“Taking Care” of Almost-Seniors
Brian Beutler reports Joe Lieberman’s excuse for supporting Medicare buy-in three months ago, but not now.
“I didn’t change my mind,” Lieberman insisted. “I’ve been in this position for the last few weeks.”
“We’ve got this very strong network and system of subsidies for people, including people who are 55-65 so the idea of the Medicare buy in no longer was necessary because they’re taken care of very well under the Finance Committee proposal,” Lieberman said.
Steve Benen points out one big problem with Lieberman’s so-called excuse: subsidies were in place in September, when he supported Medicare.
Second, the substance of Lieberman’s claim doesn’t stand up well to scrutiny: “Back when Lieberman endorsed Medicare buy-in in September, the basic subsidies for people in the 55-65 age range were part of the House health care bill, and were clearly going to be part of whatever emerged from the Senate. Nobody imagined a health care bill that would do nothing for people aged 55-65. What’s more, even if Lieberman were completely unaware of even the most rough outlines that health care reform was taking, it’s hard to imagine how he or anybody could believe that Medicare buy-in was desirable on its own but, in combination with other subsidies, so undesirable as to be a cause for filibustering reform. There’s no way anybody would design their policy priorities this way.”
Understand what Lieberman is saying. Under the Medicare buy-in plan, monthly rates were estimated to be around $750 (note, this says $633/mo). But under the Senate bill, without Medicare buy-in, insurance companies would be permitted to charge older people three times as much as they charge younger people. So if you assume that a monthy premium for a young person is $400/month, then you’re agreeing that insurance companies could charge seniors $1,200/month for health care.
More than $400 a month more, or around $5,000 a year. And whether that $5,000 is subsidized or not, someone is going to have to pay for it–either those almost-seniors, or the federal government. That’s Joe Lieberman’s idea of “taking care” of those between 55 and 65 years of age.
Update: I’m having math problems this morning. I’ve been informed the ratio is 3:1 (at least right now), which does make it more than $5,000 a year more.
Maybe minor, but still confusing.
“…four times as much…” + “$400/month” = “$1600/month” not “$1200/month”
Relately, if the buy-in was going to be $750/month, this all translates to a difference of $850/month (1600-750).
Jeebus. I must need far more coffee.
Jamacian Blue Mountain in the coffeemaker this morning…would you like whipped cream or black?
Boxturtle (I give the wife some for Yule every year I can actually get it)
Holy Joe can probably hook you up with something a little stronger. I hear he has connections…
I missed that too. I was pleased that EW was doing the figures thing again. I guess the core is assuming the $400 a month. The core is then that Joe Lieberman is trying to say that this bill will drive down premiums enough that with the subsidies the older person will pay that $750 a month. Where Joe Lieberman gets this I have no idea.
Lieberman is doing financial hocus pocus and is hoping no one calls him on his bullshit until it’s too late.
Bob in AZ
Why can’t congress have a debate about the real issues. One side wants health care to be a basic right, the other wants to protect Pharma and Insurance company profits and jobs.
But the Basic Right folks don’t want to have that debate for fear of the cries of socialism, Big Government and tax increases. The other side doesn’t want to be seen as supporting the Evil Companies at all, so like Holy Joe they try to convince you that their plan, which coincidently protects the profits of the companies in question, is actually better for you. Then both sides try to hide what’s really going to happen in the details.
One’s sides prefered proposal would effectively do nothing. The other sides prefered proposal would result in a massive tax increase. Neither will debate their prefered alternatives on their merits.
What’s coming out of congress now seems to my eyes to make things worse.
Whom do we trust with our health, the Government or the insurance companies?
Boxturtle (Talk about catch 22)
I think it’s one step deeper than this. The elephant in the room is what many call “rationing.” If you use this word directly, the debate ends, because we knee-jerk away from it. But it’s already happening (in the form of denials and such) and it has to happen. We cannot do all things for all people. So we need to have an honest chat with each other (after thinking about it honestly on our own) to decide how to approach it.
The Right has been brilliant in using “rationing” to stop discussion and progress. Never mind that the poor that vote Republican are among those suffering the most because some form of rationing already occurs while the wealthy risk nothing since they’ll pay out of pocket to stay alive (since they can). Somehow the Right convinces the poor that rationing will hurt them when, in fact, it will probably help them (on average).
This is the one topic that even Alan Grayson hasn’t touched on yet. And that, for me, says a lot.
VERY true. Also the debate about how involved Government actually is.
Do we cover reproductive services?
How would Terry Schivo be handled if she were on a government policy?
Are elective services (like stop smoking drugs) covered? Okay, how about implants?
Would people requesting treatment for addiction be reported to the government? Okay, how about people with AIDS?
We have to remove as much of the decision making as possible from both the Insurance companies and the government and push it back down to the doctors and the families.
Alternatively, we could start a euthanasia program for those who would be too expensive to insure. There’s a major shortage of organ donors that could be resolved there.
Boxturtle (I probably shouldn’t have typed that, I know Holy Joe staffers read FDL)
Liarman’s staff should read this
http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/18938
Joe inside heist guy for private insurance companies
Today I am sending Liarman a prison suit
http://www.nationaltextile.us/correctional_clothing?gclid=CM2ygZbr2J4CFRkGswodJR8-sA
706 Hart Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Oh, they read it. But I’m convinced there’s neither a conscience nor a soul amongst all of Holy Joe’s staff.
Boxturtle (Holy Joe’s soul is in a jar on some boardroom table)
“The Right has been brilliant in using “rationing” to stop discussion and progress. Never mind that the poor that vote Republican are among those suffering the most because some form of rationing already occurs while the wealthy risk nothing since they’ll pay out of pocket to stay alive (since they can). Somehow the Right convinces the poor that rationing will hurt them when, in fact, it will probably help them (on average).”
What in in operation here that it is not rationing when someone who is uninsured or underinsured does not get the healthcare they need, It is lack of money, or the lazy nature of the person in question, and so on.
The conservative myth that has been successfully sold is that only a government bureaucrat can ration care. In addition that any government control must mean rationing.
Prevention of an unnecessary procedure that doctor wants to be paid for =’rationing’.
Prevention of the sale of drugs that do not work/ and harm the patient = ‘rationing’.
Setting priorities so that all children get preventative healthcare=’rationing’.
Denial of legitimate care by health insurance company = ‘profit motive’, ‘capitalism at work’,etc.
Increasing insurance rates that cause loss of coverage :see above.
Exclusion of any applicant for insurance for any reason: see above.
People attending free clinics to obtain care that they needed years ago= political stunt.
The concept that only government bureaucrat can ration care must be exposed for what it is.
A lie is what it is.
This is a major vulnerability to the existing resistance to reform of healthcare.
The absence of any discussion of this topic is revealing.
“One’s sides prefered proposal would effectively do nothing.”
The other side has not presented their preferred proposal yet.
It would/will be much worse than doing nothing.
It will include privatizing Medicare and Medicade possibly even outright
eliminating them as ‘unaffordable entitlements’. The most likely plan on this will be to ‘reform’ them by privatization in a way that will allow extraction of massive profits,eliminating the programs after a few years of ‘massive losses that will get worse every year’.
This plan will allow criticism to be deflected by claiming to ‘fix’ the ‘long term government/economic collapse caused by unfunded socialist government mandates that destroy our children’s futures.’ After an appropriate demonstration of how badly Medicare and Medicade work after these ‘improvements’, there will be nothing to do but eliminate them as ‘yet another failed government attempt at socialism’.
The other part of the preferred plan that has been partially presented is to completely deregulate the insurance industry. The problem with health care to be fixed with this solution is that any problems with health care
are caused by government. Government regulators make rules that cause problems and waste money. Insurance regulations on both federal and state levels restrict innovation and prevent the insurance products that people need from being sold to them.
Government regulators have been known to collect data that proves inconvenient facts concerning medicare, medicade, healthcare and private health insurance. The ability of regulators to review functioning and prevent outright theft by insurance companies clearly interferes with their ability to do business. This can be best fixed by destroying the current regulatory structure and setting up some puppet regulation.
The collection of ‘bad data’ can be prevented by stopping all data collection. Any statistics needed can be made up as needed, more efficient, and the need proof will be always at hand.
What has been announced by the opponents of effective health care reform
is only a piece of the agenda with respect to health care. They want as much as they can get in the current process, they’ll be back for more whether or not a bill is passed and signed by the president.
The topic is health care, but the elimination of Social security using the same scheme is also afoot.
It is a good thing there are 60 seats for the party in control of the Senate, if not the health care reform bill might be a real disaster.
Do all the other democratic republics in the civilized world “agonize” over this?
Are they socialist nations?
Oh, please.
This has been a red herring from the get go for reactionaries. They know they can dupe millions of Americans into actually believing a public option that 2% of the population can take advantage of in the year 2014, constitutes “socialism”!!!
Excellent points, EW! And we are stuck with Joe Lie because he is essential to the WH’s goals in other areas:
Lieberman Riling Dems On Health Care But Is Major Player On Climate, Same-Sex Benefits
Link.
And, of course, he is key to their war efforts and all the things they want to accomplish through the Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs Committee.
Too bad We the People aren’t so essential.
You mean this leadership on climate?
From the Climate Progress blog http://climateprogress.org/2009/12/10/graham-kerry-lieberman-embrace-bipartisan-climate-clean-energy-bill-market-based-system-obama-copenhagen-pledge/
“Third, Lieberman said the group “rejected” both a carbon tax and old-fashioned command and control legislation. He described their proposal as the “market-based system for punishing polluters previously known as cap-and-trade.”
Also known as fun with derivatives.
..and partying with Lindsay Graham.
This man has no redeeming qualities. And, no, he doesn’t vote with Dems most of the time. He only votes with us when the issue is trivial and the outcome doesn’t matter.
Joe Lieberman also doesn’t understand that buying into Medicare would be much more popular than the subsidies. My husband wanted to know what was being done for the 50-55 year olds.
Being against this because the 55-64 year olds are in a separate pool and wouldn’t back up the 65 and overs as Ezra pointed out is one thing, but Lieberman hasn’t adopted that talking point.
Lead paragraphs in NYT story suggesting that Lieberman is enjoying the attention very aggravating, but I am not sure they have a direct quote for that.
The reporter described his “wide grin” during the reporter’s own in-the-room interview with him.
And:
Seems enought to support the assertion.
Scarecrow hits the extortion nail on the head
http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/18938
Just read this email from “Mobilization for Health Care for All”
‘I just received an update from the Mobilization for Health Care for All the Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced tonight that of several amendments going to the Senate floor tomorrow, SA 2837 (Bernie Sanders single payer amendment) is among them! Single payer, Medicare for All will be heard on the Senate Floor!
This is a huge step for us! We have to be persistent and turn up the heat! Be sure to call Sen. Reid tomorrow and express your thanks for allowing single payer to be heard on the Senate floor!
Whoa ‘express our thanks to Reid for allowing Single Payer amendments to be read”
Holy Christ help us
Lots of people are moving to Mexico and other parts of Latin America where you can get medical care at reasonable rates.
I have read that care in Mexico is affordable on a 2000 a month income. Wonder how much the aides, nurses, etc get paid in Central America. Keep the illegal immigrants in Mexiso
Send your seniors to Mexico for health care.
This one stings…
The link says it all.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-november-30-2009/american-refugees-seek-health-care-in-mexico
EW, have you gotten word that all 60 Dems in the Senate have been called to a special meeting at 2:00 pm today re Health Care? It’s been reported over at DU but with no source. Thank you.
Never mind. Here it is.
I still stand by the fact that this is more about health care investment banking than about providing affordable health care.
A year ago out of Goldman Sach’s mouth:
And you can bet on an aging population pretty easily. The baby boomers and their parents are ripe for harvest.
Klynn sorry to keep repeating go read Scarecrow’s latest hits this heist on the head
Read it before commenting here. It’s a great post.
Don’t forget Rahm’s investment banking background. If health care investment did better during bad times Rahm knows this.
TPM is reporting that Hoyer is on board with removing the public option.
We’re f*cked. Again. Or possibly still.
How many of these @#$%^IOs can we vote out next year?
I try not to say too much on this topic here because, well, y’know, because, but sometimes the numbers you guys have to deal with just leave me gobsmacked. I don’t even know for sure how much I pay for OHIP (Petro? where are you?), but it’s roughly $50 a month I think, and for another $35 (private plan through husband’s pension), I get dentistry, pharmacare (small deductible), travel insurance, semi-private room, etc.
Most of my best friends and siblings are now between 55 and 65, and we can testify that people need their medical care in those years a lot. Those are the years when certain kinds of serious problems start showing up among significant numbers of people, but problems that can be managed if addressed early. It is not financially sound to force those people to ration their medical care.
Thank you for posting skdadl.
I hope more people begin to realize this reality.
OT… but this is no real surprise.
Fox News ‘exposes’ the minimum wage for what it is: a mistake needing a cut, if only the ..social justice motivated ….rats would allow it.
They report, you smack your head in disbelief, knowing that will re- regurgitated to you by the viewers of this network.
Via The Raw Story: “Fox News: cutting minimum wage ‘better for workers'”
The clip is 3:30. Link:
http://rawstory.com/2009/12/fox-news-cutting-minimum-wage-better-workers/
Should you choose to accept this viewing opportunity, remember that these are the enablers of the Liebermann and Baucus side of the Aisle.
Negotiations on health care? These idiots have the bone saw out.
“thanks for mentioning this” Lieberman should put an amendment in asking for exactly what he stated in that clip. Add it on Liarman
ot: missed this last week –
Broadcom Prosecutor Admits Leaks To Media
Edit: and this just in –
Broadcom judge throws out case against Nicholas, Ruehle
SANTA ANA — A federal judge today dismissed securities fraud charges against the two remaining Broadcom Corp. defendants, ruling that a prosecutor committed misconduct by improperly attempting to intimidate defendants and witnesses.
http://www.ocregister.com/news/broadcom-224225-nicholas-judge.html
One question I enjoy asking anyone who argues against any role for government in health care is this: “do you think that we should remove the requirement that hospitals treat people who have no means of paying for the services?”
In contrast to what you might think, some say “yes.” Not surprisingly, these are my religious friends (with a small f since no Quaker has said “yes.”)
I apologize for your religious friends.
Here is Ezra killing Lieberman’s excuse entirely dead.
Are those that answer “yes” proud to say it?
After all, this would root out a major flaw in the system, at least from their viewpoint.
With a straight face I have asked “What about the socialized FIRE DEPARTMENT?”.
Which was a cheap shot in one case since the recipient of the question was a firefighter, and I knew it.
Spending tax dollars is bad unless perhaps society benefits?
Gotta love Joe — He didn’t change his mind/position from 3 months ago, it was only a ‘few weeks’ ago.
Last week. A man without a conscience
All Americans should know that they are valued by our society, at least enough to be offered the health treatments that they and their families need to stay alive. With that in mind, does anybody know which American religious groups are suffering the most deaths due to lack of health insurance?
If Americans need medical rescue, let’s save them.
$1200/month…$1400/month… In many areas of this country, that is two to three times the cost of rent — on a decent but not ostentatious small house or apartment.
In what universe is fourteen to twenty thousand bucks a year ‘reasonable’ for a low to middle income person to be paying just for insurance — nevermind the actual COST (deductables, copays, uncovered stuff)?
It’s like these bastards are all looking at each other (and each other’s navels) and chanting “we can’t do this, we can’t afford this, it’s just not possible, we can’t do it” — when just to our north, we have a country where people don’t worry about going bankrupt if they get sick. If we don’t like the Canadian model, there’s the British National Health system, which, although flawed, also works with better results than we’re getting for twice the cost. Don’t like NHS? Okay, there’s the French system. Oh, too ‘socialist’ for you? Okay then — how about the heavily (but sensibly) regulated German private insurance market? Or the Swiss system? Or the Norwegian system?
But no — our Congressional and WH asses can’t conceive of anything that does the barest minimum — and which does not in any way annoy or vex their corporate overlords.
And the American citizenry takes another step back towards serfdom. Which is how the bloated plutocrats want it.
Similarly, all anyone in the media seems to want to talk about is “cost,” the keeping down of.
Diane Rehm this morning had an hour on prospective “coverage” for long-term care. I was looking forward to it….but there was very little on substance, let alone the moral necessity of providing it at a non-bankrupting price.
It was all about cost, increasing the deficit, whether the proposal was drafted to ensure that it wouldn’t affect the deficit, whether premiums would cover everything, whether “too many” people would enroll in it.
What finally floored me was the comment (by someone defending the proposal) that if it turned out that expenses exceed income from premiums, the whole program could simply be stopped.
The assumption everyone started with was that one couldn’t possibly consider raising taxes to pay for coverage that might actually be useful and affordable (to the patient, not the government.) The word “tax” was in fact never spoken.
Meh.
Aye…and in the meantime, defense and emergency war supplemental appropriation bills pass one after the other, with nary a serious question about whether we can afford it or whether it adds to the deficit.
Once again the American people are screwed but will a stressed out, dumbed down, and distracted population even notice. How many actually pay attention to what is happening? The U.S. has to have the most ignorant electorate in the industrialized world.
Small quibble, but:
Last two words should be health insurance.
I pay $100 a month for car insurance and don’t refer to it as car care.
Exactly. And it’s been abundantly clear the cost of insurance is on top of the deductibles, co-pays, and uncovered portion of medical bills (20% or higher).
Let’s face facts: If the insurance premiums don’t bankrupt you and your family, the first serious accident or illness will.
At this point, we have expended so much time, money, and personal energy, it’s just not worth it anymore.
Let the bill die. Or have Obama veto it. And start over.
This pile stinks too badly to fix.
Or have Obama veto it.
He won’t do that, no matter how much dogshit is in the fine print. Hell, he’d sign just about anything that has “Health Care Bill” written across the top…
why would the president veto the bill he wanted all along?
why would the president veto the bill his corporate masters wanted all along?
Fixed it.
Guys, Lieberman isn’t the problem. He only has as much power as Harry Reid, Rahm Emanuel and President Obama allows him to have.
I just committed $11 dollars a month to run ads in Rahm Emanuel’s home district and Harry Reid’s home state. AND then I emailed both to let them know. What I want is for them to (1) kill the mandate and (2) lead the Democratic caucus to strip Joe Lieberman of his chairmanships.
yes he is the problem. Yes, the president was prepared to live with any bill he could get, and, heck, he probably wanted just this sort of half-baked bill.
But progressives would have been able to effect a signficant improvement over the worst-bill-possible (what we have now) had Lieberman (and to a lesser extent Nelson, Landrieu and Lincoln) not behaved like total jackarses.
There’s no way we can excuse or rationalize away Lieberman’s part in this fiasco. None.
Fuck JoeLie and his Republican BFFs. Fuck them.
Howard Dean says scrap it…
Great link! Many thanks.
Yoo Hoo, Loo Hoo, ShotoJamf has linked us to Dean’s latest statement. And he nails it!
It is the sheer hypocrisy of moral monsters like Lieberman that is still most galling.
Here is a Senator of the United States Congress who has his own health care options subsidized by the American taxpapyers. We pay for the coverage of all government employees.
And this [no doubt] God fearing man wants to deny it to millions and millions of his fellow citizens because his corporate minders might lose some bucks.
Lieberman of course doesn’t get to ask “what would Jesus do?”. But surely in his faith there must be an equivalent.
Does his flagrant pandering to the rich and powerful on Wall Steet sit well with Yahweh?
Howard Dean
Kill the Bill..Can this be true?
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/health-care/howard-dean-kill-the-senate-bill/
Deans “kill the Bill” going viral
From the DailyKos:
Howard Dean: “Kill the Senate Bill”
An Excerpt:
============================================================
Bob in AZ
If we can’t kill it, at least strip out the mandate.
And then pass a Public Option through reconciliation in the spring.
What this rat is saying in plain English is that he is not prepared to have subsidies from taxpayers or premiums from anyone go any place other than to private insurers. That is his poit of view since that is the interest he serves.
The question is, do people need to submissively acquiesce to the demands of this scurrilous insect? It is an open question and at this point it seems that most people will.
I don’t see much of a call to act. It is easy for instance for people that are not currently requiring medical attention to boycott and refuse to make their premium payments say for one month. Even the threat of that will bring insurers to their knees.
Similarly people should transfer their funds from big fincial institutions and into community banks over which they have much more sway. In doing so you suck the life blood out of fincial firms to engage in specualtion.
As to elected officials, recall referendums can be carried out where the state law currently allows, and where it doesn’t such laws should be put in place through popular propositions.
The idea is that collective action is a powerful weapon that needs to be wielded. We don’t need to submit to the will of vermin or monied interests. Popular action can demand the ousting of representatives that are parasites and instead to elect people with a mandate to effectuate laws that serve our purpose. It is a mistake to believe we are powerless.
Again even the threat of this sort of action would serve a large purpose, but threats without the will to carry them through are to no avail and will accomplish nothing. Faith in the current government is totally misplaced and it needs to be circumvented and replaced.
He stopped supporting the Medicare buy in when he learned the Liberals liked it. Vindictive son of a bitch.
thank you lieberbum
i’m 74 just got the news from my health care freedom blue
your health care is going up 45%
The only thing Joe Lieberputz wants to take care of his Joe Lieberputz, a priority that Barack Obama has made his own.
I have a hard time believing that Obama can stand unHoly Joe for more than five minutes at a time.
Is unHoly Joe going to try moving his skiiny rear into the WH, as if he had the right to live there?
Obama has a funny way of distancing himself from his self-chosen mentor: telling Reid, through the Rahmster, to service Holy Joe in whatever way makes him most satisfied. Some way to enact health care reform.
Then, again, non-reform legislation was assured before this kabuki started, when Obama agreed to secret concessions with big Pharma to get them to “play ball”. Sure, everybody likes to play ball when their victory is assured.
Obama is Dorian Gray. Holy Joe is the picture in the attic.