Krugman: Very good news on health reform

Krugman (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/23/intimations-of-sanity/):

"Politico reports that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are working on a strategy that just might save health care: get the House to pass the Senate bill, while the Senate uses reconciliation — a process that avoids the need for a 60-vote supermajority — to address some of the concerns of House Democrats.

That’s very good news.

Of course, if they do this, there will be howls of protest — they’re defying the will of the 41-59 Republican majority in the Senate! This violates the very strange rules the Senate has imposed on itself. But I hope Democrats have learned by now that the public doesn’t know or care about such things.

Right now, the Democrats are, like it or not, the party of health reform. They can either be the party that passed reform, and at least stands for something, or the party that tried to get health reform but proved itself incompetent and weak in the process.

They need to pull this out."

It's like the advice always given to graduate students struggling for years through their dissertations, worried that it will not be worthy enough, or the big breakthrough, or publishable: the best dissertation is a DONE dissertation.

Same for this health care bill: just fricking get it done. You've had a year to argue, canoodle, bargain, poutrage, etc. It will never get any better, at this point in time. And if you don't pass it there will be two consequences: (1) Democratic politicians will be seen as incapable of governing altogether; and (2) health care reform will not be visited again for the next 15 years. It will become the 3rd rail of politics.

So again, just do it.

...stop apologizing for being in the majority-the people will respect it big time if they get it right

I love it when Tweety has to eat crow.

Greyson is trying to force through the thought that signficant policy changes can occur through reconciliation, while Mathews is right that only budgetary aspects can dealt with in reconcillation ...

Mathews had Greyson on that techinicality, so to speak and decided to pile on, but lost sight of the fact that the this process is still a viable, and in fact the big freakin obvious, route to go ...

the Democratic caucus had been meeting for weeks discussing the possibility of passing the Senate bill and using reconciliation to make amendments to it.

Tweety said that was preposterous, the Dem leaders were doing no such thing.

I fail to see how Tweety was correct in ANY way.

Where were they when the bill was being stripped of actual solutions to placate the 60 vote barrier?

Jeeze if they had been this pro-active earlier in the process we might actually have a good bill, instead of this lame attempt at saving face.

If they are using reconciliation, I hope that at they, at the very least, put back in a Medicare expansion - one that is stronger than the one Lieberman killed.

Reconciliation before would have resulted in what some people are suggesting: split the bill into smaller pieces and pass it. A lot would have been lost.

In this case, the Senate has already passed comprehensive reform, the reconciliation package is a bonus, delivering the what the House wants.

the voters don't like a "lot" of what was in the old bill. And, they wondered what happened to the public option, the Medicare buy-in, and single payer. All three were popular and are still popular. But oh, no, our Dems weren't listening! When you have polls staring you in the face that 70% of the people wanted a public option and you turn right around and slam it shut, well, you get what you got in MA.

What we know now is that the same people who keep distorting things will continue to do so.

There is very little difference between the House and Senate bill, and voters have not rejected the bills. Some want more, some want less (yes there are Independents who do not want a government run plan). What we know is that a shift in one area or another is going to pissed someone else off.

Seventy percent is huge. I didn't see polling on the Medicare buy in but I can tell you that for years I have heard from people in their 50s that they wish they could have Medicare. And a recent survey done by a couple of researchers who travelled around the country interviewing people about what they wanted in health care reform had a lot of people asking "What happened to Single Payer?"

I know there were some good things in the Senate bill, no doubt about it. But the glaring, 800 lb. gorilla in the room is that not one of the three aforementioned ideas, supported widely in the public, were shot down before even getting a hearing (single payer advocates thrown out of the Capitol building).

Individual mandates, without the public option, is a huge loser among the populace. With the PO it is at least tolerable. And I agree that we must have the individual mandate (if we are not going to have Single Payer which would involve a tax, like Medicare). People like Medicare, even tho it involves being taxed, plus it made sense to build on an existing structure rather than imposing a rather creaky, new structure.

We could even avoid the "government run" plan if we went with something like the Swiss have, which are private companies. They are, however, nonprofits and are strictly regulated by the government. And there is a strong safety net for those who cannot affort the private plans. Ditto Netherlands in many ways (the Dutch invented capitalism, fer god's sake!).

It could all have been so different...I am saddened that our party chose this direction...we could add another chapter to "The March of Folly"...

Wanting a public option doesn't mean people want to scrap the reform.

You are reading them exactly as the insurance industry wants Obama and the Democrats to interpret them.

want him to work with Democrats on health care reform--presumably with an eye to improving it. It doesn't suggest that health care reform that does not include a public option will enjoy majority support, if that's what you're claiming. Indeed, the polling for health care reform went underwater when the Senate dropped the public option and ever since then those "against" have exceeded those "for." In my view the Senate bill's worth passing, but for policy's sake--and not incidentally their own reelections--congressional Democrats should pass a public option by hook or by crook, or indeed nuclear option.

How about you take your own advice and read the fucking bills?

With a few exceptions, how the bills are paid for and the public option vs. the OPM administered exchange, the bill are almost exactly alike.

n/t

a "government run plan" are called Teabaggers. We don't give a fuck what they want or don't want.

The American people did not sweep Republicans from office because they wanted a more right leaning government.

...I needed that...:spray:

I would imagine the tax on "Cadillac" health plans is a major grievance in the House. That can be overturned or reduced by reconciliation because it is tax related.

The Senate bill has a whole bunch of regulation on the insurance industry - bans on pre-existing conditions clauses, a ban on gender-rating, limits on age-rating, mandated community rating, ban on rescission, etc. etc. etc. Those regulations don't have much to do with federal spending, taxing or the deficit, so they can't go in a reconciliation bill.

The reconciliation bill can have fixes to the Cadillac tax, maybe add a millionaire tax, it can even add a public option (you have to spend federal money to seed the public option, and the effects of the public option on the health care markets would reduce Medicare and Medicaid costs - that makes it Byrd rule friendly.)

There isn't enough lipstick on the planet to pretty up this pig.

down reform? Why not issue single payer reform? They never do what they should from the start & awe and inspire us, always a day late and a dollar short. I can't even get excited about health care reform, even with reconciliation.

Are the rest of you crazy? I'd rather see them start over than give us this poor excuse as reform.
What does it matter when it won't be effective for another 3 years? Give us single payer today.

everything for free today.

There is evidence that there was support for Single Payer which got no hearing at all. I don't blame voters for feeling ill served by our legislators in this debacle...

But single-payer needs 60 votes in the Senate. That's approximately as realistic as free ice cream for everyone.

Not to have any hearing at all is suspect in many ways. What were they afraid of?

of death...or so it seems. When it is so blatant that our interest is not being served, dare we ask why? We know that answer, the gov't belongs to the corporate interest. We keep asking why don't they understand what the people want? What WE don't understand is that they do, but we don't hold them responsible or accountable, and when we do, we don't really have the power (or vote) we think we have.

This is the result. If we are to believe a little victory here translates into small and frequent upcoming changes, I have a bridge for sale. Health care changes from this bill won't happen for another 3 years, or so I remember, and who will be at the helm then? This is just all window dressing.

What the people want is undermined by the structure of the Senate.

Our government is designed to make it hard to get it involved in more areas of life.

The arguments for single-payer are so strong, but
it's politically dangerous to support it,
and it's impossible to get 60 Senators behind it,
so they just ignored it.

Right or wrong, the Senate rules are that reconciliation is for resolving budget type issues.

I don't remember myself so I don't know about the validity, but wikipedia says that Clinton wanted to use reconciliation to pass his health care plan and the Senate (specifically Byrd) wouldn't let him.

The Byrd Rule (described below) was adopted in 1985 and amended in 1990. Its main effect is that reconciliation cannot be used for provisions that would increase the deficit beyond 10 years after the reconciliation measure.

"Until 1996, reconciliation was limited to deficit reduction, but in 1996 the Senate's Republican majority adopted a precedent to apply reconciliation to any legislation affecting the budget, even legislation that would increase the deficit."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconciliation_(United_States_Congress)#Process

Do it already.

Harry and Nancy would need to grow spines and I see no evidence that they're capable of doing that.

I'd like to see Medicare expanded to everyone via reconciliation. That's a purely budget move, right?

on Andrea Mitchell's show. The video was going around and the Dems must have heard it. Rachel was crystal clear about it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x142687

Which one is it? Yes or no?

That wont work.

The Senate Bill is comprehensive with the insurance reforms we need but can't do through Reconcilliation.

They can pass the Senate Bill and then do a patch through Reconcilliation which only needs 50 votes and corrects some of the problems the House had with the Senate Bill. It would modify the Excise Tax which the House and Unions hated. It would increase subsidies to families to make insurance more affordable. I'm not sure what else. I know they wanted a National exchange instead of the State exchanges in the Senate Bill. Hopefully, they can do that through Reconcilliation too but I'm not sure.

This actually doesn't count as breaking it into pieces. This is the best way to go.

Otherwise we will end up with the Senate version wholesale.

-Hoot

probably even some Republicans.

can in Reconcilliation. All other options suck compared to that one. I don't understand why there is an question. The way to go both politically and policy-wise is the exact same method. It is also the way where we need NOTHING from any Republicans.

Just.Do.It and Do.It.Now.

will join with her Union brothers and sisters and sit home in Nov..or vote our own senators and congress critters out of office!

Mandates are a deal breaker..

Public Option is a must!

will not only donate and encourage the rest of my Local, but also get in touch with other union reps including those in TWU. Unlike you, I prefer to keep people we can work with in office, instead of allowing people who's been trying to shut us down for decades.

:hi:

...it is a temporary means of passing something first of all. It does not strip out the very worst provisions of this bill, nor does it allow the ones that should be present. The Senate Bill should not be passed or approved with or without reconciliation.

:shrug:

and I want no reconciliation..unless i know damn well that mandates are out and public option in..otherwise..it is a dead deal to this retired Union member!

There is nothing in writing what would be in a reconciliation bill..so WTF is anyone agreeing to?????????

Do you have a guarantee that anything will be in reconciliation that there will be an absolute requirement to make the insurance affordable?? no you don't..neither does Krugman!

So WTF are you agreeing to?

Pipe dreams?

flying monkeys??????

It's not about flying monkeys. It's about whether the President/Senate want to piss off those they need to get future legislation done.

now for adults..

yeah you read that correctly..the cornerstone of the HCR..wouldn't you ( i willl) say?


White House adviser Plouffe fails to mention most of Obama's pre-existing conditions promise right after NYT & CBS report it may be dropped

http://www.americablog.com/2010/01/white-house-adviser-plouffe-fails-to.html

A day after former Obama campaign manager David Plouffe is elevated to a more senior adviser status at the White House and the DNC, Plouffe pens an op ed in the Washington Post in which he seems to suggest that much of President Obama's promise to ban pre-existing conditions is now being jettisoned. Plouffe wrote in the op ed, which was certainly cleared with the White House, if not written by them:

Parents won't have to worry their children will be denied coverage just because they have a preexisting condition.
Their children? The original promise - even the bad Senate bill - protects everyone, of any age, from being denied coverage because of pre-existing conditions. Now it's just children?

And before anyone argues that Plouffe was simply using children as an example - that the legislation could still cover everyone - look at what else happened in the last two days. CBS News reported that the pre-existing conditions promise was now looking unlikely. But even worse, the NYT talked to folks on the Hill and health policy experts, and they were told the compromise package might just protect kids under the age of 19 from being denied for pre-existing conditions. No one else.

It would sure be one hell of a coincidence if Plouffe, on behalf of the White House, is now talking about kids being protected from pre-existing conditions when the growing chatter in town is that only kids may now be protected from pre-existing conditions - that the rest of us are about to get tossed under the Martha Coakley bus.


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

wake the fuck up people!!

Americans buy insurance.

"We'll see."

Suicide for the Democratic Party.

Mandates + NO Public Option + Taxes on the Working Class + Trillion Dollars of Corporate Welfare + Anti-Trust exemption =
A Republican Health Care Plan without the Republicans taking ANY political risks

ALL the Republicans will have to do is sit back and say, "YEP. We opposed it" when America wakes up to what is IN this plan, and Premiums continue to INCREASE.

Blood Bath in 2010 and 2012.



QED


Much better to
Kill it now.

Break out a few positive elements like Pre existing Conditions

Eliminate the Anti-Trust exemption

expand Medicare incrementally

Pay for it by taxing the RICH (like Obama "campaigned" on and America voted FOR)

Offer them in specific, clean, bills which are easy to read and understand.

Demand an Up or Down vote on each one, one at a time.

Let the Republicans OPPOSE the individual, very popular issues, and go On the Record.

Why not get on the side of The People for a "CHANGE"? :shrug:

Krugman (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/19/plan-b/):

"Imperfect as it is, the Senate bill would save tens of thousands of lives, save many Americans from financial catastrophe, and partially redeem us from the shame of being the only advanced nation without some kind of universal care."

:applause:

Tweety didn't get it. ;)

and it makes sense. The election in MA shouldn't change a thing. We're still in charge, we have big majorities, we have the WH... PASS THE DAMN BILL!!!

Did he get all tingly?

I directed them, here: http://www.americablog.com/2010/01/memo-on-what-happened-in-mass-and-how.html

for your senators to dismiss the conclusions of the article. Corporations have this country by the ass and it starts with the monopoly of the M$M.

Americans are rightfully pissed at congress. If an overwhelming Democratic majority in both houses can't move a Democratic agenda forward they all deserve to be shown the door.

The cool thing is that if the Democrats screw their gonads on and do their jobs, they can resurrect the public option. They can pass the Senate bill, and set up the budget-reconciliation sidecar bill which has the House-Senate agreements negotiated before the Choakley fiasco. What's beautiful is that adding a public option to the sidecar would almost certainly be Byrd-Rule compliant - starting the public option requires spending of money, thus affecting budgets and deficits, and the effect of the public option on the health insurance market, and by extension, the cost of Medicare, would affect the deficit.

And it would still only require 51 votes! We can tell not only Brown and the Rethugs, but Lieberman, Nelson and the other DINOs to suck it!

If the Democrats screwed on their gonads and did this, they'd be fucking heroes. Passing a bill with a public option would definitely help reverse the crashing poll numbers, and restore some of the enthusiasm of the base.

you're attention whoring is tiring.

Krugman's just craving for attention of course, let's forget him (never mind that he's "always" right).

For all intents and purposes he has also said that maybe Summers and Geithner didn't do a bad job. Resulting in many on this board railing in anger. So, while you say he's always right...be prepared when he supports people that others here normally hate. I don't waste my time on economists. Why? Because one day they're right and another day they're wrong. You take their predictions at face value with a grain of salt. Not like the words of God as so many have here...and you seem to be another one.

On March 22, 2009, the economist Brad DeLong wrote (http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2009/03/i-think-paul-krugman-is-wrong.html):

"I Think Paul Krugman Is Wrong

I find that a scary sentence to write. If the past decade has taught me anything, it has taught me that mistakes are avoided if you follow two rules:

1. Remember that Paul Krugman is right.
2. If your analysis leads you to conclude that Paul Krugman is wrong, refer to rule #1.

So why do I have a positive and Paul a negative view of the Geithner Plan?"

That's just one example of Krugman criticizing Geithner, by the way. Here's another - http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/what-did-geithner-say/.

I can't remember that Krugman has said "that maybe Summers and Geithner didn't do a bad job". Do you have a link?


And, by the way, on October 9, 2009, Krugman wrote (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/09/modified-goldbugism-at-the-wsj/):

"Also, with apologies to Brad DeLong, when reading WSJ editorials you need to bear two things in mind:

1. The WSJ editorial page is wrong about everything.
2. If you think the WSJ editorial page is right about something, see rule #1.

After all, here’s what you would have believed if you listened to that page over the years: Clinton’s tax hike will destroy the economy, you really should check out those people suggesting that Clinton was a drug smuggler, Dow 36000, the Bush tax cuts will bring surging prosperity, Saddam is backing Al Qaeda and has WMD, there isn’t any housing bubble, US households have a high savings rate if you measure it right. I’m sure I missed another couple of dozen high points."

With all due respect. Reid and Pelosi are the very picture of weakness. They are weak in their manner and they are weak in their speech.

I have nothing personally against Nancy and Harry. I want them to retain their seats. I just feel having them in a position of leadership is a mistake, a huge mistake.

If I was a member of the opposition I would be thrilled to have such weak leaders on the other side. Why can't we face up to this fact? And why do we tolerate it?

this bill is shit Paul..it is shit from top to bottom..maybe you can convince the young people "they will change it in reconciliation"..but we older folks know,,those changes never come..or they are worse than the original piece of shit.


This 58 yr old knows damn well..when they take something away..whatever their good reasons are..you never ever ever get it back!

Remember the airlines charging for bags when the Oil prices went up?? That was not very long ago..

Did those fee's get dropped when oil prices came down..fuck no..in fact the poundage of the bags went down from 70 lbs to 50 lbs..and now all the airlines are charging for the bags..bag 1 & 2 and just a few days ago the fee's went up on most airlines for those bags..the airlines are making millions upon millions on the bags alone..and excess poundage..you folks are being gouged. Don't for a minute think those fees will go away.

Now for the middle class there is a penality in the Senate bill for the middle class that has good health care policies..you will be hit with a 40% tax..40%..for having good policies..many of which were concessions and paid for with blood sweat and tears of the American middle class worker..if you pay for any of the policy with your own money..you are already paying for it with "after tax dollars"..so this is like a double tax on the middle class! Do you honestly think when your policies get shredded and become less than what you have today..you will ever get a policy with the coverage you have today again? No .

Whenever they take something away..you never get it back..ever!

Paul knows this , and I am beginning to wonder..is Paul interviewing for someone else's job? Paul was shunned by this White House..is he pandering to them for some reason we don't know..I just wonder..because he is sounding more like a snake oil salesman!

.........what's been done to actually destroy the IDEA of reform. The Senate bill is a POS plain and simple. Pass regulations on health insurance companies and revoke their anti trust provision. AND, start the process for Medicare for all by an incremental age coverage over a period of time. Most importantly for any forward progress on any issue, quit with the bipartisan crap. Make the Republicans get center stage and defend any opposition to any regulations/reforms proposed. They have not had to pay a price for saying "no" yet.

Isn't that a lovely scenario?

You don't need a 60 vote supermajority to pass legislation.

Period!

All one needs to so is end the "two track" Democratic Senate debate procedure and force actual filibusters if that's what the Republicans really want to do.

Problem solved - Senate passes reconciliation sidecar bill, sends it to the House.

House passes the Senate health care bill and its sidecar in tandem, send both to the President.

President has to make sure he signs the Senate bill first, then the reconciliation sidecar to keep things legal, and BOOM, we've got health care!

What will be changed in the Senate bill as passed by the House?

had agreed to before Choakley lost Ted Kennedy's Senate seat. That includes the changes to the excise tax to raise the threshold and exempt unions for a while, tighter regulation of the insurance companies, a bunch of other things.

If the Dems had the gonads, they could put the public option in the reconciliation sidecar. Yes, they can resurrect the public option. It's perfectly legal, compliant with the Byrd Rule, and only requires 51 votes in the Senate. They can give Lieberman and Nelson the finger and do it!

If the Democrats wanted victory this November, I strongly recommend they do that.

..to the excise tax is one of the WORST of the backroom deals that has turned the public against the bill.

Why on earth would you want to include that in any final deal?

No, no, no and no on taxing healthcare plans. You can go bend the cost curve somewhere else.

The Dems still have a huge majority in both houses, so get something done. Forget the Repukes. Forget bipartisanship, and do right by We the People.

American politics. Namely, an inquisitorial system, instead of this current adversarial system. Heck, even the Continentals who operate inquisitorial legal systems, operate adversarial political systems. Wow, did the Republican establishment know its onions when they sponsored Obama for president! After you, Claud.

And following right after a (p)resident who didn't bother with Congress or the Senate, didn't even bother with his own congressmen and senators, unless they were in his clique, and sacked the country like Attila - or at least the pre-Putin Russian kleptocracy; when 'necessary', on the basis of executive order.

What 'they need to pull out' are all the compromised pieces of crap in both bills. Make it simple, make it understandable, make it affordable for people (not insurance companies), and make it available to anyone who needs it. What we need is pretty straight forward. An expansion of Medicare would be a good option. It's understood by most. It's a process that has been up and running for years and most of the people it would impact already pay into medicare. No branding needed. It's a recognized name. We get it.

'They need to pull out' mandates to buy insurance. They can even pull out mandates on insurance companies about pre-existing and caps. As long as there exists a Medicare option for anyone to use if they choose, insurance companies will alter their policies to compete.

'They need to pull out' taxes on employer based health plans unless they offer a public alternative like Medicare.

"They need to pull out" of the idea of health care being tied to an employer. 'They need to pull out' of the past century and walk boldly into the present. We need health care that is tied to the individual. No matter how that individual makes money. This will free up businesses and make them more competitive. This will free up people to work where they would really thrive and contribute.

'They need to pull out' of relationships that are holding them back from accomplishing what they have the potential to accomplish. This starts with the CONservatives in both parties.

'They need to pull out' from the Health Insurance Lobby and do what people elected them to do. This is an opportunity. What happened in Mass. is really an opportunity to get it right. They squandered the mandate and political will that carried them into office. They cannot squander this opportunity or the electorate will turn their backs on them.

'They need to pull out' from these two bills and take the opportunity as a do-over. Start over with ideas that will give people what they need, not insurance companies what they want.

'They need to pull out' anything that wasn't written by an elected official. If our elected officials cannot write bills themselves, then they lack a basic competency for the job and need to go.

And 'we need to pull out' any politician that tries to sell us crap that doesn't do what we need it to do. Enough is enough. Do your frickin' jobs or you'll be fired. We all live by that rule. So should senators and congresspeople.

Oh, Democrats, please pass health reform and do it quickly. The insurance companies will be forced to market its benefits, and the American public will fall behind it.

The idea of passing the Senate bill and then using Reconciliation and other measures to modify is superb, because it will force Republicans to vote responsibly and, thus, vote with the Democrats!

Please let's hope the Democratic Congress shows the sort of courage that Newt Gingrich's Congress showed.

The effort is to get long term results. The intricacies of how the legislation has passed will be forgotten a week after it happens.

Continuing to pander to the Republicans and effectively embrace the gridlock will win no votes in the fall. They have no plans to support anything.

do it

Wish I could recommend too.

White House adviser Plouffe fails to mention most of Obama's pre-existing conditions promise right after NYT & CBS report it may be dropped

http://www.americablog.com/2010/01/white-house-adviser-plouffe-fails-to.html

A day after former Obama campaign manager David Plouffe is elevated to a more senior adviser status at the White House and the DNC, Plouffe pens an op ed in the Washington Post in which he seems to suggest that much of President Obama's promise to ban pre-existing conditions is now being jettisoned. Plouffe wrote in the op ed, which was certainly cleared with the White House, if not written by them:

Parents won't have to worry their children will be denied coverage just because they have a preexisting condition.
Their children? The original promise - even the bad Senate bill - protects everyone, of any age, from being denied coverage because of pre-existing conditions. Now it's just children?

And before anyone argues that Plouffe was simply using children as an example - that the legislation could still cover everyone - look at what else happened in the last two days. CBS News reported that the pre-existing conditions promise was now looking unlikely. But even worse, the NYT talked to folks on the Hill and health policy experts, and they were told the compromise package might just protect kids under the age of 19 from being denied for pre-existing conditions. No one else.

It would sure be one hell of a coincidence if Plouffe, on behalf of the White House, is now talking about kids being protected from pre-existing conditions when the growing chatter in town is that only kids may now be protected from pre-existing conditions - that the rest of us are about to get tossed under the Martha Coakley bus.

The language in the bill says kids get protected from pre-existing conditions clauses immediately, adults in 2014. That's how the bill was put together long before these negotiations.

"If you're gonna shoot, SHOOT, don't talk!" Tuco (Eli Wallach) "The Good the Bad, and the Ugly"