“Believe”

/103 Comments/in /by

Just two days before his joint session address to Congress, Obama said this in a speech to the AFL-CIO:

And I continue to believe that a public option within the basket of insurance choices would help improve quality and bring down costs.

After the speech finished, Chuck Todd came on and said something like, "progressives have to be disappointed." Todd’s point, I think, was that Obama didn’t really mean it. It was weak tea designed to fire up Obama’s labor audience but ultimately Obama was going to drop the public option.

And it may well have been.

But what Todd doesn’t seem to get is that Obama stands to lose more if he utters those words–if he acknowledges our point, that the public option is key to real reform, to bringing down costs–than having not uttered them.

So while Todd may take Obama’s weak tea mention of the public option as so much weak tea, he seems to be missing that any such a mention is only going to further inflame progressives if and when Obama sacrifices something he "believes" in just a few days.

Here’s the complete speech, as written (note, he said "EFCA" instead of "Employee Free Choice Act" when he delivered it):

Read more →

Share this entry

Bad Max Provides More Details

/30 Comments/in , /by
Baucus Vs Baucus

Graphic by twolf

On Thursday, I pointed out how much better the health care plan presented by Max Baucus last November was than what he was proposing now. Well, Bad Max–the guy aiming to implement a giant subsidy for the insurance companies–has provided more details. Aside from the decision to tax Cadillac plans (which, the NYT points out, will probably be passed onto consumers), Bad Max hasn’t provided that many details.

But here’s what a comparison looks like so far.

Good Max
Mandate
Medical Exchange
Payroll deduction payment
Small business tax credit
Premium subsidies for <400% PL
Medicare buy-in for >55
Expand Medicaid
CHIP coverage to 250% PL
Public option
Preventative care
Payment incentives for quality
Health care IT
Patient-centered medical homes
Medical malpractice reform
Tax reform (incl taxing better plans) 

Bad Max
Mandate
Medical Exchange
Premium subsidies for <300% PL; protections for <400% PL
Expand Medicaid
No public option
Taxing better plans
<70% expense coverage
$11,900 family out of pocket

I’m warm and fuzzy for Bad Max and his plans covering less than 70% of care already.

Share this entry

Obama Doesn’t Want You To Know He Knows Public Option Is Popular

/112 Comments/in /by

Greg Sargent has a really important find.

The White House is circulating happy poll numbers in favor of health care reform.

But the White House is not circulating the happy poll numbers–from the very same polls!!–in favor of the public option.

Okay, so the White House is circulating an upbeat polling memo citing a bunch of public surveys showing that public opinion still tilts heavily in Obama’s favor on health care.

The memo, by Obama pollster Joel Benenson, doesn’t mention the public option (the White House may not be committed to it) and largely cites general numbers showing support for action and for Obama’s plan.

But here’s the funny thing: We went back and checked, and virtually every poll cited in this memo also found strong support for the inclusion of a pulic plan.

Click through for Greg’s numbers: the White House doesn’t want you to know that 60%, 55%, and 59% (and 43% in a flawed MSNBC poll) of people surveyed want a public option.

So Obama is not just planning to ditch progressives and the rest of the majority of the country in favor of a public option. But he’s willing to be dishonest in doing so.

Share this entry

Another “Good Max” Sighting

/7 Comments/in , /by
Baucus Vs Baucus

Graphic by twolf

Steve Benen posted a follow-up to my observation that as recently as November, Max Baucus was pushing a good health care plan. Steve points out that as recently as April, Baucus was promising to work quickly.

That was Baucus in November, but let’s also not forget where Baucus was in April. At that point, he and Ted Kennedy co-signed a letter to the president, explaining that they’ve been "working together toward the shared goal of significant reforms to our health care system" for nearly a year, and they planned to "swift" action. Indeed, they saw smooth sailing ahead: "Our intention is for that legislation to be very similar, and to reflect a shared approach to reform, so that the measures that our two committees report can be quickly merged into a single bill for consideration on the Senate floor."

So, what happened? Where’d this Max Baucus go? How did the Baucus of November and April (champion of a progressive, ambitious plan) become the Baucus of June and August (leader of the Gang of Six, opponent of the public option)? Ezra Klein explains the circumstances behind the switch.

Baucus pulled a bit of a bait-and-switch. That paper proved less his plan than his effort to articulate the Democratic consensus in such a way that Democrats were comfortable with him leading the debate. In particular, Kennedy had to be happy with that paper, because Kennedy was the threat to Baucus’s leadership.

But Kennedy’s illness took him out of the game. Baucus no longer needed to worry about Kennedy stealing the leadership of health-care reform away from him, which meant he stopped looking over his left shoulder. The effect was a bit like shutting down a primary challenge against Baucus: His surprising leftward lurch stopped entirely, and he drifted back to the more centrist approaches that had defined his career. It’s hard to say how the process would have differed if Baucus had spent his days worrying about keeping Kennedy onboard, but it seems possible that the practical impact would have been to keep Baucus closer to the paper he’d written to attract Kennedy’s support.

For all the recent talk from Republicans about Kennedy’s absence undermining bipartisanship — a cheap talking point, to be sure — the real consequence of Kennedy not being able to serve is the effect it had on Baucus, who quickly embraced "bipartisanship," delayed the process, and continues to prefer to Read more →

Share this entry

Will Obama Even Meet with the Progressives?

/117 Comments/in /by

In their letter to Obama warning him that progressives won’t vote for a health care bill without the public option, Representatives Woolsey and Grijalva twice mention meeting with the President.

Thank you for continuing to work with Members of Congress to draft a health reform bill that will provide the real health care reform this country needs.

We look forward to meeting with you regarding retaining a robust public option in any final health reform bill and request that that meeting take place as soon as possible.

[snip]

We look forward to meeting with you to discuss the importance of your support for a robust public plan, which we encourage you to reiterate in your address to the Joint Session of Congress on Wednesday. [my emphasis]

I checked with Greg Sargent (who first reported the letter), and he confirms that the Progressive Caucus does not have a meeting scheduled–rather this is a request for a meeting.

Now Rahm has pretty assiduously been blowing off progressives throughout this fight. Will Obama continue to do so? Or will the progressives actually get to meet with the President they got elected?

Share this entry

Journalism Is Killing America

/33 Comments/in , /by

Five years ago, the traditional media helped Bush pitch a war that got 4,337 service men and women killed in Iraq (to say nothing of the thousands and thousands of Iraqis killed).

Now, traditional media journalism is back to killing Americans, in this case by deliberately misrepresenting public views on health care reform. EJ Dionne describes how at least one network refused to cover civil, informative town halls.

But what if our media-created impression of the meetings is wrong? What if the highly publicized screamers represented only a fraction of public opinion? What if most of the town halls were populated by citizens who respectfully but firmly expressed a mixture of support, concern and doubt?

There is an overwhelming case that the electronic media went out of their way to cover the noise and ignored the calmer (and from television’s point of view "boring") encounters between elected representatives and their constituents.

[snip]

Over the past week, I’ve spoken with Democratic House members, most from highly contested districts, about what happened in their town halls. None would deny polls showing that the health-reform cause lost ground last month, but little of the probing civility that characterized so many of their forums was ever seen on television.

[snip]

The most disturbing account came from Rep. David Price of North Carolina, who spoke with a stringer for one of the television networks at a large town-hall meeting he held in Durham.

The stringer said he was one of 10 people around the country assigned to watch such encounters. Price said he was told flatly: "Your meeting doesn’t get covered unless it blows up." As it happens, the Durham audience was broadly sympathetic to reform efforts. No "news" there. [my emphasis]

But Dionne is conveniently blaming this on the "electronic" media and ignoring his own paper’s complicity. From OmbudAndy, we learn that 85% of the health care reform stories appearing in the WaPo’s A section have been about the horserace and the deathers.

In my examination of roughly 80 A-section stories on health-care reform since July 1, all but about a dozen focused on political maneuvering or protests. The Pew Foundation’s Project for Excellence in Journalism had a similar finding. Its recent month-long review of Post front pages found 72 percent of health-care stories were about politics, process or protests. 

And as a result, Americans are confused and politicians are backing off the reform they know is needed and legislation supported by a huge majority may not get passed.

Read more →

Share this entry

A Decent Health Care Reform Plan–from Max Baucus

/49 Comments/in , /by
Baucus Vs Baucus

Graphic by twolf

Tell me how this sounds for a health care reform plan.

  • A national health care exchange
  • Buy-in to Medicare at age 55
  • No discrimination against those with pre-existing conditions
  • No waiting period for Medicare for disabled
  • CHIP covers up to 250% of poverty level
  • Credits for small businesses and individuals to make health care affordable

Oh, and don’t forget this bit:

  • A public option

Now, it may surprise you to learn this. But the architect of this program is none other than Max Baucus–the guy who has been pushing against a public option since the insurers were allowed to drive this debate. Here’s the language from his white paper–dated November 12, 2008–on the public option:

The Exchange would also include a new public plan option, similar to Medicare. This option would abide by the same rules as private insurance plans participating in the Exchange (e.g., offer the same levels of benefits and set the premiums the same way). Rates paid to health care providers by this option would be determined by balancing the goals of increasing competition and ensuring access for patients to high-quality health care

It’s worth reading the whole thing. It’s like a journey through the looking glass, to a time when even a conservative Democrat would openly espouse doing what’s right to truly improve health care. It’s a voyage to a time before the corporations started running this process. And it’s proof that Max Baucus doesn’t believe the option (or lack thereof) that he is currently pitching is the best for this country.

Share this entry

Waxman Keeps Gathering Data

/22 Comments/in /by

On August 17, Henry Waxman requested information from insurance companies designed to embarrass them and those who attend their conferences. We later found out that Waxman had been collecting information longer than that–he started researching insurance Astroturf in July.

Today, Waxman sent letters to Aetna, Humana, Medica, United Health, Wellmark, and Wellpoint to find out whether they’ve been purging small businesses that employ someone who experiences a medical crisis.

"I began looking into the practices of the health insurance industry in the last Congress and was deeply disturbed by what we uncovered," said Chairman Waxman.  "As part of our ongoing investigation, we are now looking into the practice of health insurance companies terminating the coverage of small businesses when their employees become ill and their health insurance claims increase.  We need to better understand how widespread this harmful and destructive practice has become, and how it is impacting small businesses and their employees across the country."

"As we continue our investigation into business practices in the health insurance industry, the treatment of small businesses remains a concern," said Chairman Stupak.  "We have documented examples of insurance companies raising small business premiums by an unsustainable amount or canceling a policy once it is discovered a covered employee is sick.  Much like rescissions in the individual market, this practice is alarming.  To better understand how prevalent this practice is and precisely how many small businesses are impacted, we are asking some of the largest insurers to provide information on their small business policies."

The Committee is requesting information and documents for small group policies, including their renewal rates, factors used to determine premium rates, and the maximum premium rate increases.[my emphasis]

Now, none of this is going to do any good unless Waxman starts liberating this information  to be used in the health care fight. His request for information that should embarrass the Bayhs is due back on Friday–we’ll see whether we can make use of this information then.

Share this entry

The Pundits Come Out in Force

/62 Comments/in , /by

picture-127.thumbnail.pngMuch of the news media has, I think, treated Ted Kennedy’s passing with the appropriate respect.

But a significant swath of pundits have leapt–without pause–into issuing projections about how Ted Kennedy’s death will affect the health care debate. They are not, mind you, calling attention to how his passing changes the parliamentary landscape for the health care bill: noting that Dems will no longer have a filibuster-proof majority until such time as Massachusetts sends another Democrat to the Senate in the next five months or so, noting that one or two potentially appropriate replacements for Kennedy–like Ed Markey–would open up holes in key Committees in the House. They aren’t so much noting the things that could change the debate: Obama adopting a different stance towards the HELP bill, for example, or naming the bill after Kennedy (which Senator Byrd has already called to do).

Rather, they are suggesting they know whether Kennedy’s passing will make health care more or less likely; or make a bill with a public option more or less likely.

That pisses me off for a number of reasons.

First, such reflexive punditry–the urge to claim omniscience about politics–arises out of the 24-hour cable world, a need to fill time. Yet to so quickly jump to making pronouncements about whether Ted Kennedy’s death is a "win" for progressive Democrats or conservative Democrats, Republicans, and their corporate backers (which is really what this is about) suggests the cable news channels have exhausted all the things they have to say about Kennedy, the man. Now, Teddy Kennedy’s record of achievement in the Senate is a half-century testimony of all that progressives have brought to this country. And if the cable news can spend a week paying tribute to Michael Jackson’s half-century career in music, then they sure as hell can spend at least one day paying tribute to Ted Kennedy’s half-century leading this nation. To so quickly turn his death into one event in a horse race dishonors the man and slights his great achievements.

But I’m perhaps most pissed about this urge to claim to know what will happen now because of the way I look on death. Today is a day to pay tribute to Ted Kennedy, absolutely. But it’s also a day to reflect on what his life means, and to reflect on how–for those of us who honor that legacy–we can keep his dream alive through our own actions.

Read more →

Share this entry

Better than Clearing Brush … Getting HELP from Kennedy?

/95 Comments/in /by

barack_obama_and_ted_kennedy_in_hartford_february_4_2008.thumbnail.jpg

The AP and Politico have competing stories up speculating that–along with clearing brush this week–Obama might pay Ted Kennedy a visit. The AP, relying entirely on speculation, suggests a visit could be a big boost for Obama’s efforts to pass health care reform, one of Kennedy’s lifelong goals. The Politico, relying on an email from a Kennedy aide, says Obama is not and never was scheduled to visit Kennedy.

But a Kennedy aide said in an e-mail Friday that an Obama-Kennedy visit is not going to happen and was never in the works.

Given Kennedy’s apparent health struggles of late, it may be that he’s not up to meeting with Obama in the first place, and particularly not if Obama comes with press corps in tow.

That said, for the next week, Obama will be one 10 to 15 mile chopper ride away from the man who perhaps unexpectedly bestowed on Obama the Kennedy mantle–and in doing so, had a significant role in getting Obama elected. Obama owes Kennedy, Obama is flailing with legislation Kennedy cares deeply about, and this may be the last time Kennedy can collect on Obama’s debts to him.

Therein may be the problem.

After all, the AP is correct that even reports of an Obama visit to Hyannisport would boost Obama’s fortunes and presumably those of health care legislation. A visit followed by a call to "Do it for Teddy!" might inspire Democrats (and possibly some of Kennedy’s close friends on the other side of the aisle) to pull together to get this done.

But for what bill?

Discussions I’ve seen on a potential visit all focus on Obama’s current trajectory, which appears to be an attempt to pass insurance company reform under the cover of public option kabuki. None of that discussion on a potential Kennedy visit focuses on the HELP bill–Kennedy’s bill, shepherded through by Chris Dodd. One that resembles those passed through the House, including a public option. 

If I were Kennedy, I wouldn’t let Obama set foot in my house unless he promised to ditch the Rahm/Messina plan to follow the Baucus plan. If I were Kennedy, I’d use this opportunity to kick Obama’s ass for embracing that fraudulent kabuki after all the things Kennedy has done to help Obama.

And if I were Obama, I might take that opportunity to pivot. Read more →

Share this entry