Public Option // Current

Is Bandy still clowning around?

WASHINGTON – Moderate Senate Democrats threatened Sunday to scuttle health-care legislation if their demands aren't met, while more liberal members warned their party leaders not to bend.
The dispute among Democrats foretells of a rowdy floor debate next month on legislation that would extend health care coverage to roughly 31 million Americans. Republicans have already made clear they aren't supporting the bill.
Final passage is in jeopardy, even after the chamber's historic 60-39 vote Saturday night to begin debate.

Nelson and three other moderates — Democratic Sens. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas and Connecticut independent Joe Lieberman — agreed to open debate despite expressing reservations on the measure. Each of them has warned that they might not support the final bill.

One major sticking point is a provision that would allow Americans to buy a federal-run insurance plan if their state allows it. Moderates say they worry the so-called public option will become a huge and costly entitlement program and that other requirements in the bill could cripple businesses. "I don't want to fix the problems in our health care system in a way that creates more of an economic crisis," said Lieberman.

The sway held by such a small group of senators has annoyed their more liberal colleagues, who could vote against a final bill if it becomes too watered down.
Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, said he didn't think rank-and-file Democrats would feel compelled to go that far. At the same time, Brown warned Democratic leaders not to make too many concessions.

"I don't want four Democratic senators dictating to the other 56 of us and to the rest of the country — when the public option has this much support — that (a public option is) not going to be in it," said Brown.

The Senate bill would require most Americans to carry insurance and provide subsidies to those who couldn't afford it. Large companies could incur costs if they did not provide coverage to their work force. The insurance industry would come under significant new regulation under the bill, which would first ease and then ban the practice of denying coverage on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions.

More on the story from Associated Press
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091122/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_overhaulWASHINGTON – Moderate Senate Democrats threatened Sunday to scuttle health-care... more

JuliusBC
added this
12 hours ago
|
1 comment

Anatomy of casino capitalism Pt.8

Jane D'Arista on a "public option" in the finance sector

therealnewsnetwork
added this
5 days ago
|
0 comments

Democrat-Led healthcare reform could make things WORSE

WHOO! The Democrats in Congress passed a bill! Healthcare for all! Awesome! Right?... more

asherp
added this
9 days ago
|
4 comments

Congressman Dennis Kucinich on His Vote

After voting against H.R. 3962 - Affordable Health Care for America Act, Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) today made the following statement:

“We have been led to believe that we must make our health care choices only within the current structure of a predatory, for-profit insurance system which makes money not providing health care. We cannot fault the insurance companies for being what they are. But we can fault legislation in which the government incentivizes the perpetuation, indeed the strengthening, of the for-profit health insurance industry, the very source of the problem. When health insurance companies deny care or raise premiums, co-pays and deductibles they are simply trying to make a profit. That is our system.

“Clearly, the insurance companies are the problem, not the solution. They are driving up the cost of health care. Because their massive bureaucracy avoids paying bills so effectively, they force hospitals and doctors to hire their own bureaucracy to fight the insurance companies to avoid getting stuck with an unfair share of the bills. The result is that since 1970, the number of physicians has increased by less than 200% while the number of administrators has increased by 3000%. It is no wonder that 31 cents of every health care dollar goes to administrative costs, not toward providing care. Even those with insurance are at risk. The single biggest cause of bankruptcies in the U.S. is health insurance policies that do not cover you when you get sick.

“But instead of working toward the elimination of for-profit insurance, H.R. 3962 would put the government in the role of accelerating the privatization of health care. In H.R. 3962, the government is requiring at least 21 million Americans to buy private health insurance from the very industry that causes costs to be so high, which will result in at least $70 billion in new annual revenue, much of which is coming from taxpayers. This inevitably will lead to even more costs, more subsidies, and higher profits for insurance companies — a bailout under a blue cross.

http://kucinich.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=153995After voting against H.R. 3962 - Affordable Health Care for America Act, Congressman... more

remanns
added this
13 days ago
|
0 comments

Kucinich's Brave Health Vote Vs. Obama's Failed Promise

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lee-stranahan/kucinichs-brave-health-vo_b_349857.html... more

SleepDirt
added this
15 days ago
|
22 comments

Raw Video: Health Care Bill Passes in the House

Congress passes HR3962 as Pelosi reads the vote count. Progressives and other... more

JonRaymond
added this
15 days ago
|
1 comment

freedom

the benson tea party Smart people remember history's mistakes so as not to repeat... more

bill1think2012
added this
17 days ago
|
0 comments

Dennis Kucinich: Pro-Corporate Health Care "Reform" is going to make things WORSE

Weird. I just posted a blog on the same issue a few days ago.

asherp
added this
22 days ago
|
0 comments

8 Arrested at Seattle Healthcare Protest

8 People were arrested at Regence Seattle Headquarters Wednesday. The protesters... more

indieTVdotTV
added this
24 days ago
|
0 comments

Public Option Doesn't Fly

I just received the following email from an action group telling people to push back... more

JonRaymond
added this
24 days ago
|
3 comments

Democracy Now Healthcare Roundtable

ELISABETH BENJAMIN: Well, the problem with the $900 billion number is that it actually means that we don’t have enough to subsidize coverage for folks. If we did a robust public option, we’d grab $80 billion. It now seems like that’s off the table. So we need to find the money to have enough subsidies for working people.

Why is that? Well, let’s do the math. So you have a family of three at 300 percent of poverty. They earn $55,000 a year. They spend $15,000 in taxes. They spend $14,000 in, you know, rent. They spend $20,000 on childcare. They spend $7,000 on food. And guess what? They’re already in debt. If you add in healthcare costs, which then they’re—even with the subsidies, they’re really in debt. And if they have a medical catastrophe, even with the caps—which is great that they’re adding, in health reform, caps on your maximum out-of-pocket exposure—you’re going to be in debt at the end of the year. And that’s the problem. They don’t have enough money to actually subsidize people, unless they really drive down insurance costs. The only way you really drive down insurance costs is through a public plan, or the other alternative is not even try to do this complicated thing, building on the current employer-driven structure.

DR. OLIVER FEIN: Right. And what we propose is essentially a Medicare-for-all program, right? Obama had a choice, really. He could have decided to build on what we have, correct. That’s what he said he was doing. But he went down the pathway of subsidizing what I think is a defective product at this point: private health insurance. He could have gone down the pathway of taking Medicare, probably the most popular health insurance program in the United States, and saying we should spread that to all people in the United States.

And if he had done that, we feel that studies show that you wouldn’t have to increase the cost to the middle class. The overall cost to the system actually would be a savings of close to $400 billion per year, mind you. And we’ve got that money, for instance, because we’re spending $1 trillion in Iraq and Afghanistan, OK, per year. So we have the possibility, it seems to me, if we went in the direction of a Medicare-for-all program, to really make this affordable to all people in the United States.

Now, Anthony Weiner from New York—

[more at link]ELISABETH BENJAMIN: Well, the problem with the $900 billion number is that it actually... more

asherp
added this
24 days ago
|
0 comments

Write a to letter to Senator Joe LIeberman Demanding the passage of the public option

Dear the Honorable Joesph Lieberman You have very clearly expressed your... more

ksutherland27
added this
26 days ago
|
1 comment

Lieberman: Take public option off the table, come back to it in four years

Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) told Fox News today that Congress should strip the public... more

WakeUpPeople
added this
26 days ago
|
82 comments

The 1.6 million reasons Lieberman will filibuster

When he was seeking reelection in 2006, Joe Lieberman campaigned as a supporter of healthcare reform and expressed his support for “universal healthcare.” When the rubber hit the road, however, Lieberman emerged as a frontline warrior for the healthcare industry in its efforts to block reform. Yesterday, he not only noted his opposition to the very modest public option contained in the legislation that Majority Leader Harry Reid put forward, he also stated that he would cross the aisles to support a Republican filibuster. Should we be surprised? No. Lieberman has long been one of the industry’s favorite players on the hill, accepting more than $1 million in campaign contributions from the insurance industry and more than $600,000 from pharmaceuticals and related healthcare-products companies. But his ties run deeper than that. His wife Hadassah previously worked for two lobbying firms, Hill & Knowlton and APCO, handling matters for their healthcare and pharmaceuticals clients. Throughout the 2006 campaign, Lieberman pointedly refused to discuss the scope of his wife’s engagement for the healthcare industry or even the specific clients for whom she was working. But there seems to have been plenty of opportunity for synergy with Lieberman’s work in Congress. Joe Conason noted:

Among Hill & Knowlton’s clients when Mrs. Lieberman signed on with the firm last year was GlaxoSmithKline, the huge British-based drug company that makes vaccines along with many other drugs. As I noted in July, Sen. Lieberman introduced a bill in April 2005 (the month after his wife joined Hill & Knowlton) that would award billions of dollars in new “incentives” to companies like GlaxoSmithKline to persuade them to make more new vaccines. Under the legislation, known as Bioshield II, the cost to consumers and governments would be astronomical, but for Lieberman and his Republican cosponsors, Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., the results would be worth every penny. Using the war on terror as their ideological backdrop, the pharma-friendly senators sought to win patent extensions on products that have nothing to do with preparations against terrorist attack or natural disaster.

As the New Haven Register, Lieberman’s hometown newspaper, noted in an editorial headlined “Lieberman Crafts Drug Company Perk,” that bill is even more generous to the pharmaceutical industry than a similar proposal by the Senate Republican leadership. “The government can offer incentives and guarantees for needed public health measures,” it said. “But it should not write a blank check, as these bills do, to the pharmaceutical industry that has such a large cost to the public with what may be an uncertain or dubious return.” What the editorial didn’t mention was that the Lieberman bill had also been written by Chuck Ludlam, a former pharmaceutical industry lobbyist who then worked on the Connecticut senator’s staff. From his office to his bedroom, Lieberman was totally surrounded by current and former employees of Big Pharma. Ludlam has since retired, and Mrs. Lieberman has quit her job too — but Lieberman still looks like a politician wholly owned by one of the nation’s most troublesome special interests. And while his campaign may not believe that the moralizing senator should he held accountable for those dubious relationships, the press and the public may think otherwise.When he was seeking reelection in 2006, Joe Lieberman campaigned as a supporter of... more