Defending the Senate Health Bill

By Dave

A reader responds to this post:

Barney Frank is right and Dave is wrong. The Senate bill mandates everyone buy insurnace from the companies who have messed up the system and transfers about a trillion dollars to those companies. If this were to happen, I doubt the voters would look favorably on the Democrats.

The Senate Dems need to change the cloture rules so that business can be conducted with a simple majority and then pass progressive legislation.

Yes, the House Bill creates a public option for insurance. But it is exactly that, an option. People don’t have to use it and will only use it if it can actually provide cheaper service. Otherwise both bills call for an individual mandate, which is what I think the comment is talking about. So under both bills people will purchase insurance from the private companies. According to the CBO, even with the public option, the majority of people will still buy from the private sector.

But while the companies will still be private, the service they provide will be very different. New regulation in the Senate Bill provides for stronger medical loss ratios, excludes insurers who jack up premiums from the exchanges; prohibits excluding people based on pre-existing conditions and will immediately prohibit excluding children with preexisting conditions; ensures access to care by banning the use of annual limits; and it adds new patient protections and a guaranteed independent appeals process. It will add transparency by forcing insurers and providers to report on their performance.

The Senate bill does a lot to reform our system, to add morality and justice back into the picture, and it will force insurers to comply.

I don't really follow the comment about transferring insurance companies a trillion dollars. The bill actually gives people, that is America workers, mothers, fathers, and children, subsidies to help them buy insurance over the next decade. It’s true that money will end up with insurers, but at the end of the day those millions of people will also be happier and healthier. It’s kind of like saying food stamps are awful because they subsidize big Agri-business or saying we shouldn't subsidize the costs of medicine for seniors because we’re only subsidizing big Pharma. It’s true, I guess. But it neglects the fact that tens of millions will now have coverage and hundreds of thousands of lives will be saved over the course of a decade.

Krugman is right, believing that killing the Senate Bill will somehow move us closer to universal coverage is the underpants gnome theory of business.

However, I do agree that Dems should change the cloture rules. The filibuster has been too used and abused over the last year.

Snatching Defeat from the Jaws of Victory

By Dave

A TPM Reader recounts their conversation with Barney Frank (D-MA):

I live in Barney Frank's district, and I called his office this morning. To my surprise, he took my call and I asked him why on earth couldn't the House simply pass the Senate version of the health care bill. He told me straight up that the votes weren't there to pass the Senate bill. He said that labor is totally against it, the abortion caucus is against it, and more than a few progressives were against it.

I asked him about Democrats' prospects in the 2010 election if they don't get something done on health care. He told me it would be worse electorally for Democrats if they passed the bill versus dropping it and facing voters having done nothing. I told him I disagreed with him on that point, but I suppose he knows more about this stuff than I do. I hope.

I whole heartedly agree that if Democrats let HCR die, there will be disaster in November.

But Franks comments are illuminating. What is the problem here? Why won't House Dems pass the Senate bill? The answer: Democratic rank-and-file won't let them. It's our fault. We haven't given them the political cover.

Some Democrats, let's call them Hamsher Democrats, appear to be totally delusional. They talk as though they are oblivious to Senate politics. And so they lobby the House to hold a position that will ultimately yeild nothing for Americans. They say public option, or nothing.

Let's be clear, the Senate Bill will cover an additional 30 million Americans, begin to control costs, reduce the deficit, create stability for the unemployed, give access to those with pre-existing conditions, and add other regulations that will make our system more moral and just. But the Hamsher Dems say this just simply is not enough and when given the choice, they prefer nothing at all. They are out of their minds. If this sounds like your friend, coworker, spouse, or colleague, please, tell them to take a deep breath, look clearly at the political landscape, and stop hurting reform.

Tell them to, at least, recognize self-interest. If Democrats pass reform soon, they will face a difficult but manageable mid-term election. If they fold, or fail because of trivia, they might as well give the Republicans the keys back now, because it is all over.

Democrat's Implode, Blame Each Other and Decide They Aren't Fit to Govern

By Dave

Well, as predicted, Brown won tonight in MA and the Democrats will lose their 60th vote in the Senate. This isn't the worst news in the world. The Democrats still have a sizable majority and they still have time to make the HCR reform a reality.

The worst news in the world is that congressional and senate Democrats have decided now is the time to admit defeat and lie over on their backs.

See if Dems had any backbone or spine, they could use the next fifteen days until Brown is seated to quickly hash out their differences and pass a conference bill.

But instead we get Democrats like Jim Webb (D-VA) who say stuff like this:

"In many ways the campaign in Massachusetts became a referendum not only on health care reform but also on the openness and integrity of our government process. It is vital that we restore the respect of the American people in our system of government and in our leaders. To that end, I believe it would only be fair and prudent that we suspend further votes on health care legislation until Senator-elect Brown is seated."

Are you fu*&^ing kidding me!? What bullshit! How dare you abandon the American people!? How cowardly. How disgusting.

51% of Massachusetts voters does not equal a national referendum on health care. You've been working on this for over 9 months, get it done already. Now! The bill you are now abandoning will improve the deficit. It will begin to control health care costs. It will expand coverage to an additional 30 million Americans and it will give new access to people with pre-existing conditions. The American people will respect you when you pass reform and explain to them in clear language what it will do for them.

Fourteen months ago, the American people entrusted Democrats with control of both houses of Congress and the White House. Sen. Webb has all but said that they don't deserve any of it. According to Sen. Webb, we can restore "the respect of the American people in our system of government and in our leaders" by killing the centerpiece of the Democratic legislative agenda. Way to go, Webb!

This is what my head feels like:



Since Sen. Webb has decided to cripple reform in the Senate until the Republican, who opposes reform, can be seated, the only option still available is for the House to pass the Senate Bill, as is, and then try to hash out their differences at a later date, maybe with a reconciliation bill. But it's hard to read how open this path is.

We have optimistic statements from Speaker Pelosi:

 "Whatever happens in Massachusetts, we have to do that," she said. "And whatever happens in Massachusetts we will have quality affordable health care for all Americans, and it will be soon."

 And not so optimistic statements from Rep. Barney Frank:

I have two reactions to the election in Massachusetts. One, I am disappointed. Two, I feel strongly that the Democratic majority in congress must respect the process and make no effort to bypass the electoral results. If Martha Coakley had won, I believe we could have worked out a reasonable compromise between the House and Senate health care bills. But since Scott Brown has won and the Republicans now have 41 votes in the senate, that approach is no longer appropriate. I am hopeful that some Republican senators will be willing to discuss a revised version of health care reform. Because I do not think that the country would be well served by the health care status quo. But our respect for democratic procedures must rule out any effort to pass a health care bill as if the Massachusetts election had not happened. Going forward, I hope there will be a serious effort to change the senate rule which means that 59 are not enough to pass major legislation, but those are the rules by which the health care bill was considered, and it would be wrong to change them in the middle of this process.

I don't get it. Don't Democrats understand that this is the choice between necessary and important reform or total, complete, abject failure? 

Failure on HCR means more people will continue to suffer in our broken health care system. No cost control, no reduction of the deficit. It means that even with the greatest majority since the time of LBJ, Democrats can't accomplish their most important legislative agenda. With failure, you tell the world you are unfit to govern. If you fail, you will lose the base and you will lose the center. It means an stronger, more energized opposition. Failure now means failure next November.

For God's sake, pass the Senate Bill in the House. Claim victory and move on. Stop asphyxiating your party with inaction, cowardice, and incompetence.