Olympia Snowe
The senior Senator from Maine may well be the most closely watched person on Capitol Hill these days. In the upcoming issue of dead-tree TIME, I have a story that examines what drives her in the health debate and the stamp she has already put on the legislation. The question I couldn't answer: Will she end up voting for it?
-
1
shorter KT...
I'm going to write a valentine to another republican, because that's what the health care parasites want, and I don't give a flying f*ck about progressives whose ideas on health care reform are based on fact, not ideology and campaign contributions.
_
Seriously, everyone has read this before, if they've ever read a profile of a Republican or "Conservadem" from Karen....-
1.1
pluk - Thanks for telling this like it is. It would have been enlightening for KT to pick Snowe's brain as to why she opposes the Public Option. I mean BCBS of Maine could use at least ONE competitor, right?
Alas Snowe's interest in "affordability" seems limited to tapping Uncle Sam's deep pockets to further subsidize the BCBS monopoly. She has shown zero interest in anything that would actually control costs.
Once she's secured the subsidies and gutted any taxes on her patrons I'm certain she'll vote NO. After all she helped craft the flaws in this bill, so she knows them better than anybody.
-
1.2
Snowe's "no" vote on the bill is of no consequence, since there are at least 50 Dems who are likely to support a decent bill. Snowe's vote is only important in terms of achieving cloture to stymie a GOP filibuster -- but is no more important in that regard than the vote of any of the Democratic senators who could also vote against cloture.
_
Snowe, in other words, is only important because KT and her bosses have deemed it important to present her views as "moderate" and "in good faith". Its about the agenda of Time Inc and KT, and has nothing to do with the facts which underly the rationale for health care reform.
-
-
2
"Will she end up voting for it?"
I suppose that will depend on whether she is willing to compromise on the public option, in the same way the Democrats have compromised on the things she wanted in the bill.
-
3
Is it healthy for our system when one Senator can hijack a bill the way Snowe is doing? I am getting really p'd off at the way both Collins and Snowe play their game. All the Baucus Plan has shown is that we have a bunch of Senators who are beholden to their financial supporters. The public good is the least of their concerns, until the next election.
-
3.1
As the story notes, Snowe has actually been responsible for some significant improvements to the bill, which is something you cannot say about the other Republicans, who have just been saying no.
-
3.2
i think you could also argue that the trigger, while not satisfactory to public plan advocates, is closer to what they want than the co-ops are.
-
3.3
i think you could also argue that the trigger, while not satisfactory to public plan advocates, is closer to what they want than the co-ops are.
_
translated into 'non-insurance company shill', this would read...
_Progressive should approve of Olympia Snowe because she uses a slightly smaller spoon to shovel bullsh*t down their throats
_
OVER ONE MILLION DOLLARS FOR SNOWE IN CONTRIBUTIONS FROM LOBBYISTS FOR HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANIES, DRUG COMPANIES, AND FOR PROFIT HEALTH PROVIDERS. YET THAT FACT DOESN'T GET MENTIONED BY KT.....
-
-
4
While I am stunned and saddened to discover that pluk is critical of something I have written (not), I think I should note that in the course of reporting this story, I talked to a number of progressive health care leaders in maine, including democratic congresswoman chellie pingree and joseph ditre, executive director of consumers for affordable healthcare. while they do not agree with everything snowe has to say on this issue, they were uniform in their praise of her effort and her grasp of the problems they confront in their state. the words "good faith" came up in pretty much every interview.
-
4.1
where is your profile of those progressives, Karen? That's really the point here -- your consistent shilling for those who represent the interests of insurance companies.
_
Here's a clue --- every time you focus inefficiencies in health care delivery rather than inefficiencies in payment for health care, you are acting on behalf of the insurance companies. Massive savings can be achieved through single payer or a really strong public option -- and doing so is relatively simple when compared to the radical change that the "mayo clinic model" represents. Your refusal to consistently report on the efforts of progressives to change the bill for the better, and your cosistent focus on Conservadems and Republicans, make a major contribution in where the debate is focussed -- and that focus is where AHIP and PhRMA want it to be, not where the American people need it to be. -
4.2
Pluk,
I don't think that it takes a genius to realise that the focus on Snowe is not necessarily because any one person agrees with her totally; but rather because she clearly holds an important seat at the table which will be critical to the issue of whether reform happens or not.
I count myself as a progressive but I have to say your strident tone and absolute refusal to deal with anything that doesn't represent your version of an ideal bill to be a turn off and, more importantly, just slightly more constructive than the Jim demints of this world. Can you say "party of no"?
On your point re inefficiencies in delivery vs payment aren't the two intertwined? if the delivery systems are made more efficient they will cost less - that's a fairly simple concept to grasp.
I think maybe you will feel better if no reform happens and you are still shouting for single payer 10 years down the line.
-
4.3
I don't think that it takes a genius to realise that the focus on Snowe is not necessarily because any one person agrees with her totally; but rather because she clearly holds an important seat at the table which will be critical to the issue of whether reform happens or not.
_
homer, Snowe is only as important as every other senator whose vote could be decisive in determining whether a filibuster can be sustained. That means that Snowe is no more or less important than every single democrat whose vote is needed just as much to get to "60" as is Snowe's.
_
This, of course, includes numerous supporters of a strong public option (and even single payer advocates like Bernie Sanders). If Bernie Sanders refuses to vote for cloture, it doesn't matter if Olympia Snowe votes for cloture, cloture is not achieved.
_
The issue here is that Karen plays a significant role in setting the agenda -- and she consistently ignores and/or marginalizes anyone whose opinion is strongly at odds with the health care parasites. If she were to focus on the question of whether progressives will refuse to support legislation that does not include a sufficiently strong public option, that question would become important. Instead, she frames issues solely in terms of the health care parasites.
_
(BTW -- IMHO, she's actually operating as a 'shill-by-proxy' --- the parasites are calling the shots with the White House and Baucus, and KT is simply repeating their talking points in order to maintain access.)
_
On your point re inefficiencies in delivery vs payment aren't the two intertwined? if the delivery systems are made more efficient they will cost less - that's a fairly simple concept to grasp.
_
yes, but the key to achieving real efficiencies throughout the health care system is centralization, and absent a single payer system, or a "public option" that controls enough of the market to force efficiencies, there is simply no way to cut costs.
_
That's why KT's constant pushing of Mayo as a model is so ridiculous. Mayo not only finds ways to avoid treating poorer patients (who wind up being readmitted to hospitals for health problems because they lack the support and/or resources to follow post-hopitalization instructions), they also pay their doctors much more than average. Karen is pushing a system that achieves efficiencies by cherry picking on both ends of the personnel equation -- both doctors and patients -- and when you achieve "efficiency" through cherry picking, its impossible to transfer your methods systemwide.
_
-
-
5
Good to know, KT, that Snowe is tagged with the "good faith" seal of approval. But is this bill about what can be done to help all Americans or just the people of Maine? At what point should the 100 think of the country as a whole and the millions of uninsured?
-
5.1
Maine's problems are a real microcosm of what confronts the country as a whole. If anything, its insurance market is more screwed up than most. And it is a state that has really tried on its own to implement reform, discovering along the way that there are real limits to what even the best intentioned state can do by itself.
-
5.2
We have had several extensive discussions of Maine's situation here in the comments section.
-
5.3
"Maine's problems are a real microcosm of what confronts the country as a whole. If anything, its insurance market is more screwed up than most. And it is a state that has really tried on its own to implement reform, discovering along the way that there are real limits to what even the best intentioned state can do by itself."
.
While Karen does a very good job of making it sound like Maine has tried very hard to implement "healthcare for all", she neglects to also say how badly their system has failed their citizens.
."Meanwhile, the state's taxpayers have spent $154.8 million to keep the program operating, premiums have increased, and the average subsidy cost is $300 per person per month."
.
"The Maine Legislature recently approved a tax on paid health care claims that lawmakers say will generate $38 million to help pay for the costs of the program." (Sound familiar??)
.
"About 3,400 (36 percent) of the enrollees in the Maine plan were uninsured before joining the plan. The remainder (64 percent) left their private insurer to be in the state plan." (With this many people flowing over into the "State backed plan, it quickly overwhelmed the entire system)
.
“Despite initial promises, it hasn't covered most of the uninsured,” he said. “And yet it has led to higher taxes on thousands of Maine residents who were already struggling to pay for private coverage. In short: Dirigo (the State's )"Public Option") turned out to cause the same problems in Maine that some of us are predicting for all Americans, if Congress rushes to approve a national government plan.”.
Costs rose significantly since the program began, according to a report by the Maine Heritage Policy Center. (<===Click here)
.
“The odd DirigoChoice subsidy structure coupled lower deductibles and lower out of pocket limits with higher premium subsidies, which meant the people paying the least for their DirigoChoice plan also had the smallest amount of cost sharing,” the study said.
.
“This created an unsustainable utilization which leads to skyrocketing premium increases and the related subsidy costs paid by taxpayers. Premiums increased an astounding 74 percent in just four years – between the DirigoChoice product introduction in January 2005 and January 2009,” it added.
.
Yes, even with the facts laid out before their very eyes that this will never work, they continue to put pressure on us all to approve a most rediculous plan.
.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/52037 -
5.4
Thanks for the replies to this, Karen. As a Mainer, I can tell you you're right on with what's happening here. For years we aggressively tried a voluntary co-op system. The problem is, until the system could get well underway with huge buy-in, it would always be more expensive than the (already outrageous) other options. Getting people to foot a bigger bill at the start, in the hope of it snowballing in size so that everyone's bill can come down, simply didn't work here.
I'm a Dem, and I'm in general proud of my two GOP Senators. I'm disappointed that Collins is off the HC ship at the moment; I think her reasoning is wrong. I think Snowe is presenting a sincere voice of reason in trying to get a good bill that does what it's supposed to do, all the while fighting the most virulent voices in her own party. I hope her efforts lead to a better bill, and I hope it's passed this year.
-
5.5
Rusty, you're missing the biggest problem, not enough buy-in. Look at the numbers. 3400 = 36% of all Dirigo members. So 100% is less than 10,000 members. In a state whose population is 1.3 million.
Dig further. 64% left their private insurer (almost always Anthem in Maine) to join Dirigo. That's about 6000 people. So again, in a state with 1.3 million people, less than 0.5% left Anthem to get something cheaper. Do you think Anthem gave a rat's patootie about losing 0.5% of the state? That wasn't -nearly- enough to get them to rein in their costs. Only a flood of people leaving them would have helped. And the flood never came.
In the end, it's no wonder that a plan covering such a tiny fraction of the population simply couldn't compete cost-wise, couldn't bring a big enough whammy to the negotiating table.
-
5.6
"Rusty, you're missing the biggest problem, not enough buy-in."
.
And again, with the current Baccus Plan, we have the same exact situation. There is no requirement that everyone take on a "Public Option" or Government backed insurance plan.
.
The only thing that MAY save this from becoming a boondoggle program like in Maine is if Congress passes a MANDATE that "Everyone will be required to have health insurance". If they make any exceptions at all I predict you will see exactly what Maine has been going through for the past few years.
.
Those who have good insurance, or insurance that is paid for by their employers will simply stay with those plans, this would be the same as your "Anthem" insured group you refer to above.
.
Then you have those who pay part of their premiums, or have plans that are high deductible plans or out of pocket, and those people will go to the "Government backed plan". Then you have the uninsured. That group will opt for the Medicaid, as they are increasing the thresholds so that more poor people will qualify.
.
In summary, all that will happen is those who have poor insurance now or high deductibles will make up the majority of the Government-backed plan. There is not enough people to sustain the whole plan.
.
Tax payers will simply be taxed more to cover the difference. This is what I think they want to do to make those of us who have a good insurance plan in our current plans to be taxed as income. They will simply spread that money over to the Government backed plan to cover expenses, but I do not think that will be enough money.
.
The other thing they are planning on doing is cutting Medicare. Cutting approximately 300 BILLION of current funds that seniors receive now. In my mind that is also not fair for them to pay by cuts from already existing plans in Medicare in order to help out those who do not have insurance.
.
If there has to be anything, and there is going to be a "Government" insurance, I personally knowing now what all the potential problems will be would sooner see a mandated Government Option that was Universal that we all have to choose from rather than this plan at all. This would put the private insureres out of business except for some policies that they would create to increase benefits to coincide with the Universal plan. Like how it was before they had HMOs. People would have Medicare A and B, and buy a policy to cover the 20% they had to pay out of pocket.
-
-
6
She's voting with the Dems on most every mark-up, so it would be a real disaster for the Dems if she defected now.
-
7
I'd like to see some reporting on why Snowe is being pursued so rigorously by the Democrats. Surely no one in their right mind believes her vote would make this a bipartisan bill? There must be other motivations at work. Just taking a wild stab at it, I would guess there are some motivations that may be related to money, and who gets it. Why are those so-called "centrists" in the Democratic party so determined to kill the public option, which contrary to the efforts of the MSM, is not an extremist idea. What motivates them to insure that the private insurers have no competition?
-
7.1
Snowe is being pursued because she's vulnerable to a Democratic challenger in 2010, but not vulnerable to a wingnut primary challenge from her own party.
_
So Snowe has to find a middle ground between representing the health care parasites that she's a shill for (she's pocketed over $1 million in contributions from the parasites) and the people of Maine.
_
Karen, of course, never mentions the enormous sums of money that Snowe has received from the health care parasites -- reporting on who owns the people she profiles is apparently not relevant to her stories... -
7.2
"Karen, of course, never mentions the enormous sums of money that Snowe has received from the health care parasites -- reporting on who owns the people she profiles is apparently not relevant to her stories..."
.
She does have her hands full threading the needle between the extremes, and propping up the middle ground fallacy. -
7.3
Does any reporter ever report on that? Is that taboo or something? I think all articales about politicions should start with who's paying them the most.
-
-
8
Surely no one in their right mind believes her vote would make this a bipartisan bill?
.
It's the Filibuster. With the current make up with the Senate, The Dems need to either have a Filibuster-proof margin or push the bill through reconciliation...(why not?)
.
What I find more fascinating is that there's only one Republican in the entire Senate that actually seems to care about the actual effects and consequences of her actions. The rest would prefer to destroy the Village in order to save it.-
8.1
Paul Snowe's numbers are dropping. I would put the public option in and dare her to vote against it. I wouldn't create a civil war in the Democratic party just to please her, unless of course I was motivated by something else, like fear of a very powerful lobby. The filibuster concern is starting to look like a convenient excuse to drop the public option. Use reconciliation and let whoever is in power, a few years from now, be the ones to dismantle it, just like they wanted to get rid of social security.
-
-
9
First and foremost I commend Snowe on wanting the total price tag for what this is going to cost our country. It is not only a fiscally wise thing to do, but in the big picture, we must make sure that this will not put such a burden on the Government bank account, now deficit, that in a few years it becomes un-sustainable.
.
With that said, I also can appreciate and understand affordability. What good is it to pass a plan that the bottom 50% have all of their insurance needs met, and pay very little of the overall taxes the IRS collects. The top 25% do not have to worry because they make alot of money, despite paying 85% of all the taxes. It is exactly those who fall between the bottom 50% and the top 25% who will now struggle. The vast majority who currently have insurance and are happy with what they have.
.
We are simply shifting the burden to those people between the bottom 50% and the top 25%. This group as always gets screwed.
.
I predict with this bill if you make between 50k to 100k per year, you can count on paying 15k for your insurance. The company you work for will pay a huge penalty, and you will be taxed yet to boot for your 15k policy as income.
.
We must encourage our representatives to pass legislation that is smart, and fair at the same time. Thankfully there are a lot of people who fall in what I call the middle 25%. Hopefully they will wake up, really read what the impact of this legislation does to them and then voice their concerns.
.
http://www.american.com/archive/2007/november-december-magazine-contents/guess-who-really-pays-the-taxes -
10
Information about Snowe that KT doesn't want you to know can be found at...
_
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/10/snowes-ties-to-health-car_n_213798.html
_
it details not just her massive campaign contributions (one million may not seem like much, but in a state with as few people as Maine, its a great deal of money) from the parasites, but also the numerous connections that her current and former staff has with lobbyists for the parasites (its a major revolving door situation....) -
11
I watch Laurence O'Donnell on MSNBC and was appalled when he said, with a straight face, that staffers are really in charge of writing up the bill. An aide to Danile Moynihan, he made it clear that the last thing that bothered him was the voter. And given the ease with which staffers turn lobbyists and back to staffers it is clear that "bought and paid for" is the governing practise.
-
12
Karen I admire her wanting to help small business.
I am glad she is concerned about the affordability for the lower income, but she seems to fall short in how far she is willing to go on that point. She does not want to spend any more money to do so.
One major insurer in her state! You would think that she would welcome the Public Option.
When you were in Maine did you check out the government option that Maine has that is so popular that they had to limit new members as they did not have the money to provide for them? Did you question her more on Maine's problems?
-
-
12.2
Thank you Karen, I think sacoharry made good reasons on why we need a strong National Public Option.
Who is better able to compete with private insurance?
State by State will not work. -
12.3
caro, Maine doesn't have a "public option".... instead it subsidizes private insurance under the mantle of "DirigoCare."
_
Maine has relied on private companies (first WellPoint, now "Harvard Pilgrim Health Care") the efficiencies that can be achieved through a public option never happened. (Wellpoint was spending on 82 cents of every DirigoCare dollar on providing health care, the rest was for marketing, administration, and profits.)
_
But the big reason for the failure of DirigoCare had to do with the lack of "mandates" -- the subsidies provided enabled the sick/uninsured to enter the insured pool, thus driving up costs of insurance, which provided disincentives for healthier people to keep their insurance, resulting in a less healthy pool of insured people, thus driving up rates again, ad infinitum. As rates went up, so did the subsidies provided under DirigoCare -- to the point where the state does not allow new participation in the program because it can't afford the subsidies.
-
-
13
What's Senator Snowe's view on Maine's experiment with universal coverage?
-
13.1
they never had a mandate, so there never really was a route to true universal coverage, just encouragement of it. interestingly, the individual mandate is now snowe's biggest reservation about the bill. not that it's a bad idea, but that she thinks the economy (and the middle class) couldn't handle one at this particular moment.
-
13.2
Tks yr reply.
What's up with Carper's admission re: WH/Big Pharma deal? Isn't an agreement to do ads etc. a possible violation of campaign finance laws?
-
13.3
Doubt it, because this isn't (technically) a political campaign. there's no candidate on the ballot. it is a public policy debate. (Which means this is more akin to "issue ads.")
-
13.4
Thx--I'm no expert in that area. But an agreement to run ads etc. seems, uhhh, very very fishy. Strange that Carper's admission wasn't treated as that big of a deal, especially since it went against WH dissembling on the issue.
-
-
14
The "numbers" are now in from the CBO, and Baccus just said that "they are not for public viewing yet". Meaning, the numbers are so bad he won't release them for fear of automatically killing this bill.
-
14.1
funny you should bring those numbers up. i was desperately trying to get the revised ones in advance of my dead-tree deadline yesterday. they wouldn't give even an estimate to me, at least not on the record, which suggests they were in flux at that point.
-
14.2
rusty...
The "out of balance" amount doesn't have to be that great for baucus to want to keep the numbers out of the public eye.
_
But the fact that they are apparently "out of balance" is another (indirect) argument in the quiver of those who want a CBO estimate based on "legislative language". Baucus thought that his "revised Chairman's mark-up" would be in balance because he relied upon cost estimates for individual revisions to maintain the "deficit neutral" aspect of his proposal.
_
But when the CBO considered all the changes he made, the "whole" was greater than the sum of its parts when it came to additional costs.
_
Note, however, that this is just an indirect argument in favor of a CBO estimate based on legislative language, because in this case the estimate change is still based on "conceptual language".
-
-
15
As an aside, what are the arguments against allowing people to buy insurance out of state?
.
On the surface, being able to buy out of state seems to be a no-brainer. Spread the pool, hugely increase competition, lower prices, etc. But in the back of my mind I vaguely remember hearing pretty sound reasons why it could backfire. But I don't remember them at the moment.
.
Could someone point me to an objective argument of the pro's and con's for such a move?-
15.1
Health insurance is regulated at the state level.
.
Some states require insurance plans to cover certain types of health care providers or provide certain types of health benefits. Other state regulations affect the rating rules for insurance or the ability of insurance plans to exclude people from coverage.
.
The argument is that this would lead to all the insurance companies relocating to the state with the most favorable (for them) regulations.
.
And, I suppose, a race among states to loosen regulations in an efffort to attract the business. -
15.2
As an aside, what are the arguments against allowing people to buy insurance out of state?
_
its all about preventing the lowest common denominator from becoming the prevailing means of insurance.
_
Lets say you live in a state that vigorously enforces insurance standards. That means that premiums are likely to be higher than in states where insurance companies are allowed to get away with murder (literally, in some cases.)
_
As a result, you buy the cheaper "out of state" policy -- and when that insurance company shafts you and refuses to pay for treatments that you thought were covered, and as a result you declare bankruptcy, its the people in YOUR state that wind up paying for your health care.
_
Ultimately, the whole "buying out of state insurance" is a canard, because anyone in a position to provide health insurance "out of state" is in a position to comply with the requirements of each state insurance commission. -
15.3
one other point ---
the "buy insurance from another state" argument does make sense if we have a strong national public option, and if insurance rates are based on a "national" community. The real impediment to the "across state lines" proposal is the insistence by ideologues on "competition" and continued "local" control of health care regulation.
-
-
16
So pluk, why can't we regulate? Plus, are mandates that all insurance cover mental heath, birth control, etc. a good idea?
-
16.1
We should regulate -- but effective regulation can only happen when control is centralized.
_
and its because of ideologues who ignore the evidence from the rest of the developed world regarding how successful centralized health care policy decision-making is that we don't get effective regulation.
_
as for mandates -- absolutely in terms of mental health. As far as birth control (and abortion) is concerned, insurers must be mandated to provide policies that cover both at no additional charge (since birth control and abortion services are cheaper than providing maternity services) although they should be permitted to offer policies that don't cover abortion if they feel like it. -
16.2
I dont think that's right. Why shouldn't people get to decide what coverage they are going to get? The regulations should cover things like denial of payment etc.
-
16.3
Why shouldn't people get to decide what coverage they are going to get?
_
because you don't get sick only from those conditions that are covered --- and in most cases, people tend to avoid necessary treatment for illnesses that aren't covered.
_
Eventually, the illness gets so severe that it requires treatment -- and that treatment will be far more expensive than if care had been sought when symptoms had first appeared (or as a result of "screening" tests.) And that means its more likely that the costs for your treatment will be borne by others, because you don't have the money to pay for the more expensive treatment.
-
-
17
KT:
.
Thanks so much for responding to commentary.
.
I'm still mulling over the issues with your Snowe piece that immediately jumped out at me, so I'll just say that I'm grateful for more information on this Senator.
.
Given that we only have 50 of these people out of a nation of 300 million, it's would be a good thing that Americans get familiar with this profoundly empowered elite (notwithstanding your Russertization of the Senator's "solidly working class" background).
.
I think that it's very important that we have a back and forth like this in good faith, KT, so thanks once again for sticking to the principles of engagement with commentary, and for your diligence and patience in this regard.-
17.1
Given that we only have 50 of these people out of a nation of 300 million
_
50?!?!?!?!
-
17.2
Did I say 50?
.
I'm so freaking busy today that is appears I have no idea how the Senate of the United States is composed.
.
This is one of those things that journalists are absolutely terrified of doing, apparently.
.
I'll handle this correction the way that journalists seem too traumatized by editors to manage:
.
Did I say 50?
.
Sorry, I obviously meant 100:Each U.S state is represented by two senators, regardless of population.
The source of that quote is here http://tinyurl.com/awe9h.
.
(now here's the important part:)
.
Thanks so very much for fact-checking me, Paul Lukasiak. That was very helpful, since I no longer look like an idiot after I acknowledged and made the correction.
.
You're so nice and generous to have done that fact-checking job for free, on your own time and at your own expense, Paul Lukasiak. You've volunteered to make Time.com a better product, and I am genuinely grateful for any assistance I can get.
.
Thanks again, that should be:Given that we only have 100 of these people out of a nation of 300 million
(see, pro journalists? that wasn't so hard...)
-
-
18
So let me get this straight.
.
Karen is a proxy shill for the parasites.
.
Rusty believe that nothing short of an individual mandate is required, and
.
Pluk is convinced that all of this kowtowing to Snowe is in vain as it is all at the behest of the corporate owners of D.C.
.
How about this? Bigger picture.
-
Why is it that so many other countries have adopted a single payer model?
-
What happens if we pass a reform bill and doesn't bring health care costs down?
-
Btw, to hear Rusty defend the seniors on Medicare is funny. The $300 Billion isn't there money anyways!! They are just lucky that most Americans are still willing to play along with this partial ponzi scheme just like social security, but much of my generation has written these programs off and the sooner we get rid of these crutches from the Great Depression the better this country will be.-
18.1
"Btw, to hear Rusty defend the seniors on Medicare is funny. The $300 Billion isn't there money anyways!! They are just lucky that most Americans are still willing to play along with this partial ponzi scheme just like social security, but much of my generation has written these programs off and the sooner we get rid of these crutches from the Great Depression the better this country will be."
.
Wow, finally a SANE voice from the left. Can we believe it???
.
Yes I couldn't agree more and also add that further ENTITLEMENT PROGRAMS like the one being proposed by our Progressive Democrats are bad for us all.
.
Medicare and Social Security ARE simply entitlement programs. But, where I defend the seniors who are receiving benefits from these two programs in order to survive, they did so paying into both of these programs over the years and they should not be shut out now that they are retired and living off of this money.
.
Both programs would be fully self-sustaining if our Government officials in Washington would have kept their hands off of this money in the first place. But, they have borrowed against it, simply taken money out of these programs in order to fund their big government deficits. (Yes, I do believe George Bush is guilty of it along with every President back to FDR, and including Obama today as we speak).
.
Now we want to create another monstrosity of Big Government entitlement programs?? It simply will not work. PERIOD. We will be back here in 10 years asking ourselves, "How will we continue to fund Universal Healthcare"?? Just like the folks up in Maine are asking the same questions now, since they have had a similiar program to what is being proposed for the Nation as a whole.
.
There are many other things which should be done first. But, people are too stubborn or stupid to see or take the time to fully understand all of the problems.
.
Things which I have said in the past that will not cost a dime in legislative reform:
.
1. Pass sensible Tort Reform.
2. Mandate that everyone, including illegals purchase healthcare insurance.
3. Open up the State to State ability for private insurers to sell their products by increasing demand and supply economics of Capitalism. No more semi-monopolies by insurance companies.
4. Enact stricter price controls for drugs, DME's, and Hospital / Doctor fees.
5. End the insurance company practice of "Pre-existing conditions".
6. Allow people to purchase "Catastrophic" insurance, if they cannot afford the more routine insurances out there today. (This could be the "Government Option")
7. Use the current Medicare or Medicaid programs to allow those people that fall at or below 400% of poverty level to qualify for these two insurance programs.
8. Pass legislation that requires businesses to have or provide group policies for their employees.
9. For those small businesses and self employed individuals, set up co-ops so that they can all "pool" their employees into a co-op insurance plan. This could also fall into the "Catastrophic" group of people as well.
-
-
19
KT, thanks for your post …and for bringing up the earlier sat. morning Maine tailgate. If everyone's on board for private or public policies, will this solve the Dirigo problem? But if mandated, are the Senators REALLY pondering penalties? As mentioned in earlier “doctoral thesis” to Jay, I think sending the IRS after common folks is a horrible idea. (My idea was to create an SSI-type system – you're already in and paying, so no penalty, but I digress.) But seriously, ahem, I hope the committee is looking at other ways to sign us up without penalties.
.
But if I remember, didn't Biden court Snowe for the stimulus? (insert double entendre) So is he already flirting with her for her HC input / vote? And are Snowe and Collins colleagues but NOT exactly BFF's (or am I wrong)? So can there be some game theory for Biden and other allies to play Snowe and Collins off each other and get both to vote aye in the end? Any thoughts here or hints from secret sources at the vending machine, KT? (I remember in “Barbarians at the Gate” some secret RJR-Nab. info. was passed along in the men's room but I won't ask about “leaks” in the public potty.) Thanks.-
19.1
lots of questions. re your SSI idea: i see the merit, policywise, but there's no way of getting around that this is a tax, right? also, it would work better in a single payer system, but for the government to collect money and then turn it over to insurance companies could be problematic. or am i understanding this wrong?
.
and, yes, your right on biden. i suspect they are in touch, but everyone at the white house is pretty focused on snowe at the moment. -
19.2
Thanks, KT! This is why feedback from you, Jay, Kate, and Amy is needed for our comments. I hope the Senators' staffers are secretly reading your blog at 3:00 to get ideas / numbers…we're trying to provide them but YOU can tell if we're on the right path or not.
.
On govt. collecting / distributing funds: if private insurance cos. join the exchange to offer policies, maybe they can be treated – and paid – like other govt. vendors such as drugs / equip. to the VA or hardware to the military? Just a quick thought; will ponder more …especially after reading Kate's late night Humana post / comments including contract law. Hopefully we're all helping YOU and your teammates to some degree. -
19.3
Wouldn't that, though, flatly violate Obama's pledge not to raise taxes?
-
-
20
this has been a great discussion so far. i'll be checking back in later today.
-
21
What happens if we pass a reform bill and doesn't bring health care costs down?
_
my prediction -- the next round of "health care reform" that takes place in 10 or 15 years will have Karen writing stories that center around the question of why "deregulation" is necessary to cut health care costs, because that is how the moneyed interests that set her agenda want to frame the debate. -
22
Pluk,
.
I think you may be onto something there. Imagine if we just wholesale deregulated the entire market for health care? You can sell insurance across state lines, get of hospital codes, get out of subsidizing care under Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHiP.
.
You would probably see the biggest Republican flip-flop in the history of the American politics as soon as all of their corporate sponsors called up demanding that the spigots of government be turned back on in their favor. -
23
Reading about Olympia Snowe's background made evident the strength of character and mettle she must have developed to cope with the terrible tragedies which she was dealt as a child.
She was orphaned very early in life and I am sure even though there must be political reasons to her being one of the few Senators willing to consider bi-partisanship in this Healthcare debate, growing up with the circumstances in which she had neither parent must have shaped her efforts to really connect with the masses. (Since she is probably the only Republican that could assist in filibusterer proofing the bill, I hope the Obama Administration keeps courting her with the zeal they have done thus far.)
Reading her comments about setting politics aside and working in the best interest of the people, it is very saddening to see that in the twenty first century, in the greatest country in the world, our Representatives are more concerned about towing party lines than the needs of their constituents.
Even though there might be clear ideological differences about the plan between the Democrats and Republicans (and even among the Democrats themselves) I find it difficult to believe that ALMOST all the Republicans are always on the same page when Obama makes a proposal.
Heck, even the Democrats have the now infamous Blue dogs and "Yellow cats" who oppose the bill because of their own conservative leanings but the Republicans speak, as it were, with one voice? It will be quite difficult to convince me that the constant disapproval of the Obama Healthcare plan, on the Republican side, by a near absolute majority is based on ideology alone.
The Republican Representatives are not a “Monolith”.. they need to stop trying to act like they are and approach the Healthcare bill with a less partisan perspective.
Nice piece Ms. Tumulty!
LM
-
24
6. Allow people to purchase "Catastrophic" insurance, if they cannot afford the more routine insurances out there today. (This could be the "Government Option")
7. Use the current Medicare or Medicaid programs to allow those people that fall at or below 400% of poverty level to qualify for these two insurance programs.
_
wow, rusty, you're starting to sound like a progressive.
_
you do realize that the 2008 poverty level for a family of four is $21,834 (http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/threshld/thresh08.html) -- in other words, a family of four making $87,336 would qualify to join medicare or medicaid under your proposal. And that would mean that over 77% of US households would qualify to medicare or medicaid! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States)
_
In other words, your proposal is basically to provide for a federally administered public option that covers almost all health care needs for the vast majority of Americans.
_
I'd be willing to support such a proposal, I just don't understand why you think its so important to restrict the options of the other 23% to only "public option" catastrophic coverage, or private insurance. If you're going to make Medicare or Medicaid available to 77% of US households, why not everyone?-
24.1
I may sound like one, but the rational side of me is saying if we are going to pass legislation for this rediculous proposal, then keep what we have and just make it more applicable to more people. Those that fall above 400% of the poverty level should be able to afford their own, private insurance. Thus keeping what little bit of our free enterprise, capitalist system intact.
.
However I am not confident that the program wouldn't go bust in the next 10 years due to the massive size it would become. It would simply implode upon itself and these people would be right where they are today, without healthcare.
.
Just 30 years ago, most all people simply had a "Castrophic" insurance plan. Better known as Major Medical. The insurance plan paid for 80% of the cost, you paid the other 20%. But those types of plans have quickly become non-existent because more and more employers were offering better plans to their employees. Major Medical insurance could no longer compete and were faded out of existence.
.
If we wanted to get more fiscally conservative, and yes save the tax payer from being taxed beyong belief, we could have a Government backed "Catastrophic" plan, like the old major medical plans and lower the 400% to more reasonable levels that can be sustained at 200% of poverty.
.
-
-
25
The weather in Washington's state capitol?
- ktumulty New Blog Entry, "Anthem Blue Cross Makes The Case For Health Reform" - http://tinyurl.com/yab3hjs - 1 hour ago
- ktumulty New Blog Entry, "For That Very Special Someone on Valentine's Day" - http://tinyurl.com/yg5qd4o - 3 hours ago
- ktumulty New Blog Entry, "Welcome to Swampland, Adam Sorensen!" - http://tinyurl.com/yadyarr - 12 hours ago
Most Popular »
- Undercover Boss Is Phony and Manipulative. But Don't Hold That Against It.
- NBC: There Was Never a Conan O'Brien
- NH Poll: Dems Face A Thumpin'
- Paul Ryan Won't Run For Prez In 2012
- Barack Obama: Then vs. Now
- Today's Health Care Checkup - GOP Plans Under the Spotlight
- Gibbs Mocks Palin, Tea Party Convention
- CO Gov Poll: Hickenlooper +4
- Do You Spend Less than $2,000 Annually on Internet, TV, Cell Phone Service, and Video Games?
- Love At First Byte: Your Nerdy Valentine's Day Guide
- Asian Carp Battle: Foreign Fish Threaten Great Lakes
- Is the Bible Fact or Fiction? Archaeology's Discoveries
- Spain's Troubled Economy: Fears Over Euro Zone Outlook
- Kennewick Man, Archaeology Find: Who Discovered America?
- Al-Qaeda, Yemen, Wedding: Unlucky Name, Celebration
- Tea-Party Convention: Lessons on Palin and the Movement
- Venezuela: Chavez Protests at Ball Game Over Electricity
- Jim Frederick, Black Hearts in Iraq's Triangle of Death
- Marja: Operation Moshtarak Tests Obama's Afghan War Plan
- Why China Needs The U.S. -- And Vice Versa
Quotes of the Day »
RSS