The Obama White House and Congressional Democrats are hurriedly wrapping the huge Christmas present they're preparing to give to their bestest friends forever….for-profit coporate health care insurers.
Rahm Emanuel, Obama's Chief of Staff, is doing most of the holiday wrapping this year….
Obama administration officials were not pleased when word leaked out earlier today that the White House was leaning on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to cut a deal with Joe Lieberman on a public option alternative–and they gave their counterparts on the other end of Pennsylvania Ave. an earful about it. But in the end, sources are unanimous: The White House wants Reid to hand Joe Lieberman the farm.
Emanuel didn't just leave it to Reid to find a solution. Emanuel specifically suggested Reid give Lieberman the concessions he seeks on issues like the Medicare buy-in and triggers.
"It was all about 'do what you've got to do to get it done. Drop whatever you've got to drop to get it done," the aide said. All of Emanuel's prescriptions, the source said, were aimed at appeasing Lieberman–not twisting his arm.
Think about that. "Drop whatever you've got to drop to get it done."
To get what done? Certainly not real national health care reform. That's not what's getting done. More likely, what Rahmbo was referring to as "it", is the sweetheart deal corporately-compromised Democrats are preparing to hand over to big health insurance and big pharmaceutical. Have a jolly old corporate Christmas, huh?
Joe Lieberman, the most vile, obnoxious, full-of-himself, bastard Senator ever to foul the air of Congress, is paying the Democrats back for their kind gestures towards him after he was booted into Independent status in Connecticut. Just the kind of prickish fellow that Joe is. If you recall, Unholy Joe lost the Democratic primary in his home state in 2006. With the help of many Republican voters, however, the Unholy One returned to the Senate, only this time as an Independent.
Joementum campaigned for McCain/Palin in 2008, and was a featured speaker at the RNC last fall. That wasn't enough for lily-livered, Slinky spined, Senate Democrats to strip the Unholy One of his committee chairmanship or to bar Joseph and his Many-Colored-Turncoat from caucusing with the Democrats.
At this point, Rahm and Barack simply want to pass anything they can claim is health care reform. 60 Senate votes are needed. UnHoly Joe first threatened to filibuster any public option….so majority, yet cowardly, Senate Democrats gave Joe what he wanted. No public option. Now Joe will filibuster any expansion of Medicare for 55-64 year olds…..and so Rahm and Barack pressured Harry Reid yesterday to give The UnHoly One what he wanted. No Medicare expansion.
Now with no public option and no Medicare expansion, "it", as Rahm referred to the health care reform bill…..is only a windfall of mandated new customers with tax dollars in hand to give to for-profit insurance corporations. That may have been Rahm and Obama's plan from the beginning.
Yes, more Americans will have health insurance as a result of this awful piece of corporate-friendly garbage. But prices will rise steadily above the rate of inflation, taking more of everyone's yearly budgets while enriching the insurers beyond anything they've ever dreamed.
"Drop whatever you've got to drop to get it done." Now we know what "it" is. "It" is simply more of what we've witnessed over the last 20 years. Elected officials framing and passing new laws that primarily benefit America's largest for-profit corporations.
During Bush/Cheney it was the Medicare Plan D program which benefitted pharmaceutical and insurance corporations while tricking seniors with "donut holes" and mind-boggling-yet-oddly-similar-looking "choices."
Now it's the Appease Joe Lieberman For The Sake Of Health Insurers Bill.
Here's the question for today. If Republicans were in the majority and passing a health care reform bill (think Plan D), how would the legislation look any different from what Democrats are about to vote on in the Senate? Other than the fact that Democrats are insisting on not increasing the deficit with this new corporate giveaway….I can't think of one issue theoretical majority Republicans would have changed.
Rahm and Barack, as Karl Rove did before them, think they know how to hold a permanent political majority in American halls of power. Co-opt corporate money. Do whatever huge monied interests want you to do so that those corporate interests will continue to finance your national political party.
Karl Rove was wrong then…..Rahm and Barack are wrong now. But either way…Americans are the ones still getting lumps of coal in their Christmas stockings.
{ 23 comments… read them below or add one }
And Lieberman was for Medicare Buy-In in 2000, when he was the Democrats VP candidate, and reiterated support for it about 3 months ago. For once, Rev, I won't bother to castigate you for your juvenile name-calling. I can see why the libs are pissed at Lieberman, even though it was those same libs who forced Liberman out of the Democratic party in the first place. Be careful what you ask for, you just might get it.
That being said, Medicare Buy-In was no great shakes. From what I read, the premiums would have been very expensive. I'm 56, and it wouldn't have helped me one bit. It would have been worse than what I have now.
We are in agreement on how bad the health care bill is, though I imagine it's for different reasons. I don't care about any public option. I mostly care about bending down the cost curve, which ObamaCare does not do. The high costs of health care premiums will be even higher, and now we'll have a bundle of new taxes to pay as well, in addition to the government using force to give the insurance companies tens of millions more customers. I don't know how Congress could have designed anything much worse than this, yet Obama is urging them to pass anything that he call pawn off as reform. I hate to say it, but I told you so.
The problem with Medicare Part D wasn't the donut hole. With the low costs of the drugs, most seniors never hit the donut hole. My mother took seven different drugs the last couple years of her life, and she never came close to hitting the donut hole. On Medicare D, those seven drugs cost her about $60 per month. Pretty darn good. When I analyzed every possible prescription drug program available for my mom, including purchasing drugs overseas or from Canada, Medicare D was the most cost effective for her by far. The only problem with Medicare D was that Bush didn't pay for it. It added to the debt, which these days can only be called The Capitol Hill Way. They're gonna keep the mirage going until we all die of thirst.
P.S. – I was going to write about Lieberman today too, but you beat me to the punch. I guess I'll take the day off.
My mother-in-law and an aunt both hit the donut hole a few months back.
" I don't care about any public option. I mostly care about bending down the cost curve, which ObamaCare does not do."
Tell me what it is that you would suggest be done to bend the cost curve….if you don't care anything about a public option. Would you set pricing?
Outside of a large not-for-profit insurance pool, I don't see any way to contain skyrocketing costs. To rely on free market competitive forces in health insurance is a fool's errand. Those forces brought us to the mess we're in now.
My thought is this – Either Change the number of votes to stop a filibuster in the U.S. Senate to 57 from the current 60 votes. Which is my first choice and put in a good public option or get the stupid bill passed without one because the good about it is the government can over see health care a little and everyone is forced to have health insurance. Not getting it passed means nothing will ever get done- for a long long time. Then you go and VOTE out every lousy democrat who wasn't going to vote for the bill and in my opinion that includes Kucinch because you will never get anywhere without compromise's – you need 60 votes
And YOU dont need someone who will not vote for something unless it is Perfect ! Sure he wanted single payer but wasn't going to happen . This imperfect bill is the biggest step forward in American health care since the creation of medicare. If was easy to pass then we can have progressives nit pick it – but as you can see we cant even get 60 votes on a bill that is NOT single payer and we don't need to comfort the enemy – so get these traitors OUT. And hopefully Lieberman will be gone gone gone .
Then Make sure America knows the reason why we got this crappy bill is In part because the Republicans have been totally useless . They used scare tactics and been on the insurance company sides all along. And you vote those loosers out too every stinking one . Then you can get your 60 votes and you go back in and make a strong public option to pay for the reform that now already passed. Maybe then the stupid people who listened to the repubican properganda on reform will finally wake up to see this is not socialsim and the idea was to HELP you from sky rocketing health care and YOU all blew it . You listened to PALIN and you let lobbyists win.
"Change the number of votes to stop a filibuster in the U.S. Senate to 57 from the current 60 votes"
Your posts have taken a turn for the creepy, Andrea. Get help.
to quote my hero, Johnny Rotten "ever get the feeling you've been cheated?"
larry d.,
I think that the number of votes to end a filibuster were once 67 before being changed to 60.
Rev,
Have you noticed the resemblance between Lieberman and Senator Palpatine of Star Wars? Can this be why Obama hasn't told him to take a flying ….
Seriously, can we now call this the Joe Lieberman Health Control Act of 2009? His name should be forever attached to this piece of s&%t.
Ways to reduce medical costs, in no particular order of importance:
1. Tort reform
2. National competition among insurance companies (we don't really have free market health insurance now. It is very limited at the state level).
3. Make insurance premiums and other medical costs 100% tax deductible.
4. Expand the types of insurance available to get lower premiums. For instance, I'd like to pay all of my normal medical costs, and only have insurance there to cover catastrophic events.
5. More free clinics.
6. Allow importation of drugs from foreign countries that meet our standards, such as Canada.
7. A windfall profits tax on insurance and pharma companies to keep them honest.
8. Mandate a reasonable overhead cost celing for insurers, say 15%.
9. Make insurers treat every insured individual as being in one big insurance pool, making everyone's rate the same. No more preferences.
10. Centralized computer medical records to avoid repetitive tests.
There. With the exception of #10, I accomplished more than ObamaCare without having the government control squat.
So what you're promoting frank is if a piece of legislation doesn't pass, just keep changing the rules until it does. Maybe that could work on national elections, too. Say Obama gets past the 40 percent threshold in 2012, he wins, no matter how many votes his opponent gets.
Obama has the Vulcan sign down pat, and the detestable Lieberman does look like that Star Wars character…..so I think it would be appropriate to call the bill coming out of the Senate…the Lieberman-for-Lieberman Science Fiction Health Care Reform Bill of 2009.
Andrea,
Get a life will you. This health care bill does nothing for anything you want.
It is another leftist big government scam and sham. As Da King says, there are ways to cut the cost of health insurance, and also to cut the cost of health care, and they are not necessarily the same.
Please tell me once, just once where the federal government ran anything that worked the way they say it will, Social Security? nope, Medicare/caide? nope, the military, not even close, and that is the best we got. The bigger the federal government gets, the worse it is for our freedoms, and the worse it is for the poor and struggling, not better. Walter Williams had an interesting article today about the min-wage and minority unemployment, guess what Andrea, government interference has made minority unemployment worse, especially in the teenage years (where work skills and ethics are learned) in 1940 teen unemployment was around 9 % for both black and white teens (and as he points out was there more or less racism in 1940?) today white teens run around 12% and black teens at 25%, so what has the min-wage and increases done for the entry level workforce, completely wrecked it. Employers will not hire someone if their productivity is expected to be less than there pay.
Mandating that everyone buys something (besides being unconstitutional) will create shortages, (ps this bill doesnt even accomplish that, 24 million will still be without insurance) young people that opt out at first, then get sick, will burden the system, insurance is a game of shared risk, and when we allow those at low risk to avoid the system, (for a small fee) then the shared risk is only among the higher risk and already sick, the insurance cost must go up, oh and by the way the evil insurance companies make about a 3% profit.
We (and I mean you and the blomd and fellow travelers) need to quit bashing corporations, they are just collective ownership of a means of production, one based on freedom, not on marxism but since they are collective you should like them. A corporation is neither good nor evil, only individuals can have those traits.
Lastly Andrea, I keep asking this question, and none of you and your marxist hacks can answer this, if the goal is to insure those who can not afford health insurance, why does it cost 20 times as much, and take 3 to 5 years to start, when it would only take about 17 bill to start right now insuring the 8 million who WANT health insurance but CAN NOT AFFORD IT, WHY WHY WHY
No answer, I thought so.
larry d.,
I didn't propose anything except attaching Lieberman's name to the bill.
Jeff – You are right in only one aspect the health care proposal which is now in the senate the one which was destroyed because it was weakened to please weasels like Lieberman CAN NOT be passed with a mandate. If it is , it will be totally unfair since it has no cost savings. But the original idea of a public option would have reduced health care costs and given people with no health care a government plan to chose from. (but thanks to insurance companies and the republicans and tea baggers that was taken out from the plan )
As for Da Kings ideas – states that have tort reform does not mean they will save customers a dime . Just look at Texas – Tort reform there did not pass any savings on to customers only to the doctors . Texas one of the most expensive states for health care HAS Tort reform . YES they do ! So by having it more doctors go to Texas and enjoy cheaper insurance but no savings to consumers. And if your doctor screws up and you are dead , well tuff luck , who cares – hes not going to be held accountable.
You actually think they will just hand over a savings to us with NO government regulation?
You can have more free free clinics sure -but if you do not mandate people to take on a health care plan and pay something towards it – whose going to pay for the free clinic? Oh my, I guess it is US –
#4 doesn't help the poor to be able to afford health care, it only helps those who are well off. And right now you can deduct your out of pocket health care expenses if over a certain amt compared to what you earn .#6 might sound like a good idea- although I seem to recall many republicans not liking that one . And there is also safety issues – who will check these drugs to make sure they are what they are supposed to be?
And 9 #10 is in the Obama plan – that what the republican are fighting against when Obama says he making cuts in medicare – this is the cost savings he proposed.
Having a government run health care plan to compete with PR insurance would have brought down the price because a government plan would have a large pool of people . The only reason why some government run programs are not as successful as private ones is because YOU want them for FREE . You want them to run on AIR – and not pay taxes.
As for your question I cant answer it because I have no clue where you get such statements from . All I can say is right now we pay about 10 – 20 times more
for their health care when they go to the ER for care than we would if
they were to go to a primary care physician.
Andrea,
The public option was crap, and you know it. Dont tell me it would cut costs, at best it would pass them on to the taxpayer, as opposed to the insurance buyer.
Next just because it is "out" of this bill doesnt mean it wont surface somewhere else, this congress is great at hiding what it is really doing.
Still no answer on why we need to rush this, when it does not take effect until 2013 at the earliest. And costs the taxpayer 10 times what it needs to.
And still where is it constitutional to FORCE people to buy health insurance or go to jail (I know, in the extreme case, but the threat is there) and dont try the car insurance analogy it does not fly. 1. It is the STATE not the Fed that requires insurance, 2. The state does not force you to buy it, you can provide proof that you can pay out of pocket. 3. Driving is a privilege granted by the state, is living a privilege granted by the fed government.
Also, Tort Reform does not screw the aggrieved party, what it does is prevent the rich trial attorneys from cashing it, Doctors are still liable, just the awards are capped to prevent abuse by the trial lawyers (who vote and by Dem votes)
When some woman gets 9 mil for spilling coffee on herself, dont you think some intelligence is needed to protect us from the madness, who do you think paid that no mcdonalds, but everyone that buys food from mcdonalds, they just pass it on, and that is one reason why the drug companies charge so much, the other is countries like Canada, cap what drug companies can charge for the same drug sold here, so guess who gets screwed we do, If governments stayed out, we would pay less, canadians a little more, and the company makes the same reasonable profit. 3% is not getting rich, not when some jerk can sue for Billions.
NEXT dear Andrea, the cuts in Medicare, are for a program that competes with AARP's supplemental insurance so the cut is just a payoff for getting the AARP to support this, so the AARP can sell more insurance, so again, the american people get screwed.
Why has none of the Republican plans been debated, instead we are getting one viewpoint railroaded down our throats, congress is again violating its own rules, threats, intimidation and payoffs rule the day, Someone threaten Liebermans wife, someone is threatening ND Senator with closing Offuit AFB, Landreu gets a 300 million payoff, and for what, 1.2 trillion in new debt, and still 24 million uninsured. Tell me again that this is a good deal.
Andrea, do a search on the Cloward Piven Strategy and the people who are now advocating it, and learn what is really behind all this. And what it means for freedom.
Andrea:
Taxes: YOU CAN NOT DEDUCT YOUR MEDICAL EXPENSES UNTIL THEY REACH 7.5% OF YOUR AGI. and only the amount of 7.5 % That my dear is not 100% deductible which is what Da King said. If you make 40k you need med expenses of over 3000 to deduct them and only what is over 3000. That is crap, and you know it, give a 100% deduction for insurance, and provide competitive insurance across state linesincluding catastrophic plans and you will solve 95% of the un-insured problem.
Next you can not deduct them if you dont reach the standard deduction for all your deductions.
The rest, provide health insurance to those who can not afford it an are WORKING, no more free lunches, if you cant get a job, we can find one for you, how about picking fruit, sweeping streets, why shouldnt people give a fair days work for a fair days pay?
I fail to see what the big deal is about the particulars of the health bill. All Obama wants is any bill- just pass one. Once it is passed and becomes yesterday's news then the process of making small "improvements" and "clarifying" other parts will result in legislation more to the libs liking. Once the program actually goes into effect and it doesnt accomplish the stated goals and theings only get worse then the left can fall back on the usual battle cry that it didnt work because we didnt do enough. From there it is an easy step to the ulimtate goal .
Here is some Healthcare Comic Relief. This is hilarious. From Jon Stewart last night.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-december-16-2009/the-d-c-
"Outside of a large not-for-profit insurance pool, I don't see any way to contain skyrocketing costs. To rely on free market competitive forces in health insurance is a fool's errand. Those forces brought us to the mess we're in now."Blog of Mass Disinformation.
Wrong again, it is GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE in the free market that got us into the mess we have now. The STATES can mandate what is covered in your health insurance policy, WHY, why do I have to pay for HIV care, why cant I purchase a policy without it? That would be free market, that would be competition.
If I am at risk for a certain disease, then I can pick a plan that covers it, that is freedom to choose.
The problem with your solution is simple, place a not for profit option, and dont give people the ability to choose their coverage, then the not for profit gains a large competitive advantage, especially when you couple it with taxpayer subsidies, and not just insurance revenues. And as private insurance premiums increase due to legislative forces (eliminating pre-existing condition exemptions for one (ps, if you have insurance you can not be denied a change in insurance for a pre-existing condition) )( Would it be fair to allow someone to buy fire insurance once their house caught fire? think what it would do to insurance?)
The companies who offer it, would slowly be forced to drop coverage for their employees due to the excessive cost, placing a bigger and bigger burden on government, and leading to law makers making the next logical (and fatal) step to a single payer socialized system (one we know does not work and one we as a people can not afford).
But again none of you neo-soc's will answer the simple question, why does this cost 10 times what it would cost to insure the 8 million or so who want insurance and cant afford it?
Lawrence O'Donnell spoke some truth last night on Countdown. He said that the White House and the Congress began this process with a given. That given was that the for-profit health insurance industry had to be maintained and protected.
That led to the give-everything-to-insurers mess we're looking at now in the Senate.
Jeff…two things….
1) The government has not created the health-insurance-costs-too-much crisis. Insurers, whether you believe it or not, contribute blsolutely nothing to the health care of Americans. Just the opposite. Insurers make profits by denying procedures, treatments, tests, etc…..for those with insurance. They are parasites.
2) Please don't call my longtime good blog friend, Andrea…."dear." Thanks.
Over 70 percent of Americans are happy with their insurance plans, Reverend. You seem confused by all the propaganda but more and more folks are coming around to the idea that doing nothing is better than letting the clowns in Washington muck it up worse.
The bill is not about coverage or costs at all at this point, it's simply a political football representing win/lose for Obama and the incompetent dem leadership. It will either die or end disastrously for Americans.
Nothing to see concerning a national crisis caused by health care prices….move along.
Same happened with the deregulation of Wall Street…nothing to worry about…and that worked out well.
In fact, there are no problems to be dealt with at all in America….except that taxes are still too high on millionaires.
Oh, yeah…and we need to kill more foreign Muslims.