Health Care Reform: No Deal??

This one’s interesting. Do you remember the big deal last week to get the Baucus bill through the Senate? Yeah, that one. . . with the liberals “giving up” the public option and the moderates agreeing to destroy Medicare sooner by letting people as young as 55 into Medicare? Well, apparently, that deal may not exist. Curious.

The first clue we had that there was no deal should have been the refusal of the Democrats to release the terms of the deal, while simultaneously crowing about "the deal" to any microphone they could find. And as the week went on, and no details of the deal emerged, people began to ask questions. That’s when the most fascinating thing happened, the admissions started coming out.

First came Sen. Bob Casey, who told the New York Times: “Any big agreement is progress, even if we do not know any of the details.” Read that again. How can there be an agreement with no details?

Maybe Casey is just out of the loop, being from a small, backwater state like Pennsylvania. Let’s listen to Dick Durbin, the Number 2 Democrat in the Senate respond to John McCain’s demand for information about the deal, i.e. the legislation, they’re supposed to be voting on. Surely he knows the details:

“I would say to the senator from Arizona that I’m in the dark almost as much as he is, and I’m in the leadership.”

*scratches head* Really? Hmm. How can this be?

McCain followed up on Durbin's admission with the following:

“Isn’t that a very unusual process? We are discussing one-sixth of the gross national product; the bill before us has been a product of almost a year of sausage-making. Yet here we are at a position on December 12, with a proposal that none of us, except, I understand, one person, the Majority Leader, knows what the final parameters are, much less informing the American people. I don't get it.”

And Durbin, of course, denied this, right? Actually, no. “I think the senator [from Arizona] is correct.” But Durbin did try to shift the blame to the CBO, arguing that the reason no one knew the details was that they awaited the big, bad, secretive CBO’s verdict: “We may find that something that was sent over there doesn’t work at all, doesn’t fly.”

You think? How about these two problems you face. First, the Democrats are counting on $25 billion in phantom savings from “competition created by the public option” to reduce the overall cost of the bill. No public option, no phantom savings. That means they now need to find an additional $25 billion to make their phony numbers appear to balance.

Secondly, nobody likes the plan to expand Medicare. Old people are freaked out that their health insurance is about to go away. Hospitals are freaked out that they cannot afford this (they lose nine cents on each dollar of health care they provide under Medicare already). Governors claim it’s breaking their budgets. Even those socialists at the Business Roundtable are backing off this turkey.

Various senators don’t like the plan either. Said Sen. Bill Nelson of Florida (not to be confused with Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska), this deal is a “non-starter.” That’s a strange thing to say for a man who just made an agreement.

And he’s not alone. Ten more Democrats wrote a letter this week complaining that this compromise would make it harder for seniors to get treatment under Medicare because “provider shortages in states with low reimbursement rates such as ours will make such a program ineffective, or even worsen the problems these states are experiencing.” These ten were: Sens. Maria Cantwell (Wash.), Russ Feingold (Wisc.), Tim Johnson (S.D.), Patrick Leahy (Vermont), Jeanne Shaheen (N.H.), Tom Udall (N.M.), Jeff Merkley (Ore.), Ron Wyden (Ore.), Amy Klobuchar (MN), and Al Franken (SNL).

Joe Lieberman, Ben Nelson and Olympia Snowe also criticized the proposal. Lieberman indicated that he was growing “increasingly concerned” with the proposal:

“I am increasingly troubled about the proposal. I am worried about what impact it will have on the Medicare program’s fiscal viability and also what effect it will have on the premiums paid by people benefiting from Medicare now.”

Nelson stated that this could be an intermediate step to a public option “which I do not like.” He further stated, “I wouldn’t be surprised if this thing does not become a viable option. I think it is going to be the lesser of the popular things, but I am keeping an open mind.”

Olympia Snowe was not as optimistic. “I have serious concerns. I just think that is the wrong direction to take.” She further stated that she could not see a way to even tweak the proposal to win her vote. “I can’t see it.”

Maybe there was no deal after all? It’s sure starting to sound that way.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Harry Reid’s Mistake On The Public Option

Not a full post tonight, but I wanted to update everyone on Harry Reid’s public option mistake and on who is important in the Senate right now (** cough cough call them cough **). As you know, I wrote the other day that I thought they would have a problem passing the Baucus bill. One of the reasons listed was the public option debate. Guess what. . .

You may have heard that yesterday, Harry Reid announced that the Baucus bill would include a public option. In fact, he selected a public option that states could “opt out of”, and that was that -- the end. At the time, the left declared this a victory and their friends in the media trumpeted the coming of ObamaCare.

But as I watched Harry give his press conference, it was clear that he was nervous. Sure, he was angry -- lashing out at Republicans, and he was smug, but he refused to answer whether he was sure that he had the 60 votes he needs for cloture, i.e. to prevent a filibuster. He had clearly gambled.

Not more than five minutes after his lips stopped flapping, CNBC announced that Olympia Snowe was very upset by this. And while she did not say that she would not vote closure, she indicated that she could not support a bill with an “opt out” or “opt in” provision. Whoops. (FYI, Reid then attacked her, commenting that she has been “frightened” into dropping her support. Sounds sexist to me.)

This morning, Joe Lieberman, who is fast becoming my favorite Democrat, announced that he would not support this bill. But even more so, he noted that he would filibuster the bill if it continues to include a public option:

“I’ve told Sen. Reid that if the bill stays as it is now, I will vote against cloture. I can’t see a way in which I could vote for cloture on any bill that contained a creation of a government-operated-run insurance company. It’s just asking for trouble – in the end, the taxpayers are going to pay and probably all people will have health insurance are going to see their premiums go up because there’s going to be cost shifting as there has been for Medicare and Medicaid.”

Honestly, Lieberman’s opposition was unexpected. Don’t get me wrong, I’m thrilled. I just didn’t think he would stand in the way of this.

With Lieberman and Snowe bolting, Reid cannot bring the bill for a vote because he’s only got 59 votes. Even worse for Reid, Lieberman and Snowe’s defections are now encouraging others to start wavering. Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb) and Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La) both had already voiced reservations and have now confirmed their reservations (though they have stopped short of saying they won’t vote for the bill). But now, Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del) says that he is unhappy with the bill and will seek to make changes on the Senate floor. Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind) also has voiced concerns over the bill and now will not say which way he will vote on cloture (Bayh is upset about $40 billion in taxes imposed on medical equipment providers).

So while this battle is far from over, it looks like Harry’s declaration proved to be a total disaster. And I suspect that the longer this goes without resolution, the greater the chance that more Democrats will revolt -- not to mention that they still need to merge this with a House bill that is entirely unpalatable to most of the Senate.

If you feel like calling or writing anyone in Congress, these would be the people. Tell them that you see a vote for closure as a vote for the public option. . . and you don’t want a public option.

In the meantime, get some popcorn, kick back, and watch the fall out from Harry’s bomb.

** UPDATE: Olympia Snowe has now said that she will vote against cloture. Thus, Reid does not have the sixty votes he needs.


(FYI, I will put up an article outlining why the Baucus bill can be repealed tomorrow night. Thanks for your patience.)


[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Danger: The Triggered Public Option

If you choose to bore yourself to tears and listen to Obama’s speech tonight, here is what you should listen for. The public option is dead, right? Sure, Obama may mention it, but a whole bevy of Senators have refused to pass any bill that contains it. So it’s dead, right? Right? Why do I keep asking? Here’s why:

Meet Olympia Snowe (RINO - Maine). . . your worst nightmare.

According to CNN and CNBC (and probably others), Sen. Snowe, one of the last great RINOs, is working hard to get Obama the public option. Well, that’s not what she calls it, but that’s what it is. And how does she plan to snatch this crucial socialist victory for her Lord Obama from the well-deserved jaws of defeat visited upon him by the hands of the peasants? Behold: the triggered public option.

The triggered public option works this way. A scaled-down health care reform bill is drafted. It basically does nothing and offends no one. But it lets Obama save face -- something near and dear to the hearts of all RINOs. Hidden within the bill will be the Snowe Amendment (“Snowejob” for short). If (read: “when”) those insurance “reforms” included in the bill don’t result in a reduction in insurance costs within a certain amount of time, a full-on public option will spring forth upon us. . . like a highwayman hiding behind a rock in Maine.

Thereafter, the obvious will occur. The current insurance system will die. You will lose your insurance. You will end up on the public plan. Doctors will revolt, by refusing to take public plan patients. Patients too will revolt when they can’t find doctors and when the doctors they can find can’t get paid for doing any work. The system will go broke quicker than a Congressman in a whorehouse because the numbers are laughably phony. Our budget will collapse, angering the Chinese who hold so much of our debt, but thrilling the gold nuts. And as people begin demanding that their city councils put up statutes of Obama giving Stalin a Snowejob, a retarded woman in Maine will go on television and say, “no one could have seen this coming.”

Seriously, this is the new danger. It is a tactic as old as time itself. When the enemy is on to you, pretend you are doing something else. Since they know they can’t force a public option on a vigilant public, they will try to create a situation that leads to a public option coming into existence without a direct vote. By creating a springing public option, no one need ever vote “yes, I want to socialize our medicine” to make that happen. Indeed, it will happen all on its own, without anyone needing to claim responsibility for it. . . after all, the bill they voted for didn’t create a public option, that “somehow happened” later. In fact, they will assure you, they voted for this bill to prevent the public option.

This is the same trick used by the Congress whenever they want to do something the public doesn’t want and can’t find a sucker to take credit for it.

Now there is one thing that might save us from these masochistic RINOs. Despite the recent mania about the left suddenly morphing into a unified front of evil geniuses, all working according to plan, they are in fact a bunch of whiny morons who can’t stay on the same page for more than a few hours. And they are livid about the idea of a triggered public option. Why?

Go back and read my article about short term versus long term thinking. In that article, I explain how liberal thinking is static; i.e. they live in the moment. They do not understand that people will react to incentives, causing long term shifts in behavior and intended (or unintended) consequences. Thus, they see this legislation simply as a defeat: it does not promise a public option, hence there will never be a public option. Obama lied, my Stalinist dreams died!

Conservatives, on the other hand, who tend to be long term, dynamic thinkers understand that while the bill does not create a public option now, it will be inevitable under this bill. The bill does nothing to lower insurance costs or to help insurers lower costs. Yet, it will trigger if those insurers, who are hostage to massive regulation, don’t do what they cannot do. In effect, the public option is guaranteed. . . but don't tell your leftist friends that, we need them as upset as possible.

As an aside, the difference between long and short term thinking also explains why conservatives understand that a public option will destroy and replace the current system, whereas liberals can’t see that because the bill doesn’t ban private insurance (“if it exists now, and it’s not banned, why won’t it exist forever?”).

So sadly, our best hope lies with the left. Talk about irony though? We need to hope that the left kills a bill designed by a RINO to make sure that the left gets everything they want. Good grief.

In the meantime, call your representatives. Tell them that you will consider a vote for a triggered public option the same as vote for a public option. Don’t let them hide behind the idea that they aren’t supporting a public option or the lie that “it will never happen.” The people have won a victory for democracy, don’t let a Maine SnoweRINO take that victory away.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...