A Second Look Rotating Header Image

Medicare buy-in

From the eMail Bag: Fixing the Filibuster, Part 3

The Progress Report wrote:

Democracy Subverted


From: The Progress Report [progress@americanprogressaction.org]
Sent: Monday, January 25, 2010 10:10 AM
To: tom
Subject: Democracy Subverted

Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Red
CONGRESS

Democracy Subverted

Right-wing Subverts our Government

While it is now taken for granted than any major piece of legislation needs 60 votes to pass the Senate, this has not always been the case. Use of the filibuster– the minority’s tactic to halt action on a bill through endless debate –has skyrocketed in the past two decades, creating a de facto need for 60 votes to get anything done. It only requires 51 votes to pass any bill, but it takes 60 votes to invoke cloture to end debate and pass the bill. There are now double the number of cloture votes as there were a decade ago, and triple the numbers of 20 years ago As evidenced by the ongoing health care reform debate, the filibuster cripples the Senate’s ability to make progress. The filibuster also gives an undue amount of power to individual senators and allows them to exploit the process for their narrow interests, dictating policy outcomes. For instance, Sen. Joe Lieberman’s (I-CT) threat to filibuster health care reform forced the removal of the public option and the Medicare buy-in, despite their tremendous popularity. Moreover, as Rep. Jay Inslee (D-WA) noted, the filibuster removes electoral accountability by giving the losing party the ability to obstruct the winning party’s agenda. “It’s a system in which the minority benefits if the government fails, and the minority has the power to ensure failure,” Center for American Progress Action Fund fellow Matt Yglesias noted. Under President Obama, the Republican minority has repeatedly used and abused the practice of filibusters to obstruct the progressive agenda. The House was able to pass a health care reform bill with a robust public option, a clean energy and greenhouse gas pollution reduction bill to fight climate change, and acomprehensive financial regulatory reform bill with majority votes. However, because of the filibuster, each bill has languished in the Senate.

The Senate minority has the power to ensure the failure of our government. Never before in the history of the United States has a major political party set out to purposefully ensure the failure of the government. The right-wing nut jobs are forcing every bill in Congress to a 60 vote margin, and impossible bar to reach, and are using this tool to bring down the President.

This unprecedented use of the filibuster is obvious in its intent. The Republicans find themselves, as a result of the horrible abuses of power by President George Bush, in the smallest minority they have seen in several generations. They are striking back with everything they can throw at the Democrats from the filibuster, to heckling at town hall meetings, to employing their own cable television network (Fox) to propel their talking points and other proapganda. It is time that the Democratic majority fights back.

I have emailed my Senators urging them to convince the Democratic majority to employ the “Nuclear Option”, a parlimentary proceedure that is not a Senate rule, but has been used in the past to overcome filibusters. It is time to act. Here is my email to my two Senators.

The Senate Republicans are abusing the use of the filibuster. When they use the filibuster they are not honestly debating issues, instead they are obstinately refusing to listen to our side and voting “no” on any legislation no matter what concessions have been made to them. The result is that a small minority is holding Congress hostage until they get every single thing they want and that is not the way it is supposed to work.

It is time that Senate Democrats stood up to the right-wings insistence on a 60 vote supermajority and take direct aim at the abuse of the filibuster. To do this, I recommend the use of the so called “Nuclear Option”. If you can get a simple majority to vote on a point of order challenging the constitutionality of the filibuster, then the filibuster can be defeated. I strongly recommend this action. The Republican minority must realize that elections matter, and that they cannot suffer the Senate to abide by a minority that could conceivably be as small as one Senator. Please stop this abuse, convince the Democratic Senators to use the nuclear option.

Please do something, call or write your Senators.

_____________________________________________________

Technorati tags:  ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 

Share

The Senate Health Care Compromise Bill – Not Too Compromised (UPDATED)

Re:  Think Progress » The Progressive Case For Passing The Senate Health Bill , By John Podesta on Dec 16th, 2009 at 6:11 pm

Since Joe Lieberman demanded stripping the public option and Medicare buy-in provisions from the merged Senate bill, some strong progressives like Howard Dean have argued that without a public option or a Medicare buy-in provision, the bill is a giveaway to private insurers and should be killed. Other progressive leaders like Senators Jay Rockefeller, Tom Harkin and Sherrod Brown believe that the bill represents the best chance for passing health care reform in the foreseeable future. “I’m going to vote for it,” Brown told reporters. “I can’t imagine I wouldn’t. I mean there’s too much at stake.”

I am sad that Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson are holding out for their own personal agenda. I wish we had the public option here in the US so the less fortunate can enjoy access to the same health care system. It’s a shame that we cannot provide medical treatment to those who are so poor they have to choose between buying food and paying an insurance premium.

I say lets go ahead and chunk the public option and the Medicare buy-in and then take those issues up later in a separate bill under the reconciliation process. If we pass the current bill that contains more safeguards and consumer protections than ever in the history of health insurance, then we will have accomplished at least a partial victory for the poor and working poor.

Listen to John Podesta, CEO of the Center for American Progress, and former chief of the Obama transition team:

…I come down on the side of the Senate passing the bill.

Here’s why:

The Senate health care bill is not without its problems. But if enacted, it would represent the most significant public reform of our health care system that Congress has passed in the 40 plus years I have worked in politics. The bill will give health care coverage to a record 31 million Americans who are currently uninsured, lay a foundation that will begin to lower costs for millions of families, and provide all Americans with the access to adequate and dependable coverage when they need it most.

All of us are anxious to see the final language from the Senate. And a final bill must ensure that the subsidies provided are sufficient to make insurance truly affordable for working families. But based on what we know, here are my top ten reasons for why progressives should support the Senate passing the bill:

1. Largest Expansion Of Coverage Since Medicare’s Creation: Thirty-one million previously uninsured Americans will have insurance.

2. Low/Middle Income Americans Will Not Go Without Coverage: For low-income Americans struggling near the poverty line, the bill represents the largest single expansion of Medicaid since its inception. Combined with subsidies for middle income families, the bill’s provisions will ensure that working class Americans will no longer go without basic health care coverage.

3. Insurance Companies Will Never Be Able to Drop or Deny You Coverage Because You Are Sick: Insurers can no longer deny coverage because of a pre-existing condition. They can’t rescind coverage or impose lifetime or annual limits on care. Significantly, the bill also ends insurer discrimination against women — who currently pay as much as 48% more for coverage than men — and gives them access preventive services with no cost sharing.

4. Lowers Premiums For Families: The Senate bill could lower premiums for the overall population by 8.4%. For the subsidized population, premiums would decrease even more dramatically. According to the CBO, “the amount that subsidized enrollees would pay for non-group coverage would be roughly 56 percent to 59 percent lower, on average than the nongroup premiums charged under current law.”

5. Invests in Keeping People Healthy: The bill creates a Prevention and Public Health Fund to expand and sustain funding for public prevention programs that prevent disease and promote wellness.

6. Insurers Can’t Offer Subprime Health Care: Insurers operating in the individual and small group markets will no longer sell subprime policies that deny coverage when illness strikes and you need it most. Everyone will be offered an essential benefits package of comprehensive benefits.

7. Helps Businesses Afford Coverage: Small employers can take advantage of large risk pools by purchasing coverage through the bill’s state-based exchanges. Employers with no more than 25 employees would receive a tax credit to help them provide coverage to their employees. The bill also establishes a temporary reinsurance program for employers providing coverage to retirees over the age of 55 who are not eligible for Medicare.

8. Improves Medicare: The bill eliminates the waste and fraud in the Medicare system, gets rid of the special subsidy to private insurers participating in Medicare Advantage and extends the life of the Medicare trust fund by 9 years. It also closes the doughnut hole that affected 3.4 seniors enrolled in Medicare Part D in 2008.

9. Reduces The Deficit: Not only would the bill expand coverage to 30 million Americans without adding to the nation debt, it would also reduce the deficit by up to $409 billion over 10 years.

10. Reduces National Health Spending: A CAP-Commonwealth Fund analysis concludes the bill could reduce overall spending by close to $683 billion over 10 years – with the potential to save families $2,500. Even the most conservative government estimates conclude that the bill would reduce national health care expenditures by at least 0.3% by 2019

Howard Dean wants to scrap this bill and start over. I’m not saying that Howard Dean is wrong. There are many things in this bill that are unsavory, like the mandatory purchase of insurance and the interstate rule change, but there are many things in this bill that help. There are subsidies for those who will not be able to afford premiums. The final language of the bill is still weeks away. I say cool your jets, dear progressives, and let’s work toward passing this bill.

_____________________________________________________________

UPDATE: I jsut read a great article slamming Howard Dean and his call to kill the health reform bill. It is linked from the Huffington Post to the Washington Post. The article is short, but full of facts. By Ezra Klein:

…This morning, Howard Dean vowed to oppose the bill unless the state-based exchanges “act as prudent purchasers and select only the most efficient insurers.” (If that was included, he said, a “stripped-down” version of the bill would be acceptable, though it’s not clear what that means.)

What’s so strange about Dean’s objection is that the exchanges in the Senate bill (pdf) do act as “prudent purchasers,” that is to say, they set limits on the plans that can enter in the exchange to ensure that people are getting good choices. The relevant section begins on page 131 of the Senate bill. “The Secretary shall, by regulation, establish criteria for the certification of health plans as qualified health plans.” A couple of pages of relevant criteria follow, including marketing requirements (plans can be disqualified for focusing their marketing in outlets that would bring them uncommonly healthy enrollees), broad provider networks, coverage of options used by low-income folks (community health centers, say), quality measures, quality improvement strategies, consumer ratings, standardized benefit packages, etc.

And then, a couple of pages later, the language gets stronger. On page 143, the exchanges are given power to certify insurance plans based on whether “the Exchange determines that making available such health plan through such Exchange is in the interests of qualified individuals and qualified employers in the State.” On 144, premiums, and premium increases, enter explicitly into the discussion. Any insurance plan that wants to increase premiums has to submit a written justification for their decision. It will have to post that information on its Web site. And if the exchange is not convinced, it can decertify the plan.

Sounds pretty good to me!

__________________________________________________________

Share
You are protected by wp-dephorm: