I swear, I find no no joy in being Debbie Downer. I really wish I could celebrate the Senate's 60-39 vote to begin the debate on health care legislation, narrowly holding off the blocking tactic of the Republicans. I am 100 percent in favor of health care reform (I'm a fan of Rep. Anthony Weiner's proposal to extend Medicare to everyone). But a realistic view of what happened (and what has happened leading up to the vote) reveals far more things to be concerned about than to cheer for.
For starters, to get to an up-or-down vote on the final bill in the Senate, this 60-vote procedural hurdle will have to be jumped over again to close debate, and Sen. Joe Lieberman has already promised to join the Republicans in filibustering any bill that contains a public option. There are also several other centrist Democrats in the Senate who may not vote for cloture if there is a public option in the bill. Since the Democrats were only able to secure the minimum 60 votes to get past the Republicans this time, without Lieberman's vote (and all of the centrists'), if no Republican jumps ship, a bill containing a public option cannot get to the floor.
Also, it is easy to forget that a health care bill only barely made it through the House (220-215), and did so only after Democrats agreed to pass the bill despite the inclusion of the anti-abortion Stupak Amendment, which wouldn't just prevent the government from funding abortions, but would actually have the effect of making it harder for many women to exercise their constitutional right to choose under health care reform than it is today. True, the Senate's version has a less onerous anti-abortion provision, but if the House anti-choice Democrats stand firm again, even if a bill gets through the Senate, when it comes out of conference, the House will have two options, neither of which is good: pass the bill with the odious Stupak Amendment intact, or watch the bill go down to defeat at the hands of the anti-choice Democrats.
So what am I supposed to celebrate, exactly? That a health care bill will be debated? Even though, to get past a 60-vote cloture motion, it will have to be gutted even beyond the shadow of a bill it is now (the current bill has a weak public option, no other mechanism to really cut costs, and hands billions of dollars to the insurance companies who are a big part of the original problem)? I'm not saying I don't support this weak bill (it's better than nothing), but if it gets any weaker and cuts into the constitutional right of women to choose, really, does the good still outweigh the bad?
And the whole notion that there will be a debate is really hard to take seriously. There has been no honest health care debate up to this point. There has be a flood of outright lies from the right (two words for you: "death panels"), and if you think it's getting any better, as the vote neared, Sen. Kit Bond compared health care reform to one of the biggest Ponzi schemes ever: "Move over, Bernie Madoff. Tip your hat to a trillion-dollar scheme." This is the level of debate. Paranoid ramblings about government takeovers and hidden agendas of doing the bidding for insurance companies, hospitals and pharmaceutical companies that line the pockets of those opposing reform. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office can report that the Senate health care bill will cut the deficit by $130 billion over the next ten years without raising taxes on the middle class, but Republicans will still scream about expanding deficits and massive tax increases. Some debate.
You know, there is one thing I really like about the health care legislation that will now be debated in the Senate, and, oddly enough, it's something that most of my fellow progressives oppose: the ability of states to opt out of the public option. Honestly, I think this part of the bill is spectacularly brilliant. Why? It's simple, actually. It's democracy at work.
Consider that in the last months since the health care debate took off, we have been treated to the following:
- Rep. Joe Wilson of South Carolina screamed "You lie!" during President Obama's health care address to a joint session of Congress.
- Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said that passing health care reform with a public option could "cost you your life."
- Rep. Paul Broun of Georgia, who, by the way, is a physician, said that health care reform with a public option "is gonna kill people."
- Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma said, regarding the health care bill: "I don't have to read it or know what's in it. I'm going to oppose it anyways."
- Sen. Richard Shelby wrote to one of his constituents that health care legislation would "directly subsidize abortion-on-demand," "rations health care so that our citizens are withheld important and potentially life-saving treatments," and "requires taxpayer dollars to fund health benefits for illegal immigrants," all scare tactics that he knew (or, as a U.S. senator, should have known) is patently false.
Unfortunately, I could go on a lot longer, but you get the point. All of these politicians have many things in common, but there are two I would like to point out here: 1) They represent states that would likely opt out of a public option, and 2) they were duly elected by their constituents to serve in Congress.
Item 2 is really something important to remember. These men did not stage coups d'etat. No, they were elected by the majority of the voters of their states or districts. They were chosen by their constituents in democratic elections. And now it's time for democracy to do its job, so that the citizens of these states get exactly what they voted for. Why should we, as a country, spend taxpayer money to improve the health care of citizens who would send to Congress men capable of uttering baldfaced lies, all in the name of politics (trying to prevent the president from getting a "win") or protecting the special interests that fill their campaign accounts? And if they are telling their lies in defense of some kind of pure ideology that abhors the government's involvement in anything (except the bedrooms of its citizens, of course, but that's another issue for another day ...), well, then, let's give their constituents what they want. Hell, Shelby went after Medicare in his constituent letter, so I would be happy to let the states opt out of Medicare and Medicaid, too
In Shelby's state, Blue Cross Blue Shield controls 83 percent of the health insurance market, with more than 600,000 people living without health insurance and another more than 175,000 who cannot obtain group coverage and are forced to buy insurance on their own. Under health care reform, most would have access to health care, more than 400,000 Alabama residents would be eligible for government subsidies to help pay for health insurance, and the 175,000 plus not on group plans could get more affordable insurance. But these people also voted for Shelby. I respect the democratic process, and the people of the good state of Alabama should be free to get exactly what they voted for. I wouldn't dream of standing in their way. And the same can be said for the folks in South Carolina, Kentucky, Georgia, Oklahoma and all the other states who have sent representatives to Washington to obstruct health care reform.
This is the country in which we live now. This is what passes for debate. So you will forgive me if I am not optimistic that a worthwhile health care reform bill will make its way past another cloture vote in the Senate, past an up-down vote in Senate, through a post-conference vote in the House, through yet another cloture vote in the Senate, and finally through a final up-down vote in the Senate, all while the Stupaks, Liebermans, and Lincolns of the world are standing in the way, not to mention the stop-at-nothing lies and scare tactics employed by the right. I am sorry, but I am firmly in I'll-believe-it-when-I-see-it mode.
The bottom line is that I don't want to be the messenger of doom. I would love to celebrate a health care reform victory. And when a real one arrives, I will.
Follow Mitchell Bard on Twitter: www.twitter.com/MitchellBard
We have 62% of personal bankruptcies due to medical bills and most of those people HAVE INSURANCE -- this bill only widens the pool of insured to those most likely to be hurt by such abuse.
Health care reform should be about providing CARE for people, not insurance. We are the only advanced nation on earth that allows insurance companies in healthcare financing to make a profit, THE ONLY ONE.
To quote T.R. Reid: , “All the other countries that have health insurance have decided that health insurance has to be non-profit. There’s just a fundamental conflict between paying for people’s healthcare and paying a dividend to investors. ... To me, that’s the … fundamental difference between America’s unfair and expensive healthcare system and the much more efficient healthcare systems in other countries, is profit. It’s okay in the other countries if the providers, if docs, hospitals, drug companies, labs make a profit. But in every country the payment system has to be non-profit, except the United States.”
This bill is worse than doing nothing.
Point is, no matter how the reform debate turns out, bill or no bill, the only real winners are going to be the big insurance companies. Their monopolies will continue grow. Their profits and executive compensations will continue to soar. In the end, the influence of Big Insurance will have come full-circle for those Senators and Representatives whose political lives seem to live and die by the contributions and lobbying efforts of the insurance industry.
large-scale, low-overhead, government-run, premium-based public option, instead of the pseudo variety contained in these bills, is a case of representative democracy that's long on representation and short on democracy.
Would that be any worse than thousands of American soldiers being lied into premature deaths in Iraq?
the answer is very simple. our premiums will be going up.
Yes, thank God, our premiums will be going up, we will be spending more on health care IOW, and that is exactly what I want more than anything in the whole world.
You will be hearing a lot from republicans in the future about premiums going up. When you hear that, drop what you are doing and start applauding.
Higher premiums equals more health care.
You know how whenever you hear people asking "how are you doing?" you get the answer "I've got my health and having your health means everything"?
Yeah.
Think about it. And support dems in their effort to get more money for health care to everybody. this is what we want. don't let repubs fool ya.
That violates a woman's Constitutional rights? What about my right not to pay for someone else's entirely elective procedure? You're telling me that a woman should be able to have consensual sex, get pregnant, and expect the government (i.e. the taxpayers) to pay for her abortion every single time? Where's the concept of personal responsibility here? I understand if there's a genuine medical reason, but it's a clear fabrication to say this amendment somehow limits a woman's ability to procure an abortion simply because taxpayers won't be footing the bill for elective procedures.
If a pregnancy merely cripples a woman for life, thats OK with you? If the pregnancy and/or childbirth won't kill her but complications arising from the pregnancy and/or childbirth will eventually kill her, thats OK with you? There's a whopping difference between "elective" and "medically necessary," but the Stupak Amendment incorrectly lumps all non-life-threatening "medically necessary" abortions into the term "elective."
Mortality rate should not be the sole determining factor as to whether a pregnancy (not conceived through rape or incest) can be ended through abortion or not. Physical health is a factor in any decision to end a pregnancy early, and should be the decision of the patient's doctor, not the government.
-timing
-momentum
-necessity
The stars of moral and economic imperatives have finally aligned on US health care reform.
So Obama will sign a bill soon
Dr. Rick Lippin
Southampton,Pa
There are a lot of people who will benefit dramatically from those two elements, including those taking long term and expensive drug treatments.
Whether we get other benefits is ultimately going to be up to the young people in this country who are going to benefit from those benefits far more than the 50+ set. We are going to have medicare in a few years if we can just avoid bankruptcy and death until then. It is the kids between 20 and 40, especially the ones with kids who desperately need the public option. They need the public option to create competition, they need the public option as a recourse from for profit insurance, they need the public option as a recourse from for profit health care, they need the public option to get health care for their kids if they become unemployed.
Expect lots of people who can't afford new jacked-up health care premiums paying the fine instead of getting health care with that money.
Do you really think that health care insurers who know that WE HAVE TO BUY PRIVATE INSURANCE FROM THEM aren't going to capitalize on the captive market by jacking up premiums to compensate for "having to insure people with pre-existing conditions" and "having to do away with lifetime limits"?
The public option is a sham. It will cost more than private insurance, and private insurance will become completely unaffordable with all the new unfunded mandates.
Better get used to paying an extra $1,900 a year (or about $4,000 a year in "failure to pay all taxes" fines; or a couple years in jail when you can't afford $4,000 a year in tax fines for eight years in a row). Thats the only thing you'll "benefit from" in the new health "reform" bill.
This health care "reform" bill is a reminder that "there is always a worse health care system than the one you are in." DIY surgery is better than this turkey.
--I do NOT like the current health care debate. As a progressive, I believe this thing has been so watered down and shifted away from a citizen-focused improvement bill to a corporate-give away focused bill. This includes the House and Senate version.
--I'm sorely disappointed in the House's anti-abortion appeasement. If they government is going to be an institution where everyone is treated equally and if abortion is legal under the law, then these procedures should be covered for folks opting into the public option. What's next? When the right says they hate gays and blame gays for HIV/AIDS, will the public option stop funding HIV treatments too? It's BS!
Now, that being said, here's my question: Typically, one would assume (I know it's not good to assume) that those coming from less affluent areas might be more prone to accept the public option given their constituents. Given some of the great poverty in Louisiana (hurricane Katrina?), why would Sen Landrieu be against a public option? Is she against a public option or the one being proposed (because it's weak?)? Can anyone help me with this one?
"So if you are a younger American and don't want to buy insurance then the Govt can legally either force you to buy insurance or change you as a 'felon'. Which, if they do convict you as being a felon for not buying Govt mandated health care, then isn't the cost of incarceration per year higher than the cost of health care insurance per year?"
True or False?
And once everyone who is poor is a felon by the time they turn 23 (you start having to pay taxes and get your own health insurance at 18), then the health care system for the rich will stay intact: no one who wants it to change to help them will be able to vote anymore.
Of course, fail to pay $5,900 a year for six years, and you'll exceed $30,000 in unpaid taxes, and $30,000 is the point where the I.R.S. considers prosecuting for jail time.
And for the life of me I don't understand how the same people who are convinced that the government is trying to kill us by mandating childhood vaccinations are so determined to give that same government 100% control over all health care spending.
It's not that i don't think a single-payer system isn't a good idea, just that I think a lot of the left-wingers over here are just as crazy (and sometimes just as misguided) as the Sarah Palin acolytes on the right.
A pre-existing conditions bill can be passed by itself without this mandate of trillions of dollars in corporate welfare on the backs of those who can least afford to pay it.
Obmaniacs and Democratic Party insiders will not be able to put lipstick on this pig of a bill and sell it as Miss America Health Care Reform, just so they can have a win. Progressives aren't stupid. We know we have been played here by a corrupt, corporation-owned Congress and a corporate shill President.
Without a robust public option, this bill SHOULD be voted down as long as it still has this immoral mandate to purchase for-profit insurance under the threat of heavy tax penalty if we don't.
Congress can pass a separate bill later if it has too about pre-existing conditions and removing the anti-trust protection.
And anyone with for profit insurance can tell you that just having health "insurance coverage" is not in any way the same thing as having access to health "care".