A Second Look Rotating Header Image

Congressional Budget Office

Filibuster Abuse is the Problem, Not a Bad Bill

Re:  Kill The Bill? Some Progressives Say Nothing Is Better Than Senate Health Care Bill

grayson

Representative Alan Grayson (FL-8)

The Senate health care bill is so compromised, some progressives argue, that it would be better to try to kill it than fight for its passage.

In light of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s decision to give in to Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and agree to scrap a Medicare compromise, and with the public option already off the table, many ardent supporters of health care reform are giving up on the legislation.

“Insurance companies win. Time to kill this monstrosity coming out of the Senate,” wrote DailyKos founder Markos Moulitas on his Twitter feed Monday night.

The Congressional Budget Office is crunching the numbers on the Senate health care bill. It would be premature to start the drumbeat for lynching the bill until we see the final version. I know that this sounds mundane, but it the bill comes back deficit neutral, as some predict, then we can make a better informed decision.

No one is more progressive on health care than I am but I am not going to stomp my feet and screech until I see what’s in the compromise and how much is costs. Doing nothing may be better than the Senate bill, but there is still the House bill to consider and the marriage of the two may put some things back that have been negotiated away.

At the progressive website Firedoglake, some still hope that the Senate will abandon Lieberman and pass reform with reconciliation.

The real problem here is the Senate’s use of the filibuster, not the fact that Reid is negotiating away all the safeguards against price caps, competition through a public option, and the option to buy into Medicare for those 55 to 64. It’s the abuse of the filibuster that is at the heart of the matter. The reconciliation process only concerns budgetary matters, and maybe, the public option. The Republicans would use secret holds and every other trick they can to stall or kill the bill even with the reconciliation. They would challenge the legality of using reconciliation in the first place.

Issues like eliminating lifetime payment caps and ending discrimination because of pre-existing conditions would have to be passed in a separate bill, which would also be obstructed with the filibuster.

Representative Alan Grayson (FL-8) said it much better than anyone. Grayson’s words from The Hill (right-wing), By Tony Romm – 11/24/09 05:25 PM ET:

“Why should launching wars and cutting taxes for the rich require only 50 votes while saving lives requires 60?” asked Grayson, who listed a series of important bills that passed with fewer than 60 votes.
“Join me in calling for an end to this unfair system,” he added. “Tell Majority Leader Reid to modify the rules of the Senate to require only 55 votes to invoke cloture instead of 60. Fill out the form below to sign the petition today!”

Amen. Join Grayson at StopSenateStalling.com.

____________________________________________________

Share

A Second Look | CBO Slams Health Industry Figures

via Democrats cite CBO to boost healthcare case – Yahoo! News.

The CBO [Congressional Budget Office] report estimated only about 10 million to 11 million people would sign up for the public option by 2019, far fewer than the 103 million cited in another analysis by the Lewin Group. The Lewin Group is part of Ingenix, a wholly-owned subsidiary of UnitedHealth Group.

The CBO report also estimated the Democratic proposal would boost enrollment in employer-based plans by about 12 million people because of the mandate for individuals to be insured.

Republicans often cite Lewin Group analysis to make their point that millions of people would lose their current health coverage if the proposed overhaul became law. But the CBO disputed the group’s conclusions.

“We anticipate that our estimate of the number of enrollees in the public plan would be substantially smaller than the Lewin Group’s, even if we assumed that all employers would have that option,” CBO said.

Pelosi and other Democratic leaders said their bill would move the healthcare system in a new direction after years of “immoral” profits by insurance companies — an accusation the insurance industry sharply rejected.

“For every dollar our country spends on health care, less than one penny goes toward health plans’ profits. In order to make health care more affordable for families and small businesses, we need to focus on the other 99 cents,” said Robert Zirkelbach, a spokesman for America’s Health Insurance Plans, which represents the industry.

The CBO has just debunked the Republican talking points concerning the cost of a public option – talking points like “a public option will drive over 100 million to government insurance”. Those talking points came from the Lewin Group – a think tank that is funded 100% by United Health.

Also – Robert Zirkelbach of AHIP says that only a penny of every dollar given to the health insurance industry is actually profit. He fails to mention that a trillion pennies add up to $10 billion. Besides, Zirkelbach’s figures are only good for 2008, a year in which the economy, and stock prices, tanked. A report released by the SEIU in August of 2008 tells the real story:

According to a new report examining financial trends in the insurance industry, the combined profits of the nation’s largest insurance companies and their subsidiaries increased by over 170 percent between 2003 and 2007.

If Democrats in Congress believe this B.S. from insurance lobbyists like AHIP and the Lewin Group, then we are doomed. We need to elect better Democrats.

Share

A Second Look: The Return To Bushonomics

The Progress Report wrote:

The Return To Bushonomics


From: The Progress Report [progress@americanprogressaction.org]
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2009 9:13 AM
To: tomc2322
Subject: The Return To Bushonomics
TAX CUTS ARE INEFFECTIVE STIMULUS: The underlying folly of the conservative push for an all-tax cuts approach is the simple fact that tax cuts are ineffective stimulus. Mark Zandi, a former adviser to Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ) presidential campaign and the chief economist of Moody’s Economy.com, has argued for months that the “fiscal bang for the buck” of tax cuts is significantly inferior to spending increases. According to Zandi’s research, a corporate tax cut delivers $0.30 in real GDP growth for every $1 invested. In comparison, infrastructure spending delivers $1.59 in GDP for every $1 spent. Zandi isn’t alone in this belief: the Congressional Budget Office “deemed last year that corporate tax cuts are ‘not a particularly cost-effective method of stimulating business spending.’” Despite these economic facts, conservatives like Sen. John Ensign (R-NV) continue promoting corporate tax cuts as the solution. “If we could lower the corporate tax rate, that would be one of the best things that we could do to make American business more competitive in the world and actually help stimulate the economy,”Ensign claimed this week.

The corporations don’t need more tax breaks, they need sales. Let me explain how this works: The government gets new funding for grounds improvement around the Capitol Mall. Next, the CIVILIAN contractor performing the maintenance gets notified of the increase in demand by the National Park Service. Next, the CIVILIAN contractor immediately ORDERS the necessary TOOLS, SUPPLIES, and whatever various and sundry RESOURCES it may need to complete the work. Next, the grounds-keeping company immediately HIRES the NEW EMPLOYEES it needs to fulfill the contractual obligations. Next, the NEW EMPLOYEES who now have JOBS start spending their new PAYCHECKS on stuff like RENT, CLOTHES, FOOD, GASOLINE, TAXES, and maybe even a NEW CAR.

Can you see how things like this might STIMULATE THE ECONOMY?

,,,,,,,,

Share
You are protected by wp-dephorm: