Senate Finance Healthcare Markup. Kerry...

there. He had a great opening statement.C-Span 1.

He made the point that they have been on this for 15 months - it is not "too quick" and people need it now. He ended by speaking of how in 2004, when he spoke to Kennedy, Kennedy said there were many ways to do it - and how you did it depended on how you wanted to land. He said it was a social justice and moral issue.

Here is a Daily Kos live blog of the markup. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/9/22/785101/-Mothership:-Live-Blogging-the-SFC-Health-Care-Mark-Up

I guess they forgot that they were likewise shocked at the 2008 convention that he gave what the NYT called the best non-acceptance speech at a Democratic convention in two decades! It is amazing that the media's own spin on Kerry makes them incapable of seeing that he regularly makes the best or one of the best cases for things he believes in.

Anyway, here's what they wrote:

"Here is a surprise, at least for some Democrats: Sen. John Kerry, (D-Mass.), the party's 2004 presidential nominee, gave perhaps the best statement of the day. He made a moral case for reform and offered a crisp rejoinder on timing to Hatch, Grassley and others.
Senators have been working on health care for years, Kerry said, and with Baucus specifically for the last 15 months. "Only in Washington could people suggest this is a rush," he said, adding it's time to seize the moment and not allow philosophical differences "to interminably delay" changes that are needed to save Americans from illness, death and bankruptcy.

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/09/23/health-reform-bill-starts-a-perilous-partisan-journey-through-t/

from Slate's Tim Noah, who was liveblogging the meeting: http://www.slate.com/id/2229192/



Too bad the senate doesn't issue dunce caps for the deserving. Wouldn't you love to see them sitting in the corner with their faces to the wall if they refuse to listen?

And speaking of great snark, I loved this comment on Salon: http://letters.salon.com/opinion/walsh/politics/2009/09/29/baucus/permalink/3c66e13ec078b7a691d9f1de33626315.html

defeat of the public option will not be the last vote on it. I am hoping either a public option or a short trigger public option gets into the bill.

Yeah, a lot of stupid people in the Senate, that's for sure. Mostly Republicans from the South (sigh).

Edit: Okay, not to be discriminatory, Corker & Graham, as annoying as they sometimes are, are Republicans from the South who do actually have brains in their heads.

...absolutely the best rebuttal to the GOP 'party of NO' talking points. If the media paid attention they wouldn't be so surprised. They are just dumb, Dumb, DUMB!!!! (Sorry...my frustration gets the best of me, sometimes. :7 )

in his support of an amendment introduced by Bill Nelson about having people that qualify both under Medicaid and Medicare pay the lower Medicaid rates for their prescription drugs, rather then the higher Medicare rates they pay now. Carper(D!!!) made some unbelievable comments against, something along the lines that we should not break the promises that were made to Pharma because nice people keep their promises. And there was more that I do not remember, unbelievable comments coming from a democrat, even a centrist one (is Pharma big in Delaware? I do not know...). Kerry decimated him, starting by calling his comments "stunning" (love it when he uses that word :-)). All this was in the late meeting, carried fortunately on CSPAN2 after the Senate was over.

On the gossipy side, it was interesting to see how at each other's throats (by Senate standards, of course) they already were after only one day, albeit a very long one. Hatch wanted to ask question after question from the staff members in the panel, Baucus was trying to convince him that he can also ask questions later, "what? after we have already voted? this is very important, it will affect one sixth of the economy, etc." said Hatch, a very pissed off Conrad intervened saying that he does not remember endless questioning being allowed when reducing taxes were discussed not so long ago, and that affected 100% of the economy, and so on. Grassley was the worst, snapping and making petty remarks ("we know who made a deal with Pharma even of you do not want to say it" - growl) right & left.

I did not watch that part and it sounds like Kerry was excellent. I too like his use of "stunning". It is interesting as it is an incredibly devastating word, but it does not sound the least bit angry or nasty. I think it could really only be used by someone who is an idealist. Kerry has the moral standing to use it.

As to Carper, what was he thinking? To qualify for both, they have to be extremely poor as well as over 65. I know there are lots of drug companies in NJ - not sure of DE.

...and it's important, IMO. It's why Kerry's rebuttal on the time issue was so good, and so appropritate. The Repubs want to stall...Dems say "It's time already!"

In committee, I think this makes the GOP look petty and pouty and childish.

...discussion. Thank you Senator Kerry for this amendment and for remembering those of 'squeezed' in the middle on this. Thank you Senator Stabenow for saying...out loud...that some retirees were FORCED to retire, and now find themselves risking health care loss. (Yes she was talking auto workers, but forced retirement is happening in education, too.)

The fact that the Dems on the Finance committee get this is heartening.

From watching, I think there may be one error - I think Kerry said the HELP ratio is 3:1 and MA is 2:1. The staffers estimate on the cost to the youngest - about $ 300, $150 more than the shift from 5:1 to 4:1 - really should not be a deal breaker. Grassley's comment seemed completely out of wack with reality and the staffers' estimates of the cost.

At the end of the article - Baucus questioned Kerry's comment that it was budget neutral and said he would speak to the CBO - Kerry laughed and said he would help him find the same person he spoke to. (I suspect that these ratios just shift costs among groups - the cost might come in only if there are special subsidies by age.)

http://www.lifeandhealthinsurancenews.com/News/2009/9/Pages/Health-Age-Band-May-Narrow.aspx

Another link on this - with video

http://www.wwlp.com/dpp/news/massachusetts/wwlp_local_health_care_battle_continues_200909261126

A shift from $150 to $300 to $450 is very big for most people. To allow that to expand even more as people age is a large part of the problem people over 50 have now. Keeping that ratio at least at 3:1 is key to making rates somewhat even over a lifetime. I've seen nothing about subsidies based on age at all. They're based on income, regardless of age or illness or anything else that has traditionally affected premium price. People are so caught up in the public option, which I just don't see as all that important, that they're missing some of the things that are really going to matter as to whether people can afford what they're going to be mandated to pay.

As JK said, the public option is not going to be an entitlement. The CBO estimates it'll be about 10% cheaper. So a $300 premium would be $270. The people who can't afford $300, won't be able to afford $270. The subsidies are going to have to help pay for the public option too. I don't think a lot of people are understanding this. They think it's going to work like Medicare and it isn't.

I wrote that very badly. Jk was trying to get the ratio to 2:1 (as it in in MA) or at least 3:1 as in HELP. The comment on the $150 was that I think they said that shifting cost the youngest people $150 annually.

I agree with you that many people don't understand that the choice of plan (private or public) and the subsidies are two separate issues. Many think the private option has no premium - like medicare. If you qualify for a subsidy, it will pay part of a private plan or a public one.

piece. It links to an op-ed co-authored by Kerry

is COnrad officially pro-life? He just voted in committee for a "no funding of abortions" Hatch amendment. The only D to vote for it, and Snowe voted no. ALso yesterday he was one of the 2 D votes (Lincoln the other) that caused an abstinence education funding amendment to pass. Even Baucus' jaw dropped when he saw the vote outcome (he had his own counter-amendment that also passed).

http://www.ontheissues.org/Social/Kent_Conrad_Abortion.htm

I assume that he voted for Hatch because it passing would take away one reason for conservative Democrats and to avoid one additional group of people urging people to vote against it. The second vote is actually consistent with his record of voting for any type of program on this.

one of Kerry's amendments

and he was incredibly persuasive. This is just common sense. It is amazing that he was still this clear headed and articulate at the end of very long Senate day.

Baucus' response is best described as "agitated". Now, if any of my kids answered a question like that - I would wonder what they were hiding or what they were up to. It was just weird - especially the snide little "states are different" This makes NO sense. First off, giving states the permission to do it, lets Montana - because it is very different than Massachusetts - NOT do it. However, if one person is getting all the data from all the plans and he/she sees a better way to do something - it makes sense if they get involved. Even in Montana.

Anyway, Kerry starts at about 680 minutes in on this - on the Oct 1 archive webcast that has a link here - http://finance.senate.gov/sitepages/hearings.htm

Unlike others here, I haven't followed ANY of the Finance Committee proceedings yet, and I just wanted to SCREAM when Baucus was being such an ass. He must hate JK being on this committee and actually trying to inject some amendments that would actually save people/states money. He was utterly dismissive and horrible. JK was speaking in a professional, considered way about serious improvements that would benefit everyone and not add costs and Baucus is all, like, "what, sorry I wasn't listening." Grr. I don't know how JK stands it, but he's got more patience than I would!

It's not quite as bad as when I listened to Bill Frist the other morning on a talk show where he kept slipping in jabs about the Democratic majority and LYING about all the money that was going to be cut from seniors on Medicare if the current plans went through. I hadn't thought he'd still have the power to make me insane with rage, but I was yelling at the radio as if it were 2005 again! LOL! But at least he's a REPUBLICAN! Baucus has no excuse.

Also - my point was that, though DC insiders may be right that Snowe was the reason this was rejected, the likelihood was that Baucus didn't want it - but, it is in the other bills and Kerry's arguments really were the type that should persuade anyone. I don't think he dislikes Kerry being there, because Kerry's good work often quietly helps him. (I would guess that he did get annoyed at Wyden at one point late that evening.)

To me he seemed embarrassed that he was taking an untenable position - and I doubt it was a coincidence that Kerry's amendment that was, according to Kerry filed weeks ago, was not scoured. (Though I can't imagine how you score it because it depends on how bad the plans are coming in. the worst they are, the more this is needed - and the 6% savings in MA are impressive.)

Sorry to fly off the handle based on 10 minutes of footage! I'll give them all another chance. :-)