Why the Gang of Six Is Deciding Health Care for Three Hundred Million of Us

Last night, the so-called "gang of six" -- three Republican and three Democratic senators on the Senate Finance Committee -- met by conference call and, according to Senator Max Baucus, the committee's chair, reaffirmed their commitment "toward a bipartisan health-care reform bill" (read: less coverage and no public insurance option). The Washington Post reports that the senators shared tales from their home states, where some have been besieged by protesters angry about a potential government takeover of the nation's health care system.

It's come down to these six senators. The House has reported a bill as has another Senate committee, but all eyes are fixed on Senate Finance -- and on these three Dems and three Republicans, in particular. But who, exactly, anointed these six to decide the fate of the nation's health care?

I don't get it. Of the three Republicans in the gang, the senior senator is Charles Grassley. In recent weeks, Grassley has refused to debunk the rumor that the House's health-care bill will spawn "death panels," empowered to decide whether the sick and old get to live or die. At an Iowa town meeting last Tuesday Grassley called the president and Speaker Nancy Pelosi "intellectually dishonest" for claiming the opposite. On Thursday Grassley told the Washington Post that Congress should scale back its efforts to overhaul health care in the wake of intense anger at town hall meetings. But -- wait -- the anger is largely about distortions such as the "death panels" that Grassley refuses to debunk.

This week on Fox News Grassley termed the House bill "the Pelosi Bill," and called it "a government takeover of heath care, exploding the deficit because it's not paid for and it's got high taxes in it."

I really don't get it. We have a Democratic president in the White House. Democrats control sixty votes in the Senate, enough to overcome a filibuster. It is possible to pass health care legislation through the Senate with 51 votes (that's what George W. Bush did with his tax cut plan). Democrats control the House. The Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, is a tough lady. She has said there will be no health care reform bill without a public option.

So why does the fate of health care rest in Grassley's hands?

It's not even as if the gang represents America. The three Dems on the gang are from Montana, New Mexico, and North Dakota -- states that together account for just over 1 percent of Americans. The three Republicans are from Maine, Wyoming, and Iowa, which together account for 1.6 percent of the American population.

So, I repeat: Why has it come down to these six? Who anointed them? Apparently, the White House. At least that's what I'm repeatedly being told by sources both on the Hill and in the administration. "The Finance Committee is where the action is. They'll tee-up the final bill," says someone who should know.

Comments

[bswell]

Go Bob--this is why you're not in the administration and Rahm Emmanuel is. Unfortunately, this time around, we did not get what we paid for. But what else is new in this corporate paradise?

[toje]

It comes down to six, Bob, because six is more than two, and they represent more regions of the country than Pelosi and Waxman, who represent Los Angeles and San Francisco. Get a clue.

[cjjason]

I swear to God - I am beginning to think that capitalism is the worst evil on earth! The basis for capitalism is free markets for profit. Well, if private business is going to make billions of dollars on our backs for health insurance, then turn around and give themselves millions of dollars in bonuses as they cut people from their rolls and deny benefits - I don't want any part of it. Come on , Repugs, get a grip - stop and think - you are also being ripped off by your private health providers! How stupid are you guys? Very.

[Sharpie39]

Thomas Friedman would disagree with you. He feels that global capitalism has brought more prosperity and wealth to more people in the world than anything else in history. Check out "The Lexus and the Olive Tree." It might lead to inequalities between the top and bottom, but those at the bottom in our country are nowhere near as bad off as those in other countries. The median, not mean, income in this country is over $50,000. Just being in America makes you one of the wealthiest people in the world. Yes, people in the inner cities struggle, but 90% of the people from China, India, and the entire continent of Africa would trade places with them in a heartbeat. Really. Go to India sometime and ask one of the 200 people waiting outside the airport to help you carry your bags to your car if they'd rather be here.

Additionally, profit is a terrific motivator and actually promotes efficiency. I would argue that the denials of benefits you mention are the exception; not the rule. See my post below about the breakdown of who is uninsured. I concede that people with pre-existing conditions caused by bad luck should be covered by the government.

Also, if you see my post in the Dr. Lipman article, I feel that the reason why care is so expensive is because our healthcare system can save your life virtually no matter what is wrong with you. Other countries can't say that.

[OswegoKayaker]

Yes, they can save your life if you can afford it. Our healthcare is wonderful if you have it. Unfortunately 45 million of us don't.

Profit is a great motivator, but not always for good as we saw with Enron, WorldCom, Lehman Brothers, AIG, Madoff, etc. Maybe corporate tyranny isn't always in our best interest. Sometimes greed is just greed and not the glorious world Ayn Rand wrote about with captains of industry acting for the good of people instead of the goods for themselves.

[OswegoKayaker]

"I worked as a senior executive at health insurance companies and I saw how they confuse their customers and dump the sick: all so they can satisfy their Wall Street investors," Wendell Potter

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/26/us-healthcare-obama-barack-change

[amerfirst]

Here's a question: By what authority under our Constitution does the government enter into a non-governmental activity like health care?

[Googie2]

Public health has been a concern of our government for a great many years. It is sad that there are people who prey upon ignorance and fear in order to protect the status quo. Why don't you stand before a group of small business owners, private citizens, and average folk without coverage and explain why the status quo is sustainable given current inflationary trends in the cost of coverage. Go ahead and explain why it is as American as apple pie to allow private insurers to decide what procedures you can and cannot get. Explain why a 6%-12% annual increase in costs of coverage is ok. Better yet, explain why people are losing their homes to bankruptcy and foreclosure because of healthcare costs. Speak with couples who get divorced so they can get coverage and shelter their houses from debt collectors. Where there is a will, there is a way. That anyone would invoke our Constitution as a means to undermine the effort to correct these problems is repugnant.

[amerfirst]

Public health is the concern of the Center for Disease Control(CDC) at the federal level. There are also state public health agencies. They deal with public health matters, primarily the prevention of epidemics. They do not replace any individual's responsibility for his own medical care.

[motoboy]

The clause that says, ".....provide for the general welfare."

[mehurst]

Here's an answer.

Article I, Section 8: The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States;

Also, the Preamble:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

So, if you believe that the "general welfare", "domestic tranquility", "justice", the "blessings of liberty", and "a more perfect union" includes only the military and foreign affairs, then the government should stay out of health care. But I believe that the general welfare and these other directives include a number of government authorities, including promoting a highway system, protecting the environment, providing a basic laws and regulations to protect against monopoly power, fraud, and theft, and, yes, providing a health and welfare safety net for the common people.

There are essentially two ideas of what America is. One is about individual freedom, the other about a unified common society. The attitude of most Americans used to be a mix of both. Today, any notion of a common good is vehemently attacked ("socialist!", "Nazi"). We have become a country focused so much on our own individual promotion that the word "United" in our name has become a misnomer.

[amerfirst]

I thought that the Constitution gave very specific powers to the United States, and all others were retained by the states and the people. I thought providing for the general welfare of the United States meant doing those things necessary to maintain the form of government as described under the Constitution. That includes the court system to establish justice, rules for electing legislators, establishing uniform laws for bankruptcies, coin money, fix the standard of weights and measures, etc. These, and calling forth the Militia to execute the laws of the Union and suppress insurrections, were to insure domestic tranquility. But, I see what you are thinking about "welfare". No, that's something different.

[ccossey]

How do you define "non-governmental activity"? If guarantees of healthcare-for-all is a way in which our government can thwart private healthcare markets who ultimately deprive US citizens of life, liberty, and property, how is government-run parallel health care inconsistent? The Constitution, and by proxy the amendments to it, do not necessarily prohibit government intervention into what you deem to be "private markets." Just because it has been this way in recent history does not make it unconstitutional. In fact, "government" is currently deeply embedded in our heath care system - are you familiar with Medicare/Medicaid; Veterans Associations Hospitals and healthcare clinics; or federal funds that directly flow to universities and research facilities which develop most of the new pharmaceuticals and medical technologies that are in use today?

Educate yourself on the real issues - you may find you have been misled more than you know.

[amerfirst]

The federal government only has the enumersted powers listed in the Constitution. All others are retained by the states and the people. Medicare is funded seperately, and was intended as a program for the elderly. Over time, congress has stretched and abused it. VA hospitals provide treatment to veterans for service-related conditions. It is not a health care program. The basic misconception is that the government can do just about anything that the politicians want. Some politicians operate under that theory. Unfortunately, they are much more familiar with special interests than they are with the Constitution.

[amerfirst]

Does anybody realize that the government DOESN'T HAVE the money for another boondoggle?

[Googie2]

Correcting shortfalls in our health system and creating efficiencies in the process in not a boondoggle. Government can and does do many things well. Or are you insulting our fine U.S. military and all of our troops. Yeah, I said it.

[hardrain77]

Wow, it's so unlike Washington to have an unelected, nearly--unaccounted for group of wealthy interlocked and compromised suits to decide policy for the useful and useless eaters.

It's as if they get their daily briefings straight from the maker.

[rubymd]

These folks are worried about a government takeover of health care?

Personally, I'm very glad that the responsibility of vaccinating us against H1-N1 is of the government and not of Blue Cross and Aetna.

[Vurz]

What the Republicans want is to force us to buy crap insurance that we wouldn't pay for in a free market.

[Sharpie39]

People have researched who is in the 47 million without healthcare and found that
a) roughly 10 million are not US citizens
b) roughly 10 million make more than $75,000 per year
c) roughly 14 million are eligible for Medicaid/S­CHIP/other government aid but haven't signed up
d) forty percent are young people, some who choose to not to buy coverage
Thus, the highest number of "real" uninsured we have is 20 million. Some estimates have it as low as 8-12 million.
I feel like we should do something to help these 8-20 million people because a lot of them are in the situation because of bad luck. Using 8-20 million as our number, doesn't the debate change? Instead of revamping everything, can't we just spend $20 million a year to give people $1 million vouchers to buy insurance from existing companies? That sounds cheaper than the CBO's $1 TRILLION estimate. I'm asking a serious question on why this wouldn't work.
Thanks and I look forward to your comments!

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/06/the-real-uninsured/ (best breakdown of my sources; very balanced and doesn't include a lot of analysis, which is useful in a politically charged topic)
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jnC1WvFFoEh8QCl2kVJq2MCkOidQD99ST6600 (AP story on how up to 17% of 47 million are undocumented workers/illegal immigrants, depending on your political affiliation)

[diver77]

You are spot-on! Why radically change a system that only needs some tweaking? The federal government does a poor job of running programs. Something as simple as cash for clunkers has been screwed up. Medicare is full of abuse and is nearly bankrupt. We can't afford to nationalize health care. We can't trust our health care to the Feds.

Wake up you Liberals! We do not need your radical socialist ideas.

[mehurst]

Yes, everyone, please click the link to factcheck.org as Sharpie39 suggests. You'll find that there really is a great deal of analysis, which does not support Sharpie's claims. What you won't find is the 20 million figure in this post. For one thing, you can't just add up percentage estimates like this, since many of the segments overlap. Also, as the article claims, these numbers are really difficult to parse. If your household income is over $75K per year, is your lack of health insurance necessarily a personal choice? If you're young, is your lack of health insurance a personal choice? No, and No. What the analysis says at the end is "Do these amount to half the total, as former Sen. Thompson implied? That’s possible, but we judge that the available evidence doesn’t support that conclusion."

One thing we do know is that these people were without health insurance, and these numbers were before the effects of the current recession, so the overall numbers are likely much higher. If cheaper public insurance were available, it is most likely that a substantial portion of these buy it. Those who choose not to could still not. So what is so wrong about giving them the option?

[Googie2]

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112172939

[bimplebean]

That story links to an even BETTER story in the Washington post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/21/AR2009082101778.html

The money quote: "The key difference is that foreign health insurance plans exist only to pay people's medical bills, not to make a profit. The United States is the only developed country that lets insurance companies profit from basic health coverage. "

[steeev3]

In the first minute: "Of all the industrialized nations, the US is the only one which doesn't provide all citizens with the BASIC HUMAN RIGHT OF HEALTH CARE"

This "socialized medicine" nonsense was paid for by doctors in the 1940s!

[thepainter57]

better speak louder

the internet just released a poll of 600 people who believe all the lies being perpetuated about healthcare reform and they claim that this poll represents over 50 percent of Americans

by the way most of the people polled were republicans and independents

[Hitss]

Link? Proof? I can make statements also without proof.

[thepainter57]

you must read more than huff post to get info
POSTED ON YAHOO 08-25-2009
Majority of Americans Believe Health Care Reform 'Myths'




More than 50 percent of Americans believe a public insurance option will increase health care costs, according to a new survey on assertions the White House has called myths.


The national survey, conducted from Aug. 14 - 18, involved a random sample of 600 Americans aged 18 and older living in the 48 contiguous states and Washington, D.C. Respondents indicated whether or not they believed 19 claims about health care reform, each of which is considered a myth by the White House.


The results could speak to the current partisan debate on a proposed health care overhaul. While overall the majority of Americans said they believe many of the assertions, more Republicans and Independents than Democrats stood by the claims.


"It's perhaps not surprising that more Republicans believe these things than Democrats," said study scientist Dr. Aaron Carroll, director of Indiana University's Center for Health Policy and Professionalism Research. "What is surprising is just how many Republicans - and Independents - believe them. If the White House hopes to convince the majority of Americans that they are misinformed about health care reform, there is much work to be done."


There were exceptions.

[thepainter57]

here's the link

you do have to READ IT

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20090824/sc_livescience/majorityofamericansbelievehealthcarereformmyths

[anniebuddy]

Time for everyone to start speaking out loud and clear that we want healthcare reform ... and we want it with a public option. We can sit back and let the nay sayers provoke ignorance ... or we can speak out FOR reform.

P.S. And if you sit back and say nothing ... you have no right to complain if it doesn't go through.

[Hitss]

I speak up all the time, but I'm against reform of this fashion. It needs to be well thought-out, tested, and have evidence it works. Not a 1000 page monstrosity that nobody fully understands and is so full of special interest paragraphs it will have more holes than dunkin donuts.

[cecebo]

It is an easy 1000 pages, double spaced, single sided, mostly bullet points. It is no monstrosity and any senator or rep who says they have not read it should be canned immediately. It is less than a college student is required to read each night. It also uses very simple language that I am sure you can understand if you could read the article. You might be surprised to learn there are no death panels or flying pink monkeys with knives.

[OswegoKayaker]

Most of these people are lawyers -- 1,000 pieces of paper double spaced is nothing for them. They can generate this much in an afternoon to get a client out of a DUI.

[leapyearmark]

if you speak loudly we'll certainly know your about your ignorance

[Hitss]

How about this, instead of 6 senators or whatever deciding it, let each state decide what to do on their own, like the founders intended. Where does the Federal Government think they get a mandate to determine individual health care? Let the states do it like Massachusetts has been doing for the past several years. 50 small experiments is infinitely better than one huge one designed by the lowest common denominator. No corporation would dream of redoing 1/6 of their business without a small experiment first to see how it will work out in the end.

[leapyearmark]

OMG a voice of reason - thank you thank you thank you

[politicalcommentary]

The problem with each state deciding what to do on their own is that Senators tend to do that which will benefit their private coffers versus doing what is best for the populace.

But if Massachusetts represents a highly workable healthcare model, it should be followed. In this sense, this model that has been working "for the past several years" represents a successful experiment.

(This methodology should also be applied toward improving the education system.)

[LeoTheDog]

Because that is the least efficient model for the delivery of a basic service. It is the same reason we don't defend America against foreign threats by having each state assemble its own army.

The "experiments" you seek are already done. They exist in the 36 countries whose health care systems are better than ours.

[khonea1553]

I find everyone's argument to be intellectually curious. First of all the Governent is not a seperate entity from us. We are the "Government" you know "of the people and by the people". So the argument that the "Government" can't be trusted with our healthcare is very curious and at the very least not well thought out but easily played to a people who have been subject to so much of the same old rhetoric for so long. Secondly to say we cannot rely on the government to manage health care is also not true since the Government runs many things more efficiently than provate corporations do. Name one corporation that has run anything better than the post office and has had as little marginal increase to consumer costs than the American postal stamp. You people are being swayed by the very special interest groups that you rail against. Wake up. We can have control of this issue by forcing out private insurance corporations that have gotten fat of our deaths and by thinking and voting for people who will bring us a one payer system. We get to make decisions when the government runs things because we can vote. Privatization of health care leaves you with no choice in most cases because large companies get to influence a sleeping public with so much useless rhetoric.

[Hitss]

How about Fedex and UPS for starters? Both deliver to my door more quickly and cheaper than the USPS can. Also if you are going to make an extraordinary claim that insurance companies have gotten "fat of our deaths" (spelling mistake included) you should have extraordinary evidence for that. The truth is insurance companies actually make less profits less than many other corporations. The disinformation is terrible on both sides of the isle which is why if you are going to post opinions at least do the research first.

[jws2346]

I can't help thinking you are full of shite.
I also rely on these same shippers (only in a severe emergency would I use FukEx).
1.) I 've got NO USE for FedEx. They leave my valuable packages in the public hallway even if my apartment door is propped open (I get a lot of expensive computer components) Common sense tells me at least they could do is ring the door bell or yell.
2.) I've got to say I've been impressed with UPS. They're always on time (I track most of my packages on the Internet) I use UPS for larger packages (things that don't fit into USPS flat rate boxes)
3.) As far as USPS goes, I've never sent anything that I can't get into a USPS flat rate box. (with the exception of a whole laptop computer) It's economical, just as fast, safe and easy for smaller things.

[CalculatedRiskTaker]

Since when does UPS or Fedex deliver to every door in the country 6 days a week for 43 cents? That's right, they don't.

Since when did an insurance company ever produce anything other than paper? That's right again, they don't. All they do is take your money, keep a third of it and send the rest back out in claims. Medicare does the same thing and runs it's self on 2 percent of revenue. But than again, medicare doen't have CEO's who make 10's of millions of dollars a year.

[bimplebean]

Moving a box from point a to point b is infinitely simpler than providing health care. It's a bad comparison.

And insurance companies HAVE gotten 'fat' off our deaths. Their CEOs make MILLIONS every year as a personal salary, while their companies deny care to those who get injured or sick. Their profits have been going through the roof while their reimbursement rates -- the payouts they make to cover care -- have dropped.

[steeev3]

Health insurance companies profits have grown while policy holders have paid more for less coverage. [http://ww­w.4ibew.co­m/2009/05/­27/health-­insurance-­profits-so­ar-as-indu­stry-merge­rs-create-­near-monop­oly/]

TO say that they "make less profits less than many other corporations." First off that makes little sense so i'll just ignore the second 'less.' Second of all, you're right, they do make less than some companies. But when their job is to keep us alive and they do so at extremely high costs to make EXTRA profits AND can cancel your coverage at a moments notice, that type of business is not good. That is a type of insider trading -- with people instead of stocks.

I mean hey, if you like the thrill of knowing that you may not have coverage tomorrow with your profit, i mean private insurer, by all means keep it. But the rest of us don't need that kind of stress. For a country as well off as ours, EVERYONE should have FREE healthcare without the worry that it may not be there tomorrow. [I've been saying that for years now.. should write for the NYT]

[leapyearmark]

name one company who could run their business by losing money year after year and be enabled to survive by the federal government susidizing their very existence. Postal Service, Social Security, Medicare, and hmmmmmm oh yeah, GM, Chrysler, Fannie Mae, many banks, and somehow GE is in bed with Obama as well.

[Googie2]

Where is it mandated that a vital government service should be for profit?

[steeev3]

"In bed with Obama.." ?

GE Capital is one of the largest and most diverse financial institutions in the world. If it were a bank, it would be the 7th-largest in the world. THAT's why they got bailed out.. but because they aren't a bank, they weren't subject to the compensation clauses and they execs got loot. Don't loop Obama into it when you don't know what you're talking about. Obama has been trying to close that loop-hole.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/28/AR2009062802955.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2009062803183

[bluevistas]

perhaps the Obama Administration doesn't really want true healthcare reform afterall... Maybe they just want it to appear as if reform is happening.

[leapyearmark]

gee hun, look, if we get reform we get to have another Czar