Who wins, who loses in Senate health bill
By Erica Werner, AP
WASHINGTON – The little town of Libby, Mont., isn't mentioned by name in the Senate's mammoth health care bill, but its 2,900 citizens are big winners in the legislation, thanks to the influence of Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont.
After pushing for years for help for residents, many of whom suffer from asbestos-related illnesses from a now-closed mineral mining operation, Baucus inserted language in a package of last-minute amendments that grants them access to Medicare benefits.
He didn't advertise the change, and it takes a close read of the bill to find it. It's just one example of how the sweeping legislation designed to remake the U.S. health care system and extend coverage to 30 million uninsured Americans also helps and hurts more narrow interests, often thanks to one lawmaker with influence or bargaining power.
Continue.
====
How outrageous is it that Baucus et al. deemed all citizens of that small town worthy of Medicare benefits, but not the rest of us? Are some people better than others? More deserving of affordable health care than others?
Read the whole piece -- it's pretty disturbing, even though it's only a glimpse of the winners and losers in this debacle. Without a doubt, there are more eyebrow-raising revelations included in the bill. Like insurance coverage for prayer.
It also shows that -- surprise, surprise -- if there is a will, there is a way. If an obstinate senator wants to squeeze favorable provisions for his "special interests," it can be done, even if it flies in the face of decency, equality, and/or common sense.
So why can't the so-called progressives insist on such concessions on behalf of ALL American people?
Is this really too much to ask?
So why can't the so-called progressives insist on such concessions on behalf of ALL American people?
ReplyDeleteI would argue that it is counterproductive to insist on things which one does not have the power to get, and which could endanger the whole project. But, yes, the compromise could probably have been somewhat better if Obama had been more forcefully supportive and more willing to put pressure on the holdouts.
Nobody denies that the Senate compromise has a lot of bad things in it, and even absurd ones as well (I question the Constitutionality of government funding for prayer "treatments", and wouldn't be surprised to see that struck down). But the Democrats were wise to avoid standing too fast on anything that would have prevented getting to 60 votes. Failing to pass this would not have meant getting something better. It would have meant getting nothing.
The next step will be to combine the Senate version with the House one, during which hopefully some of the better stuff can be put back in.
All the anger over the compromises needs to be channeled into pressure to change the Senate rules to get rid of the 60-vote super-majority requirement. Without that requirement, things would not have developed this way.
I get that, Infidel. I really do.
ReplyDeleteBut I am pissed beyond belief. Learning about the whole town (the whole town!) in MO that was given Medicare benefits to appease Baucus is probably the last straw for me (though, god knows, there may be more).
My reaction: How dare they! How dare they tell us that, sorry, we can't do anything about it (Medicare expansion, etc.), that's the way things are, and, well, it's good, and if not good, then at least not so bad, look at some other things we've done for you while we sold you out to the cartel, completely ignoring your wishes and needs and our own promises. Be happy. This is as good as it can get, see?
Except that it obviously isn't.
What good is this so-called democracy?
No, seriously -- without pat answers or admonitions to be patient, etc. What good is it?
How patient do you intend to be? I'm afraid I/we don't have the luxury. The health care reform was supposedly a done deal -- in 1916. This time we have come so close -- so close! -- and yet again, oops, sorry, no can do.
Except for a whole town in MO.
I hear you (and Krugman, and Hacker, and Rockefeller, et al.), but I am fresh out of patience and good will.
Want to take a bet on Baucus getting that little compensation in exchange for selling out for the insurance companies on that mandatory issue?
ReplyDeleteI'm disgusted with the whole thing and think it should scrapped.
What good is this so-called democracy?
ReplyDeleteIt got us something. Not as much as we wanted, but something. We won't know what the final legislation looks like until the House and Senate bills are combined. If the legislation passes, it can be improved later (earlier reforms such as social security were similarly phased in incrementally based on what could be done at the time). If it does not pass, the hope for any kind of reform in the foreseeable future dies.
The return of control to the Democrats in 2006 and 2008 has resulted in improvements in many areas. I'm sure you've seen BJ's list. None of those things would have happened if the Republicans were still in charge. It's simply silly to say democracy is pointless because it has delivered less than we hoped for in one area, when so much has been done in other areas. The renewed support for stem-cell research alone will, in the long run, prevent more death and suffering than even the best health-care reform bill could have done.
The Republican strategy here seems quite obvious to me: obstruct as much as they can, so as to spread cynicism and defeatism among the Democratic base, so that a lot of our voters will stay home or vote third-party in 2010 and Republicans will gain more power. So far I see a lot of people dancing to their tune.
None of the weakening of the Senate bill would have happened were it not for the rules which create a 60-vote super-majority requirement. We need to be focusing on that.
Except that it obviously isn't.
ReplyDeleteIf the Medicare expansion had stayed in at this point, Lieberman would have voted against it, the 60-vote threshold would not have been reached, and the bill would not have passed. There is nothing the Senate Democrats could do about that. There may not have been anything Obama could do about it.
The problem is not lack of determination by the Democrats to get it done. In the House, they did get it done. The problem is the 60-vote threshold.
Infidel,
ReplyDeleteI just ask you to imagine Obama expending the goodwill of the Democratic majority by twisting arms for health care reform. Got that mental image? Good.
Now: imagine those angry senators in February debating climate change legislation. Or financial reform.
The number one rule of force is that you apply it as judiciously as possible, preferably only when it makes the most difference. An example: when Ben Nelson spoke about holding out for stronger abortion language in the HCR bill, Axelrod delivered the first WH rebuke of a Senator since this process began. That's because Nelson was the 60th vote.
I say: if progressives want to see their agenda pass quickly, they should focus on replacing one or two vulnerable Republicans with Democrats so that Nelson and Lieberman don't get to wait until the last days of the process to play hard-to-get.
As for the substance of this post: the sausage factory is a horror to watch because the product is ALWAYS padded with pork. That's simply a fact of life in our dysfunctional Senate.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete