Democrats Say 'Go' - Republicans Say 'Wait'

He's from Florida.

I believe that should be Bill Nelson, not Ben.

Ben, Bill, Maj. Tony, what's the diff? If they serve on the committee the only excuse for not being there is family death and/or swine flu.

Good point, Rusty. I would hate for lawmakers to unintentionally write a bill that had far broader consequences than what they intended. At least we know Republicans will be sure to insist that such a leap to rush through legislation never happens.

Won't matter, Pluk - Repubs won't vote for it anyhoo. Dean Smith would be proud of their four-corners offense...with no shot clock.

nfl...
I'd suggest that it very much matters, because the GOP's prospects in 2010 (and 2012) rests in large part on whether they are perceived as "obstructing" a good health care reform bill, or whether they are seen an "standing up for Americans" by trying to stop a bad health care reform bill.
_
And if anything like the Baucus bill -- something with an "individual mandate" that forces people to subsidize insurance companies profits -- passes, its going to be seen as a bad bill.

Let's say that something passes (and likely will). If, like the stimulus, positive signs result, you can bet the 'Pubs are screwed for years, if not decades. As of now they have no alternative to the status quo so their only hope is for the law to fail so they can -- once again -- campaign from the standpoint that the Dems are worse than they are. The game is played both ways, I know, but why can't we change the rules for gosh sakes?

Yeah great plan except for the fact that only the finance committee has jurisdiction over the money that will be needed to pay for it. When the GOP was in power and they wanted to abolish the filibuster to totally neuter opposition and Democrats screamed to high heaven so now that we will live with the rules because without them, when the and if the nuts ever get back in charge they won't be able to just implement even more of their craziest schemes.

I'd like to read stuart's ideas too. Also, he tends to create debates from his thoughts, so maybe he's the only one here who can contribute original ideas and get discussion. I've tried and only get crickets. I'm sick of this crap.

dollared:

you are on this blog all day

It's amazing that I can do this and at the same time am on the verge of completing a major software/database project. I need to spend more fun time with my incredibly lovely and brilliant wife (http://img14.yfrog.com/i/q45.jpg/ , http://twitpic.com/axkbi , http://twitpic.com/bagnv), don't you think?

You are sufficiently informed and we read you.

I am insufficiently informed, which is why I'm constantly here asking the pro journalists for help in that enterprise, but my sincere thanks for taking the trouble to read what I put up here .

What should we do to reform health care?

I don't know, but I what I do know is that the fundamental premises of reform should be:
.
A) the reduction of US health care costs from $7290 per person to at or below the OECD average of $2964 ( http://www.correntewire.com/national_health_expenditures_oecd_countries_2007_pictures )
.
B) the provision of quality, affordable health care to every American as part of their citizenship contract with the state, much the same way that every citizen expects their nation to act to prevent attacks by terrorists
.
C) the rejection of a "politics first" & "art of the possible" approach to health care reform, and the acceptance of whatever political risks come with reform, the assumption being that, if we could pass Social Security without guaranteeing the destruction of the Democratic Party or liberalism, we can pass health care reform that puts us both a long way toward solving our problems, and firmly in the role of partners of middle class families
.
I have some ideas, but I don't know where to go to have them checked by people who can credibly correct my information and understanding of the current system.
.
Many of my reform ideas are horrifyingly mundane, and so would be very difficult to rally support around, and very easy to demagogue in today's political media.
.
For example, one of those ideas would be to do away with or drastically restructure Medicaid rebates to drug manufacturers.
.
Look at this piece here http://tinyurl.com/mrsf8r :

Democratic Senators Propose Medicare Drug Rebates
.
Source: The Wall Street Journal
.
By Alicia Mundy July 24, 2009
.
WASHINGTON -- Freshman Sen. Jeff Merkley of Oregon and 21 other Democrats have asked Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus to require pharmaceutical companies to pay the government rebates on certain drugs provided under Medicare, as a way of helping fund a health-care overhaul.
.
Under the proposed rebates, drug makers would pay back to the government some of the difference between higher prices charged for medicine under Medicare and the lower prices that are charged under Medicaid. In 2006, low-income seniors covered by Medicaid were moved into Medicare, which provides health care for the elderly.
.
"We say we're trying to reduce costs, and this has been scored at $63 billion even if the companies only do rebates on low-income seniors," said Mr. Merkley in an interview Friday, referring to Congressional Budget Office estimates of how much the government might save over a decade through such rebates.
.
Early this year, brand-name drug makers and their lobby, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, or PhRMA, began a campaign on Capitol Hill and at the White House to prevent rebates, which they call "price controls," from resurfacing in the health-care debate.
.
In a statement, PhRMA's senior vice president, Ken Johnson, said: "The inclusion of mandatory rebates in [Medicare] Part D would undermine the benefit's market-based approach that has led to unprecedented savings for seniors on their prescription medicines." He said the steps could stifle pharmaceutical companies' innovation.
.
Mr. Merkley said Medicare drug costs are artificially high because the government isn't allowed to negotiate prices directly with companies.
.
His letter says that if negotiation isn't permitted, the government should demand the return of Medicare D rebates, and that should be part of the Senate's health-care legislation. The letter's signatories include Sen. Barbara Mikulski of Maryland; Dianne Feinstein of California, and Chuck Schumer of New York.

I'm starting to think that the prices that Americans pay for drugs are wildly, artificially high, just like the cost of money is wildly, artificially low thanks to the Federal Reserve.
.
What may be necessary is that the US government
.
1) simply says to PhRMA "We're not going to pay a dime more than Japan does for drugs, period."
.
2) stops rebating drug companies for the excess prices of what the government buys
.
In case that didn't make sense, dollared, bear with me while I analogize for a minute:
.
Imagine that drugs were computers, and that Dell sold computers to the US government in massive quantities every year.
.
Let's say that the Feds used the bargaining power of such volume purchasing to demand lower prices for those computers, like governments do around the industrialized world.
.
Now imagine what the effect on computer prices would be. In a transparent market, there would be a price floor created on what the cost of computers were, because every buyer in every market would rationally expect to pay a bit more than what the government paid, and they would know what that price was. The government's price would be the lowest price in the market, and every buyer and seller of computers would adjust their expectations accordingly.
.
(As I mentioned earlier, this happens now with the price of money. When the Federal Reserve lowers or raises interest rates --the price of borrowing money from the central banks-- the private markets follow suit, and everybody knows what the price of money is, since the news is made public.)
.
But what if a different scheme were in effect?
.
What if Dell could somehow convince the government that it would be better to overpay above that negotiated minimum price, and then make it up to the Feds by paying the government back a rebate?
.
What if Dell told the Feds that it would be just like when their computer buyers bought a PC online for $999, and then got a $100 rebate check from Dell in the mail six weeks later (like in this mail in rebate form here http://tinyurl.com/lg2dcv)?
.
What if those rebates were less than transparent, too?
.
What would happen to the price-floor on computers?
.
It would rise from what it was before the rebate scheme, wouldn't it? It would sit at the higher pre-rebate price, no?
.
In fact, if the rebates on computer prices were significant enough --a computer could cost the government $1000 initially, but have a $500 rebate-- Dell could keep the price of computers in the entire market up above the $1000 range, couldn't it?
.
And since the government had moved from negotiating real computer prices with Dell to negotiating rebate amounts and rebate details, negotiations would have less of a chance of stopping Dell from raising initial prices to the government, too, since the market's price was so high...see how that might work?
.
I think that this scenario --or something very much like it, only worse-- is what's going on with the drug market, dollared.
.
I want to fundamentally change that system as a part of reform, so that prices are set transparently and as simply as possible.
.
Unfortunately, that kind of reform requires the premise C) be adopted by reformers. It requires that the political process have enough integrity to withstand a massive ad campaign to sway the public against "socialism" and "price controls". It requires the patriotic will to rise to the defense of our nation and its citizens. It requires the skill and desire necessary to explain to Americans how their system works, and how it doesn't work for them.
.
Anyway, you asked, so I hope that this helps explain a little bit of what I think may be necessary to lift our country out of the health care grave it has dug for itself.
.
Thanks for reading and considering this, dollared.
.
(Back to the database now!)

But all of a sudden it's relative. See also "poll taxes".

Truth is never a bad thing, nor does it become un-true simply because you do not feel the source is always telling the truth.
.
We can only wish that our elected officials in Washington had only our best interests at heart. That they were always telling the turth, no matter what so help me God.
,
We can only hope that when they take the oath to protect and defend the Constitution that they do so freely without any lobbyist twisting their arms.
.
Unfortunately, our elected officials have their own interests at heart well before they have the average American. Why else would they have poll numbers that are the lowest of all time.