 trillion deal without revenues is incorrect. POTUS believes we need a balanced approach that includes revenues.”

The Times account may or may not be true, we shall see in the next few days I suspect, but reading a post at AMERICAblog this morning reminded me of previous occasions when the White House kinda sorta fudged a bit on the truth, to be generous.

Like when the same Dan Pfeiffer said in October of 2009 that the rumors about President Obama abandoning the public option as part of health care reform were “absolutely false” and that:

“In his September 9th address to Congress, President Obama made clear that he supports the public option because it has the potential to play an essential role in holding insurance companies accountable through choice and competition.  That continues to be the President’s position.”  

It was later revealed that in July the president had made a secret deal with hospital lobbyists that a public option would not be included in the final legislation. In March of 2010 Paul Hogarth at Huffington Post wrote:

“In other words, while Obama was still saying in September that he supports the public option (which kept us hopeful) – the President knew all along that it would never make it in the final bill. He never said he’d fight to include the public option, and repeatedly said he was “open” to other ways to achieve the same goal. But little did we know, the fix was in.”

I also recall that there was a similar situation with the pharmaceutical industry. The president continued to voice support for drug importation after another secret deal had already been cut with lobbyists that it wouldn’t be in the final legislation either.

FWIW.

Advertisement

Vote to Repeal Health Care Reform Not Meaningless At All

20 Thursday Jan 2011

Posted by in budget, Congress, Conservatives, health care, Politics, Republicans

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

My first inclination is to call the Republican vote to repeal health care reform yesterday meaningless, since it’s unlikely to even come up for a vote in the Senate and faces a certain presidential veto even if it did,  but it actually wasn’t meaningless at all. It told us everything we need to know about today’s Republican party. Since they offered no alternative, only a “no” to the current law, the message was loud and clear.

Republicans are in favor of denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions. Republicans are in favor of Americans going bankrupt because of medical expenses. Republicans are in favor of insurance companies cancelling your policy for any reason, real or imagined, as soon as you get sick. Republicans don’t give a damn about the deficit. Republicans will lie about, distort, and ignore facts and figures that don’t support their positions.

Here it is straight from the horses mouths. Steve King sees the pre-existing conditions provision as a “minor thing”:

“Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) claimed Wednesday that he wasn’t worried about eliminating the popular preexisting conditions provision of the health care bill through the current GOP effort to repeal the law…This is too many pages, it’s too cluttered, it’s too big an argument to allow it to turn on one or two minor things.”

Phil Gingrey brushes aside the HHS report which says that up to 129 million Americans have a pre-existing condition that would deny them coverage, saying that number must include people with “hangnails and fever blisters” and that “if you believe those statistics, I’ve got a beach I can sell you in Pennsylvania.”

Gingrey is only following his leader. Speaker Boehner on the CBO report which says repealing health care will increase the deficit by $230 billion:

“…Boehner told reporters: “I do not believe that repealing the job-killing health care law will increase the deficit.” The budget experts are “entitled to their opinion,” added Boehner.”

The “job-killing” part of the statement is a distortion of another CBO report on whether or not health care reform would lead to job losses. But Republicans have never been ones to let facts get in the way of a good lie, See “death panels” and “pull the plug on Grandma.”

Paul Krugman gets down to the nitty-gritty:

“The key to understanding the GOP analysis of health reform is that the party’s leaders are not, in fact, opposed to reform because they believe it will increase the deficit. Nor are they opposed because they seriously believe that it will be “job-killing” (which it won’t be). They’re against reform because it would cover the uninsured — and that’s something they just don’t want to do. And it’s not about the money…the modern GOP has been taken over by an ideology in which the suffering of the unfortunate isn’t a proper concern of government, and alleviating that suffering at taxpayer expense is immoral, never mind how little it costs.”

Deficit Peacocks, Debt Ceilings, and Indefinite Detention

22 Wednesday Dec 2010

Posted by in budget, Congress, Constitution, economy, financial regulation, health care, Obama, Obama administration, Politics, Taxes, Unemployment, war on terror

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

In a January 20 article at the Center for American Progress, Michael Linden differentiated between those who are serious about addressing our fiscal problems–the deficit hawks–from those who posture and preen about it—the deficit peacocks. Here’s how he defines a peacock:

“Deficit peacocks like to preen and call attention to themselves, but are not sincerely interested in taking the difficult but necessary steps toward a balanced budget. Peacocks prefer scoring political points to solving problems.”

This is one of Linden’s ways to spot a peacock:

“…people who now claim to be concerned about our fiscal future even though they recently supported massive budget-busting legislation…When someone supports a deficit commission one day and votes to use another $100 billion of red ink on tax cuts for the rich the next, it is perhaps an indication that his or her commitment to real deficit reduction leaves something to be desired.”

Cases in point:

“Sens. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) and Mark Warner (D-Va.) on Monday said they will introduce a bill early next year based on the report from President Obama’s deficit commission.

Warner and Chambliss have been meeting with a group of 18 senators on finding a way to balance the budget, and said they have concluded the debt commission’s proposal is the best basis for bipartisan talks.”

The rest of the “Gang of Eighteen”:

“Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), Jon Tester (D-Mont.), Mike Johanns (R-Neb.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), Kay Hagan (D-N.C.), Jim Risch (R-Idaho), Mark Udall (D-Colo.), Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), Jean Shaheen (D-N.H.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Mark Begich (D-Alaska).”

Fifteen of the eighteen, including both Chambliss and Warner voted for the tax cut extension last week. Only Wyden, Hagan, and Mark Udall have any credibility here. The rest are peacocks.

The vehicle Chambliss and others plan to use to get their desired spending cuts are negotiations over raising the debt ceiling limit (aka the next hostage situation), another can kicked down the road yesterday with passage of a Continuing Resolution to fund the government through March 4.

“Chambliss said on the call that an impending vote in Congress to raise the government’s debt ceiling…will be an important turning point. “It gives us a deadline to look to from the standpoint of getting some meaningful decisions mad …If we can use that as leverage that’s an ideal scenario,” Chambliss said.”

Ezra Klein has more on what this could mean for the future of health care reform and financial regulation reform:

“The good news is that law will keep the government’s lights on until early March. The bad news is that the law does it by extending 2010’s funding resolution — and that resolution didn’t include provisions for implementing the bills that were passed as the year went on.

…this is bad news for the health-care bill and the financial-regulation bill. There’s been a tendency to assume that the universe of options for passed legislation was binary: Either they went forward, or they get repealed. But with an angrily divided government, we may find ourselves in that little-known middle category: The Republicans can’t repeal them and the Democrats can’t fully fund them, and so rather than simply going forward, they limp forward.”

Klein doesn’t address it, but another question would be what does this does to unemployment benefits? Could the 13 month extension become 3? I guess we’ll find out in March.

Finally, this is what’s so confounding and confusing about the Obama administration. They take one step forward, with the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, and then take two steps backward with this:

“The White House is preparing an Executive Order on indefinite detention that will provide periodic reviews of evidence against dozens of prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay, according to several administration officials.

The draft order, a version of which was first considered nearly 18 months ago, is expected to be signed by President Obama early in the New Year. The order allows for the possibility that detainees from countries like Yemen might be released if circumstances there change.

But the order establishes indefinite detention as a long-term Obama administration policy and makes clear that the White House alone will manage a review process for those it chooses to hold without charge or trial.

Nearly two years after Obama’s pledge to close the prison at Guantanamo, more inmates there are formally facing the prospect of lifelong detention and fewer are facing charges than the day Obama was elected.”

*Sigh*

Look in the Mirror, Democrats

02 Tuesday Nov 2010

Posted by in Democrats, Obama, Politics, Republicans

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

If the election results go as expected tonight and Republicans take control of at least the House, the hand-wringing and ‘what happened?’ from the Democratic side of the aisle will commence shortly thereafter. In the search for someone or something to blame I suggest Democrats, including President Obama, need look no further than the nearest mirror. This blurb from Politico pretty much sums up the problem:

“…even White House advisers quietly admit a far more jobs-focused, targeted stimulus would have been more effective as a policy and political tool.”

Ya think? Do ya freakin’ think so? That epiphany comes about 18 months too late, but I guess better late than never. Maybe if the president had listened to someone outside of his inner circle jerk of “advisers” who were saying that from the get-go he wouldn’t be preparing to deal with a Republican Congress in January.

But that wasn’t the only serious misstep that put Obama and the Democrats in the situation in which they find themselves. It goes back to before Inauguration Day of 2009. Beginning when the candidate who said he wanted to change the way business was done in Washington named a poster child of the way business is done in Washington to be his chief of staff.

Then, faced with an economic crisis not seen in this country since the 1930′ s, he named as his chief economic adviser one of the main culprits in creating the conditions that led to the financial meltdown, Larry Summers. He then nominated as his Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, a protégé of another architect of the collapse, Robert Rubin. Enjoy your stay at the henhouse, Mr. Fox.

This was the change we could believe in?

When it came to the stimulus package there were a number of economists (outside of that sacred inner circle) who were saying that it needed to be bigger and focused almost entirely on spending to create jobs. They were summarily ignored. An arbitrary figure was arrived at–$1 trillion–which for political purposes the stimulus could not exceed. And in the spirit of bi-partisanship, a good chunk of the package was made to include tax cuts. This was done to supposedly draw Republican support for the stimulus. How did that work out?

Just as an aside here, President Obama later said that he underestimated the size and intensity of the opposition from Republicans in Congress. Was he asleep during the 90’s when Republicans impeached a Democratic president for…well, you know what for. His estimation of the GOP opposition should have been Clinton X 10.

On health care reform, the candidate who ran on a public option and no individual mandate did a sudden 180 and became the president of no public option and an individual mandate. The candidate who promised lower prescription drug prices by way of drug importation from Canada and elsewhere cut a backroom deal with Pharma to insure their monopoly.

Also on health care reform, if the president and Democrats would ask those who supported them in ‘08 (instead of calling them whiners and telling them to buck up) they might find out that just as many, if not more, will tell them too little was done in the way of “reform,” not too much.

The candidate who railed against the Bush “war on terror” constitutional and civil liberties abuses not only continued those policies but now seeks to increase them by expanding the government’s wiretap powers and targeting American citizens who are suspected of terrorist ties for assassination. Not to mention tripling down on the number of troops in Afghanistan,  and expanding the drone war and covert operations into Pakistan, Yemen, and only God and the CIA knows where else.

And they wonder why there’s an enthusiasm gap?

Democrats in Congress don’t escape blame either. In two consecutive elections, 2006 and 2008, they were given overwhelming majorities in both Houses of Congress, including a filibuster-proof number in the Senate, plus the White House. Memo to Democrats: American voters didn’t  give you those majorities because of your sparkling personalities, they wanted things done.

Just for future reference, if and when you get that kind of power again—use it. Don’t squander it bickering amongst yourselves. Take a page from the Republican playbook and enforce some party discipline. By whatever means necessary. It would help to have a Senate Majority Leader with something resembling a spine. You had the Republican Party down for the count, but you let them up and look at what is about to happen.

Axelrod in Wonderland

24 Friday Sep 2010

Posted by in financial reform, health care, Obama administration, Politics, special interests, too big to fail, Wall Street

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

David Axelrod in yesterday’s Washington Post:

“Pundits will spend a lot of time predicting who will win in November. But more is at stake than the fate of Democrats or Republicans. What’s at stake is whether the powerful corporate special interests will go back to writing our laws or whether our democracy will remain where it belongs — in the hands of the American people.”

What color is the sky in the land where unicorns run free, Dave? “Go back?” They never left. Former insurance company lobbyists and executives wrote the lion’s share of health care “reform.” Your boss cut a backroom deal with the pharmaceutical industry to ensure their monopoly remained intact. Did the big banks get broken up by so-called financial reform? Hell no. Is too big to fail still around? Hell yes. Does the military-industrial complex still get the same blank check that they’ve always had? Absolutely.

FYI, Mr. Axelrod, we no longer have a democracy in America. The correct term is oligarchy.

It’s True Harry, and You Have Only Yourself to Blame

15 Thursday Jul 2010

Posted by in Congress, Democrats, economy, financial reform, Politics, Unemployment, Wall Street

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Welcome to the party, Harry. You’re a little late, but glad you finally got here:

“Republicans hope unemployment rates jump higher to give them a better shot at retaking Congress, Majority Leader Harry Reid said Wednesday.

At a press conference announcing a package of proposals to help small business, the Nevada Democrat said Republicans were obstructing legislation to help the economy for political reasons.

“They think the worse the economy is come November, the better they’re going to do election-wise,” Reid said.

Reid cited an extension of unemployment benefits as an example of legislation that would help the economy but was being blocked by Republicans.”

They don’t care about extending unemployment benefits. That money goes mostly to the vanishing middle-class that Republicans have been trying to kill off since 1980 anyway. This will just accelerate the process in the direction of their goal of a two-class society—the very rich and the poor. The fat cats on Wall Street are hiring and doling out the big bonuses again, and that’s all that matters to the GOP.

BTW, Harry. If you’re looking for someone to blame, find a mirror. If you and the other Dems would have had the balls to change that stupid-ass 60 vote rule in the Senate 18 months ago, none of this would have been possible. We could have had a REAL stimulus package, REAL health care reform, and REAL financial reform.

Democrats didn’t want to change it because they were anticipating some time in the future when they were in the minority and could use the filibuster to their advantage.

That time will be here a lot sooner than they thought.

Pre-Existing Condition Loophole?

26 Friday Mar 2010

Posted by in Congress, health care, lobbyists, Politics

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

When Speaker Pelosi said of health care reform legislation on March 9 that “we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy,” I would guess she was referring to all the positive elements of the bill which would come to light after all the sturm und drang of the debate had passed. However, there appears to be some controversy only 2 days after the bill’s passage over the ban on denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions. From AP via Firedoglake:

“President Barack Obama’s new health care law has a gap when it comes to one of its much-touted immediate benefits, improved coverage for children in poor health, congressional officials confirmed Tuesday.

Under the new law, insurance companies still would be able to refuse new coverage to children because of a pre-existing medical problem, said Karen Lightfoot, spokeswoman for the House Energy and Commerce Committee, one of the main congressional panels that wrote the bill that Obama signed into law Tuesday.”

According to Kaiser, the language in the legislation is a bit murky (intentionally perhaps?) :

“…health advocates and some insurers say the law does not clearly state that such protection starts this year. If it doesn’t, uninsured children with pre-existing conditions might not get help until 2014, when the law requires  insurers to issue policies for all applicants regardless of health condition.

…One thing is clear: The law does nothing to stop insurers from charging higher rates for children with pre-existing illnesses until 2014 when insurers can no longer use health status in setting premiums.”

Of course the insurance companies and their lobbyists jumped all over this possible loophole:

“Randy Kammer, a vice president for Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida, the largest health insurer in that state, said she interprets the law as allowing insurers to reject coverage for children in some cases until 2014.

America’s Health Insurance Plans, the main insurance lobbying group, says through a spokesman that it interprets the new law as not requiring insurers to cover all child applicants this year.”

It’s almost as if the insurance companies knew the loophole was there. Couldn’t have anything to do with Liz Fowler, a former VP of WellPoint, being a senior aide to Sen. Baucus and director of the Senate Finance Committee health care staff, could it?

The response from the administration is that “clarifying regulations” will be forthcoming from the Department of Health and Human Services. “Clarifying regulations” for 2-day old legislation? The old carpenter’s adage about ‘measure twice, cut once’ comes to mind.

Let’s Move On From Health Care. Please.

24 Wednesday Mar 2010

Posted by in bailout, Congress, Financial Crisis, financial reform, financial regulation, health care, Obama, Politics, Wall Street

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Now that health care reform, such as it is, has been signed, sealed, and set to be delivered in varying stages between now and 2014, can we please move on to other things. Believe it or not there are some significant storm clouds on the horizon which have the potential to come on shore sooner than 4 years from now, and which might merit some attention from policymakers in Washington, D.C. Such as:

The next wave of the housing crisis:

“This month, the Fed confirmed that it will no longer make open market purchases of mortgage backed securities after March 31st…As the Fed begins to unwind its historic intervention, it faces a second wave of toxic mortgage maturities that could be even more damaging than the last wave of subprime mortgages. These are the 3 and 5 year Option ARM mortgages, and they were the credit bubble’s absolute creme de la creme…these loans will reset at rates that are far higher than the initial “teaser” rate. Sadly, this may spell doom for borrowers who used these loans to fund overpriced home purchases in 2006-2007, especially in high-priced markets along the coasts.”

Add to that the lack of success of the foreclosure prevention program which has fallen far short of its original goals of helping 4 million homeowners. The number so far is less than 170,000.

“The program risks helping few, and for the rest, merely spreading out the foreclosure crisis over the course of several years” at significant expense for taxpayers and borrowers, the inspector general’s office wrote. If too many participants re- default, the modification plan “will have done little to achieve the goal of assisting homeowners who would still find themselves losing their homes.”

Then there’s the commercial real estate “ticking time bomb”:

“Estimates published last November by the Urban Land Institute and PricewaterhouseCoopers suggest that commercial real estate vacancies will continue to increase in 2010, while prices could tumble further during the year. Prices could fall as low as half their peak levels from 2007.

If that happens, that would only darken borrowers’ hopes that banks will refinance their outstanding loans. And some $1.4 trillion is commercial real estate debt is expected to come due over the next three years.”

Existing home sales have fallen for the third straight month, to their lowest level since last July:

“Resales of U.S. homes and condominiums fell 0.6% in February to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 5.02 million, the lowest level in eight months, raising doubts about the durability of the housing recovery, the National Association of Realtors reported Tuesday.

…”We need to have a second surge,” said Lawrence Yun, chief economist for the real estate lobbying group. However, the jury’s still out, he said…A double-dip recession is a “possibility” if a second surge of buying doesn’t occur, he said.”

And last but not least, the economic “recovery” which is being felt in few places outside of big business and Wall Street:

“The earnings of companies in the Standard & Poor’s 500 stock index tripled in the fourth quarter, but this does not mean the rest of the US economy is doing well. Much of their sales were into fast-growing markets in places like India, China and Brazil. Meanwhile, they continued to slash jobs and cut costs at home.”

Large corporations are flush with cash, but:

“…Much is being used to buy other companies, which usually leads to more job losses. Much of the rest is being used to buy back their own stock in order to boost their share prices…The major beneficiaries are shareholders, including top executives, whose pay is linked to share prices. But the buy-backs do nothing for most Americans.

…The economy shows signs of improvement largely because the government is spending huge sums and the Fed is essentially printing even more money. But where will demand come from when the stimulus is over and the Fed tightens? That question hangs over the economy like a dense cloud. Until there is an answer, a sustainable recovery for any other than America’s largest corporations, Wall Street and the wealthy is a mirage.”

Just a few things for our elected representatives to consider. You’ve done your touchdown dance, now it’s time to get ready for the kickoff—the game is far from over.

As The Health Care Reform Turns

18 Thursday Mar 2010

Posted by in Congress, Democrats, health care, Politics, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

In today’s episode of  “As The Health Care Reform Turns”:

“House Democrats are inching toward the majority they need to pass health care legislation, giving them added confidence as they work out the last details of the bill and gird for a showdown as soon as this weekend.”

“Details” like what’s in the bill and how much it costs:

“House Democratic leaders on Wednesday night said the long-awaited Congressional Budget Office score of the reconciliation bill will not come out until Thursday, forcing an acknowledgment that a Saturday healthcare vote is likely off the table…But leaders are still hoping for a score on Thursday, and are still preparing for a possible vote before the end of the weekend.

…Rep. Robert Andrews (D-N.J.)…said that the delay is the result of numerous technical issues involved, and stressed that, despite any rumors to the contrary, the delays are not the result of policy problems.”

Translation: The delays are the result of policy problems. Just a hunch—Pelosi has seen the CBO numbers and they ain’t good. Hence the need to raise the tax on benefits:

“AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka is headed into a meeting with President Obama this afternoon after the White House and Congressional leaders have begun to discuss a higher-than-expected excise tax on some health care plans, in order to maintain their claim that health care legislation will reduce the deficit, a source involved in health care talks said.”

Policy problems like President Obama’s support for the so-called “Louisiana Purchase”:

“That provision, which I think should remain in, said that if a state has been affected by a natural catastrophe, that has created a special health care emergency in that state, they should get help,” Obama told Fox News’s Bret Baier…”

And since PhRMA has agreed to spend $6 million on pro-reform advertising, it’s safe to assume that the not-so-secret deal between the White House and the drug industry will be in the elusive bill as well.

So, where does HCR stand today? Pretty much in the same place its been:

“Democratic leaders say they have not nailed down the 216 votes they need for passage, but they are pressing ahead in the belief that they can get them.”

Health Care “Sleight of Hand”

16 Tuesday Mar 2010

Posted by in Congress, financial reform, health care, Politics, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

If members of Congress have any question as to why they rank somewhere below used car salesmen on the trustworthy scale, there are 2 shining examples relating to 2 pieces of proposed legislation in today’s news—one on health care reform and one on financial reform—which should make it crystal clear. First there’s this from the Washington Post:

“After laying the groundwork for a decisive vote this week on the Senate’s health-care bill, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi suggested Monday that she might attempt to pass the measure without having members vote on it.”

Wait a minute, I thought President Obama said it was time for an up or down vote on health care reform? Que pasa? I guess that only applies when the votes are there. Failing that, the need for an alternative procedure arises. Such as:

“Instead, Pelosi (D-Calif.) would rely on a procedural sleight of hand: The House would vote on a more popular package of fixes to the Senate bill; under the House rule for that vote, passage would signify that lawmakers “deem” the health-care bill to be passed.”

Note to Speaker Pelosi: For future reference, any time the words “sleight of hand” are used in relation to an action by Congress, it doesn’t exactly inspire confidence that what you’re trying to do is on the up and up.

“The tactic — known as a “self-executing rule” or a “deem and pass” — has been commonly used, although never to pass legislation as momentous as the $875 billion health-care bill. It is one of three options that Pelosi said she is considering for a late-week House vote, but she added that she prefers it because it would politically protect lawmakers who are reluctant to publicly support the measure.”

Wait another minute. Haven’t the Speaker and the Democratic leadership been extolling the virtues of this “reform” and how good it will be for us ( just trust them)?  Then why the need for “political protection?” I’m confused.

The other bit of news is Sen. Chris Dodd’s release of his so-called “sweeping financial regulatory reform” bill. This quote from Dodd at the end of a Huffington Post article says it all:

“Interestingly, Dodd seemed to want to minimize expectations for the proposed legislation’s impact by saying several times that it is not enough to prevent another crisis: “This legislation will not stop the next crisis from coming. No legislation can…”

Yes it can, Sen. Dodd. If you want it to. Ay, there’s the rub.