This morning the Senate just passed, 60-39, Sen. Reid's manager's amendment and paved the way for passage of the Senate version of health care reform by the Christmas deadline. Regardless if the bill passes the Senate it will take several weeks of hard negotiations in conference committee as Congress hammers out some major differences between the House and Senate versions. A friend of mine on Facebook posted an interesting article put out by the FDL. The article written by Jane Hamsher points out 10 reasons to kill the Senate health care bill:
- Forces you to pay up to 8% of your income to private insurance corporations — whether you want to or not.
- If you refuse to buy the insurance, you'll have to pay penalties of up to 2% of your annual income to the IRS.
- Many will be forced to buy poor-quality insurance they can't afford to use, with $11,900 in annual out-of-pocket expenses over and above their annual premiums.
- Massive restriction on a woman's right to choose, designed to trigger a challenge to Roe v. Wade in the Supreme Court.
- Paid for by taxes on the middle class insurance plan you have right now through your employer, causing them to cut back benefits and increase co-pays.
- Many of the taxes to pay for the bill start now, but most Americans won't see any benefits — like an end to discrimination against those with preexisting conditions — until 2014 when the program begins.
- Allows insurance companies to charge people who are older 300% more than others.
- Grants monopolies to drug companies that will keep generic versions of expensive biotech drugs from ever coming to market.
- No re-importation of prescription drugs, which would save consumers $100 billion over 10 years.
- The cost of medical care will continue to rise, and insurance premiums for a family of four will rise an average of $1,000 a year — meaning in 10 years, your family's insurance premium will be $10,000 more annually than it is right now.
The article does offer links to parts of the bill that support the assertions made by the author. See the entire article here: http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2009/12/21/10-reasons-to-kill-the-senate-bill/
Other points of interest in the Senate bill are the bonuses, or bribes, given to certain Senators to get their vote. Florida seniors are now exempt, grandfathered in, from Medical Advantage cuts. Nebraska will have all Medicare and Medicaid payments made by the Federal Government after the three window closes. Vermont and Massachusetts will get additional Medicaid funds. The AMA supports the bill after hearing that 5% tax on cosmetic surgeries and cuts to elective coverage were dropped from the Senate bill. Does the Senate bill really create reform? Will it raise taxes? Will it increase your premiums? Should Congress pass something just to pass something?
Senator Sanders (I-VT) just admitted on Morning Joe that the insurance and drug companies will make out "like bandits" from this reform. If that is the case, then why pass legislation under the guise of "reform"?
As a progressive, I am not happy with the bill. However, it just exemplifies the control that healthcare insurance companies have over the country. My apologies, but even a libertarian like yourself HAS to think that a single-payer system would work better than this...
ReplyDeleteI was looking forward to hearing the debate on Sen. Sanders amendment on a single-payer system. I agree that Obama has lied to the public on his campaign pledge to make this process transparent and keep special interests out. He has done neither. The paper said he is getting 95% of what he wants and promised on the campaign trail. I'd disagree with that.
ReplyDeleteThese bills are taxation, increase costs, and will line the pockets of big insurance, AARP, and drug companies. There is no reform going on here. Sure many will point to elimination of pre-existing conditions, caps on limits, removal of Medicare Advantage kick backs but all this is offset by allowing the health industry to keep their near monopoly through a trade off of requiring all of us to carry insurance or face fine and imprisonment.
It is a power grab and a shame. While I do not support many policies of Obama, I did hold out hope that he'd change the landscape of "business as usual" in Washington D.C. As we can see, he is not doing that.
So...you're blaming Obama? He has all the control over Congress to stop special interests? Cut it out.
ReplyDeleteStop blaming Obama. What politician do know that has a different story during their campaigns? None.
I give Obama much credit to do more to advance the idea of healthcare reform than any of his predessessors have. We as a country have now witnessed the control that the insurers have over congress with very little that can be done about it.
I think the Senate dropped the ball. I personally would give Reid his walking papers for allowing the back room deals to happen. The democrats only need 51 votes to pass a deal. If the republicans were the majority party, they wouldn't care whether they had 60 votes or not.
Here is where I blame Obama in regards to the health care reform. Obama promised transparency which is something we are not getting in this debate. Obama promised compromise and a bipartisan approach which we are not getting. While I agree that Obama is limited to the amount of influence a lobbyist exerts on a member of Congress but he is the leader of the party per se.
ReplyDeleteObama still has a chance to send a signal to the American people and members of Congress that he is serious about reform and removing special interest. Obama can do this by veto of the reform. We agree that the reform presented by Congress is filled with special interest benefits and taxation. Two elements that Obama ran against for President.
This is where I blame Obama. I do not care what past politicians have said during the campaign, this man was suppose to be different. Obama ran on the premise of Hope and Change. Are you not tired of empty promises by politicians? I am.
Wouldn't you agree that a veto by Obama would send shock waves through the lobby industry? Obama can request Congress to hold open public meetings when they go to conference committee too. Granted the request can be denied but he could but the caveat on it by saying he will veto the bill if the conference committee discussion are not made public. That would be real change in Washington.
As I said, I do not agree with a number of obama policy stances but I did hope that he was serious when he ran on "Change".
I would agree to that...but you and I know thats not going to happen. However, I am fairly certain you were not a fan of Obama prior to the election and are holding him to a higher standard now.
ReplyDeleteObama is not the party leader. The media makes him out to be, but he has very little control over what happens in Congress. When he was first in office, he reached out to both parties. But what do Repubs have to gain by listening to him? Nothing. They do not have enough in the Congressional ranks to make a difference in the debate other than to try to make Democrats look bad. This is politics.
Obama campaign promises surmounted to more transparency in the executive branch. Now, compared to the Bush administration he's done quite well. However, he has limited ability to work with congressional special interests, Republicans, Blue dog democrats, etc...
Give Obama a break. Perhaps the repub/democrat ratio will be closer in the midterm elections to give more of a need to responsibly debate the healthcare issue and leave special interests out.
But I wouldn't hold my breath....
I agree that Obama will not veto the bill no matter how tattered it is. While Obama is not the DNC chair he does hold a lot of political clout in the party and can flex the power of the Presidency through the veto to ensure he gets a bill he wants. Then again he hasn't proven that very well when he signed the pork filled stimulus package.
ReplyDeleteRegardless of what party is in office, I will not relent to keep them accountable for their actions. That goes for Congress too. I agree the Republicans are now playing politics as they align things for the midterm elections. If I was a freshman Congress member in the House and up for re-election, I'd be dismayed if my party leader is willing to concede seats - especially if it were mine.
I have never been a big term-limit guy but with the recent disregard the majority of Congress has for the public interest vs their own interest I may have to re-assess my position.
BTW..I sent correspondance to the White House to request Obama to veto the bill if it does not increase competition - which the Senate bill does not.
Do you honestly think that if he vetos this bill that Congress is going to come back with everything he wants? This might not be everything that he wants, but it is what he's going to get. This is his one and only chance to make a crucial change to a broken system. You don't see it that way, but many do.
ReplyDeleteYou might not like what it takes to get things done in Washington, but it's the system he has to work with and both sides play the same game. This bill does bring hope to 30 million uninsured people and a massive change to the health care system.
As far as biaprartinship goes, why would anyone give up something they want when they don't' have to and they are opposed to it? You wouldn't and I wouldn't. You compromise to reach an agreement not because it sounds like a cool thing to do. The Republicans made it pretty clear what they were opposed to early on, they certainly haven't worked to compromise on this either. The only reason people think it's unfair is because their party isn't in control.
He operates in reality and has done what is necessary to achieve a great benefit for this country.
I don't buy it that this is the one and only time to change the broken system. I think there has been enough discussion on this topic by the populous that will not let Congress off the hook. Will a veto get everything he wants? Maybe not but if he predicates the veto with, "I am going to veto this reform bill because it gives special interest the keys to the vault and does not enact true reform" then I think it would sink in.
ReplyDeleteThe Senate Bill does not cover the additional 30 million people that is being touted. The House bill comes close to it. Several Republicans offered meaningful suggestions but they have been rebuffed. Wisconsin Representative offered the use of Medical Saving Accounts, opening up the borders for insurance, anti-trust exemption, and tort reform - all things that do not exist in either bill. Also, I like Sen. Dorgan's idea on lowering prescription drugs by opening up the drug trade, which had bipartisan support, but it was killed by parlimentary procedure.
The reform being discussed in the Senate does not benefit the greater good nor does it reform. Only about 9%, based on the last CBO estimate, of those not covered will get covered. And since this bill will not go into effect for four years, you think that insurance premiums will not skyrocket? There is nothing in the bill to prevent price gauging. The bill is flawed, even DNC Chair Dean agrees with that assessment.
The President if fear mongering behind the "this is the only chance" just as opposition if fear mongering with "death panels". The original 10 points above is from a progressive group too.
Unless I'm mistaken, this is a CBO summary of the Senate Amendment and says a reduction of 31 million non-elderly by 2019 and provides health insurance to 94 % of the non-elderly population. : http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=446u
ReplyDeleteThis information is from Saturday
The summary is from the Senate bill but does not take into consideration the Managers Amendment. That is a reduction of 31M in ten years. What about now? The report also states it leave 23M uninsured at the end of the time as well. That is if the population stays stable and immigration rules don't change.
ReplyDeleteUse www.C-Span.com/healthcare I have found that a great source.
It does include the manager's amendment. It actually explicitly states so at the end of the first paragraph.
ReplyDelete23 million is better than 54 million. A third of those 23 are illegal immigrants, and I think we can agree that the bill shouldn't cover them. So that's roughly 16 million. Seems like reform, progress, and change tome.
I went back and re-read it, you are right it has the manager's amendment but doesn't include other amendments which include the stripping out of the public option - "The estimate does not include the effects of other amendments adopted during the Senate’s consideration of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act; it also does not reflect an incremental effect on PPACA from Congressional action on H.R. 3326, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2010, which was cleared earlier today." per your blog site.
ReplyDeleteWithout a public option or an exchange how are these people getting covered?