More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Mike Lux

Mike Lux

Posted: December 11, 2009 10:36 AM

Better or Worse

What's Your Reaction:

The new Senate deal over the public option has its good points and bad points, which I wrote about on Wednesday, and which everyone right now is analyzing and debating. A lot of how people feel about it, though certainly not all, is a classic glass half full vs. half empty argument: It all depends on whether you tend to see things in a positive or negative light, and whether you are optimistic that progressives can build on what's good about this in the future, or whether you think that's false optimism given the power of the insurance industry. Given my generally more upbeat nature, I am starting to feel more positive about this deal in terms of what can be built on in the future, even though I remain generally growly about the compromises we have had to make.

Discussing the upside and downside of the deal announced Tuesday night is not the purpose of this post, however, since that has already been done by me and hundreds of other people. I will no doubt come back to the nature of the bill as details emerge, but today's topic is about focusing on working on making the bill better, and working to keep it from getting worse. One of the problems in the fast moving and intense phase we are in right now is that if we spend too much time debating or bitching about the merits of a particular compromise, the compromise might get worse before the ink is dry, or we might lose the chance to make it better.

As I wrote a few days back, there is no such thing as a done deal on a policy issue as big as health care until the president actually signs the bill. All the good things announced in Tuesday night's compromise are under vicious assault by the big health industry lobbies, and the bad things still might get negotiated for the better in the conference committee or even in the manager's amendment in the Senate. The hospitals, American Medical Association, and insurers are bitterly attacking the Medicare buy-in; the insurers hate the 90% provision (that at least 90% of their revenue has to go into paying out benefits), and don't like being forced to compete the way they are in the federal government health plan; even the trigger, as weak as it is, is under assault. Basically, everything that progressives might like in this compromise is under fierce assault by the big health care special interests.

At the same time, there is an opportunity, mostly in conference committee, to improve the details of this package in some significant ways. The numbers and language around Medicaid could be negotiated upward. The cost formula for people getting in on the Medicare buy-in can be negotiated for the better. S-CHIP provisions could be strengthened and more children and youth could be covered as a result. A whole range of issues around the public option related package could potentially be improved if House progressives bargain aggressively and smartly. And there are still so many issues beyond the public option that need to be bargained over in conference committee (I have written about all these issues here, and Chris Bowers had a good summary here) that are incredibly important -- the issues around both the financing package and the subsidies for poor and middle income people alone are of truly profound economic and political importance. And we have to continue to battle conservative threats to screw both women on abortion coverage, and immigrants on everything.

At the end of the day, as unfortunate as the overall public option defeat is, if we can get Medicare buy-in for 55- to 64-year-olds, expansions in coverage for children and youth through S-CHIP, major expansions in Medicaid coverage, decent subsidies for the uninsured to buy coverage in a more competitive marketplace, and strong new insurance regulations, that would be a pretty remarkable accomplishment. But none of this is done, and this bill can get either a little better or a lot worse. We need to focus right now on pushing to improve the bill wherever we can, rather than getting caught up too much in debates over just how good this still theoretical, still undefined "deal" actually is. Whatever the outlines of this deal currently are, the best parts will go away fast if progressives don't keep pounding away on getting the best possible deal.








 
The new Senate deal over the public option has its good points and bad points, which I wrote about on Wednesday, and which everyone right now is analyzing and debating. A lot of how people feel about ...
The new Senate deal over the public option has its good points and bad points, which I wrote about on Wednesday, and which everyone right now is analyzing and debating. A lot of how people feel about ...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 14
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
07:59 PM on 12/13/2009
This bill is worse than nothing, it pushes us back and stands as a barrier to progress.

The health insurers are getting a great deal. In exchange for letting the oldest, sickest, uninsured non-customers buy into Medicare, they get mandates for all young and healthy people to purchase insurance from private monopolies that are allowed to raise premiums and deductibles as high as they want and cap benefits as low as they want.

Medicare will not be expanded. Insurers will not let captive, profitable customers go. Politicians who were too cowardly to enact real reform with the momentum reform had will not do so when an even richer, more powerful lobby stands before them. Consumers who will be destroyed by paying skyrocketing premiums or facing the collection arm of the insurance industry, the IRS, will not trust anyone who claimed to be a "reformer" this time around.

This was an opportunity for Democrats and they blew it. Leadership could have taken away chairs. The party could have taken away election funds. The President could have used the oratory he used on behalf of Lieberman, Wall Street bonus contracts, Rick Warren and keeping Guantanamo open on behalf of real reform. "Progressive" senators could have filibustered. The Progressive Caucus could have voted against the House bill. Everyone except for Rep. Kunich and Sanders is in on it. Every Democrat, save one, is complicit.
batguano
As Long As Grass Grow, Wind Blow & The Sky Is Blue
01:28 PM on 12/12/2009
That we can be "optimistic that progressives can build on what's good about this in the future" is wishful thinking. If not now, with Dem Prez & Congress (ostensibly), when in the ever-lovin "future" is the building of real reform or "improvement" supposed to happen? Have true Progressives been given ANYTHING in health-care reform "negotiations? Have they even had a seat at the table (that Single-Payer was immediately removed from without any fight at all)? The Insurance Industry/Big Pharma & other greed-driven lobbies & obstructionist shills like Joe Lieberman have been given damn near everything by a spineless Dem "leadership"/White House, & the people given damn near nothing of real significance! This is a bought & paid for Congress/White House who are as guilty of deceit as the industry they falsely claim to want to reform. The concept of Common Good has turned into common greed. Forced for-profit insurance for all just locks-in the greed & abuses inherent in the current disaster we call our health care system. If any so-called Progressive still believes there is a serious attempt to reform our system of greed they are sorely deluded & are part of the problem because that mindset gives cover to the process & our corrupt representatives. Forced insurance for all without non-profit coverage for all is no reform at all & we better start seeing the reality of how campaign contribution cash from big-money has corrupted our entire system of government!
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
den1953
The best politicians are for free!
10:19 AM on 12/12/2009
Most all Americans have to pay for health insurance anyway why not pay into medicare for all and cut out the greedy insurance companies period they make enough off of ripping the American people with auto and home and life insurance they won't starve!
05:16 PM on 12/11/2009
Let's empty the glass and pour it again until it is full. Let's expand Medicare for everyone and let's have the CBO score that to show how much money it would save over the current system.
04:55 PM on 12/11/2009
By the time it's done the only things left in the bill will be mandates that we all buy insurance and all buy drugs from big Pharma. Maybe they'll just go straight to dumping the drugs in our water supply to save us all time and money.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Chazet2
02:05 PM on 12/11/2009
It's over. Silly to think otherwise. And this administration has been instrumental, once again, in promoting corporate wealth over public well being.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
masher
software engineer
01:33 PM on 12/11/2009
Given the complete lack of concern for working Americans by this administration and the Democratic party on every other issue, I wouldn't predict anything less than a fiscal boondoggle wrapped in corporate welfare in this health care bill.

The goal of this administration is to make as little real change as possible. They want to throw money at the unemployed to pacify the public. They want to pump up a commodities bubble creating fake wealth.

The real changes we need like ending H-1B they will never do. The real changes we need in health care they will only allow if the changes are offset with loopholes and other give aways. The worst part of the current plan is a requirement that all citizens buy insurance. That is just insane.
01:27 PM on 12/11/2009
Sorry Mike, but you, and anyone who urges a "wait and see what happens" attitude during this time of complete representative failure in DC are simply indulging in the weak and ultimately worthless pastime that we US citizens seem to excel at the most: rationalization.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
01:27 PM on 12/11/2009
Thank you, Mr. Lutz, but what actions are there left to take for us with no D.C. or state pull? I've called and e-mailed, rallied and petitioned my congressional representation so often that they must know where I and many like me stand.

And yet, here we are. I wonder if another call, another e-mail, really influences anyone, even as I make them.
08:01 PM on 12/13/2009
There have to be primary challenges of every Democrat who is responsible for this (i.e., everyone but Kunich, who voted against the abomination that came out of the house).

Yes, the Democrats will lose seats, but what is the good of a Democrat who votes like a Republican anyway? The party will say "Sarah Palin, Sarah Palin, booga-booga," but she can't be everywhere and she isn't interested in being your congresswoman anyway. Rahm will say, "Where else are you gonna go?"

And if you don't get out and do something, in the primary, he'll be right.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Awake-and-Sing
named after a great play written by Clifford Odets
01:18 PM on 12/11/2009
From a purely political standpoint...

What do you think the tens of millions of middle and working class Americans under the age of 55 who cannot afford for-profit health insurance now are going to do when they realize they are required by LAW to shell out several hundreds of dollars a month (at least) for unreliable, claim-denying, for-profit insurance, lowering their precarious standard of living even further, under heavy tax penalty if they don't, with no cost controls, no competition and no choice of a real robust public option?

Is this supposed to make them vote MORE Democratic?

With all the night and day talk about the now dead public option, why are the Democratic party strategists totally ignoring the political folly of this mandate to buy for-profit insurance?

Is this supposed to make the progressive and liberal base turn up at the polls to offset the heavy turnout of conservatives and teabaggers who will have a field day with this mandate?

The Senate bill is a suicide run by Senate Democrats who are utterly blinded by the corporate campaign cash they are receiving or fear their opponents will receive that they cannot see how they are sewing the seeds of their own long-term destruction.

The only advantage of the collapse of the corporatist Democratic Party this would allow a more progressive party to rise in its wake -- one that sees not accepting corrupting corporate campaign cash as a matter of principle and integrity.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jadeba
01:16 PM on 12/11/2009
Great post, I agree completely. It's not over, until it's over and we have to keep fighting to make sure it's as good as it can possibly be.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
03:10 PM on 12/11/2009
x2
12:07 PM on 12/11/2009
Good things about the Senate bill are under attack by Harry Reid at the behest of the White House too, Mike. And on the same note, Harry Reid could have made the bill better and still can--he is choosing not to. Let's hope people in Nevada contact him to let him know he doesn't represent the drug industry or Joe Leiberman's lust for power.