Conservative Health Care Woes

Jonathan Chait on the coming conservative freak-out
by blue aardvark Sat Feb 20, 2010
From The New Republic:

The Coming Conservative Health Care Freakout
You can imagine how this feels to conservatives. They've already run off the field, sprayed themselves with champagne and taunted the losing team's fans. And now the other team is saying the game is still on and they have a good chance to win. There may be nothing wrong at all with the process, but it's certainly going to feel like some kind of crime to the right-wing. The Democrats may not win, but I'm pretty sure they're going to try. The conservative freakout is going to be something to behold.
And Paul Krugman adds this:
If this works out — I’d think the odds now are that it will, though it’s by no means a done deal — there will be endless debate about whether Anthem Blue Cross was wot did it. My sense is that a final push was always available, as long as the White House was willing to take a stand; Anthem may just have helped provide an occasion.
I think Krugman's correct. And Chait, too.
The Democrats are going to pass something. It's going to be less than it should have been, but better than nothing. And then what's going to happen?
The answer is the Republicans, especially the Tea Party types, are going to lose their collective minds. They will scream about the use of reconciliation. When they do, we must be ready to point out how often Bush used it. And that only a few 'amendments' were passed that way.
They will scream that the public doesn't want Obamacare. And that's where the hard work will be. Educating the public that the vast majority of the provisions in the bill are ones they like - tax breaks for small business, the exchange, and so on.
We need to force the screaming crybabies to explain why the public doesn't want those enormously popular items at the top of the chart. The time to start thinking about framing it that way is now. They are going to frame this as the Democrats using a trick to pass a bill the public doesn't want. The Democratic Party needs to get the truth out about this bill.
Lean on your Senators. Lean on your Representative. Tell them to support reconciliation to pass health care. Tell them to include the public option and the millionaires tax (the only two popular items not in the Senate Bill per Nate).
Let's get this done. Because if we play it correctly, the GOP is going to look like sore losers. And if there's one thing Americans dislike, it's whiny crybaby sore losers.

And just for grins, here's a quote from Newt Gingrich:

February 20, 2010
I'm not frightened by bipartisanship... We should be brave enough to stand up and say let's work together until we finish defeating the left and then we won't have to work with them as much.
Supplied via Political Wire
Update:
I think this is my first trip to the top of the Recommended List. I think it's because it's a slow Saturday evening, but I thank all those who clicked the little button.
From dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/2/20/839072/-Jonathan-Chait-on-the-coming-conservative-freak-out"

Bipartisanship For Health Care?

Original:http://dailykos.com/

Health care bipartisanship lives!
by David Waldman Thu Oct 15, 2009
If one Republican vote for the Baucus health insurance "reform" bill makes it bipartisan, how many Democratic "no" votes on cloture does it take to make a filibuster of the public option bipartisan?
Maybe Glenn Thrush knows. Or maybe not. After all, he granted anonymity for this important observation:
"If there really is such a groundswell of support for the public option, perhaps senator Schumer would like to show the caucus, especially the centrist Democrats, how he can come up with the 60 votes necessary to overcome the [Republican] filibuster that he damn well knows is coming," said a senior Democrat. In a full Senate, a "Republican filibuster" requires 41 "no" votes on cloture to sustain. There are only 40 Republicans in the Senate.So if there really is such a thing as a
"Republican filibuster" of the public option, perhaps SenatorAnonymous would like to show the world, especially his fellow Democrats, how they can come up with the 41 votes necessary to sustain this "Republican" filibuster that he damn well knows is every bit as "bipartisan" as the Baucus bill is.
Says me

USA Today: 1000s of Americans move to Mexico for health care

by Eclectablog Tue Sep 01, 2009
USA Today is reporting that "thousands" of Americans are moving to Mexico to receive inexpensive health care:
As the United States debates an overhaul of its health care system, thousands of American retirees in Mexico have quietly found a solution of their own, signing up for the health care plan run by the Mexican Social Security Institute (IMSS).
One of the biggest arguments against changing our system in the USA is that our system is SOOOOOOOOOOO good that foreigners come here to get treatment.
Seems that's only part of the story. In Mexico, they run a program that costs between $90 and $250 a year for "legal foreigners". They have 1,507 clinics and 264 hospitals across Mexico and thousands of Americans are moving there to take advantage of it.
The program has helped people such as Ron and Jemmy Miller of Shawano, Wis. They decided to retire early, but knew affording health care was going to be a problem.
Ron was a self-employed contractor, and Jemmy was a loan officer at a bank. At ages 61 and 52, respectively, they were too young to qualify for Medicare, but too old to risk not having health insurance.
"We knew that we couldn't retire without Medicare," Jemmy Miller said. "We're pretty much in Mexico now because we can't afford health care in the States."
It's a pretty no-frills system. Pre-existing conditions aren't covered for the first two years and the hospitals aren't anything fancy. But at $250 per year, it's a very enticing situation.
Perhaps health care reform advocates can use this bit of news next time they hear the tired excuse that foreigners come to America for treatment because what we have here is so damn awesome.
Bob Story, 75, of St. Louis, had prostate-reduction surgery at an IMSS hospital in Mazatlán and discovered that patients were expected to bring their own pillows. It was a small price to pay, he said, for a surgery that would have cost thousands of dollars back home.
"I would say it's better than any health plan I've had in the States," he said.
My, my... Maybe that puts their other front-page article, For Florida, 'the end of an era' of growth into perspective.
I'm just sayin'...
UPDATE: First of all, the intent of this diary isn't to show that we should all go to Mexico for our treatment or even that it's right that some Americans do. Only that there are other options to our system and these can WORK.
Also, I don't think anyone is claiming they ran to Mexico for high-end or emergency treatment. Only for the routine care that is out of the price range even for so many Americans.
Again, I think this just highlights that there are other options and that our so-called "best system in the world" maybe isn't the only answer.
What pisses me off so much about the anti-reformers' arguments is that there is a blindness to two things. First, that there are other ways of doing health care that give better outcomes than ours and, second, that if we do anything remotely similar to single-payer, we'll have a system exactly like Canada/Sweden/England/fill-in-the-blank.
Why can't we have a system that incorporates the best parts of all these other systems, avoids the well-documented pitfalls and problems with them, and truly is "American"? That's a little thing called leadership and we should be able to learn from other countries and come up with a new-and-improved approach.

Time To Lose The Republicans?

The following article comes from http://www.dailykos.com/

TIME TO LET THE REPUBLICANS GO.
by icebergslim Sun Aug 30, 2009
I am from Illinois, a blue state with the City of Chicago within it, a large populous state. Yet, while the White House WAITS on the Senate Finance Committee; large populous states have no representation of the committee. There are six individuals who are trying to pound out an agreement, yet all come from extremely small states and represents none of the majority of Americans. Note, we have had other bills come out of committee with the public option attached, but the bipartisanship of the White House has been a wait and see, as what comes out of the Baucus Committee.
Now the same sort of damaging retreat may be happening in the Senate Finance Committee. Three committees in the House and one in the Senate have used their Democratic majorities to approve liberal health reform bills. The only bipartisan negotiations are between a rump group of three Democrats and three Republicans on the Finance Committee who hail from largely rural states with small populations, namely Iowa, Maine, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota and Wyoming. Somehow this small, unrepresentative group has emerged as the focal point for bipartisan health care reform.
Bipartisan health care. No one is asleep here; do we actually believe that the Republicans will vote ANYTHING for Obama? When you have the likes of Grassley and Enzi, who are on this committee continuing to destroy any hope of bipartisanship, yet the White House forges along, but why? Is it for Independent votes? If that is the case, they are bleeding this group, since the Democratic Party has been all over the map in the messaging of health care and this message has clearly been yanked from the Democrats. The reality now in the Obama White House is that none of these Republicans were EVER going to be an honest broker, not for any of Barack Obama's agenda. At this time the Republicans only care about political points with hopes of recapturing the congress and hopefully the White House, so helping out President Obama is very LOW on their totem pole.
In recent weeks, it has become inescapably clear that Republicans are unlikely to vote for substantial reform this year. Many seem bent on scuttling President Obama’s signature domestic issue no matter the cost. As Senator Jim DeMint, Republican of South Carolina, so infamously put it: “If we’re able to stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo. It will break him.”
As we are still trying for the "bipartisanship lovey-dovey bill", the Republicans are staying on course to kill ANY health care reform bill, in the process making outrageous demands for their support EVEN THOUGH we have majorities in the House and Senate. The way things are going, you would think it is the Republicans in charge and not the Democrats.
In Salt Lake City today, Sen. Bob Bennett (R-UT) held a fundraiser with former Bush adviser Karl Rove, where Rove declared that “Republicans will be defined this year by their effort to block Democrats’ efforts for health care reform.” “This year is going to be defined by Republicans and conservatives by what we oppose,” said Rove. After Rove praised Bennett’s health care plan, Bennett said that he agreed with Rove’s goal of killing health care reform:
Rove said that he supports Bennett’s work on the Healthy Americans Act - the health care bill Bennett is co-sponsoring with Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Oregon - although he said it’s “not exactly the bill that you or I would like each and every section.” Bennett said his bill is not a negotiating tool on health care, but it will be there as an alternative after Democratic reforms are blocked. “The No. 1 assignment in 2009 is to kill Obamacare,” Bennett said.
With lovey-dovey friends like these, no wonder health care is in disarray.
No one can rule out that the health care debacle or debate has hurt Obama and Democrats across the board, but I firmly believe once a health care package (with a public option) is passed by Democrats (let's be real the Republicans are not voting for ANYTHING) then we can rebound in the polling numbers. I also believe that once President Obama explains in clear lay-man speak, not that Washington, D.C. mumbo jumbo, but relay to the American Public why health care reform is not only important but what it means for THEM, we can win this battle. But, if we continue to deal with the Republican Party, which is fruitless, worthless and a waste of time, in my opinion, the public option could be a compromise if the Obama White House is hell bent on a bipartisan bill. Even though, a government run public option is what the public wants and demands, it could easily be dealt away:
The six have been working hard to reach agreement, but the concessions demanded by Republicans will most likely make the reform effort weaker and smaller. They could, for example, reduce the scale of the program and the subsidies for low-income people; drop the idea of a government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurers; and eliminate a requirement that employers offer coverage to their workers or pay a penalty.
Even if the group reaches an agreement, which is by no means certain, its compromise is unlikely to win support from a Republican Party that seems bent on delay. Leading Senate Republicans have seen little in the emerging compromise that they are willing to support.
Two of the Republicans working on the compromise — Charles Grassley of Iowa and Michael Enzi of Wyoming — have said they would not vote for a bill that could not win broad support, which Mr. Enzi defined as 75 to 80 senators, implying that roughly half of the Senate’s Republicans must sign on. That is unlikely — no matter how good or bipartisan or middle-of-the-road any bill may be.
After all this, does anyone believe these Republicans? And get this one, even if the Democrats and we got some very weak ones, give them everything, these Republicans will still NOT VOTE FOR ANY REFORM.
I hope President Obama and his family had a very restful vacation, even though the death of our great leader of the senate, Ted Kennedy, hurts, I am hoping that it is our former Lion of the Senate, while in his death will give some backbone or steel spine to the Democrats to forge this ahead and get on with it.
We need health care reform, desperately, but we don't need what the Republicans are trying to dish up. The Democratic Party is the leaders, majority of the congress and White House, it is time to show this leadership and get on with it.
NY Times
Think Progress
••
This Week With Barack Obama

Obama's Health Plan and ERISA...

...is not a very good mix for those of you who may be enrolled in an employer sponsered health plan. It would seem that the Obama administration is in the process of flat out trying to do away with ERISA altogether. This is not good for you.

The reality is that the House health bill, which the Administration praised to the rafters, will force drastic changes in almost all insurance coverage, including the employer plans that currently work best. About 177 million people—or 62% of those under age 65—get insurance today through their jobs, and while rising costs are a problem, according to every survey most employees are happy with the coverage. A major reason for this relative success is a 1974
federal law known by the acronym Erisa, or the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.
Erisa allows employers that self-insure—that is, those large enough to build their own risk pools and pay benefits directly—to offer uniform plans across state lines. This lets thousands of businesses avoid, for the most part, the costly federal and state regulations on covered treatments, pricing, rate setting and so on. It also gives them flexibility to design insurance to recruit and retain workers in a competitive labor market. Roughly 75% of employer-based coverage is governed by Erisa’s “freedom of purchase” rules.