Lieberman threatens a filibuster if the 55-65 Medicare buy-in is included in the legislation.

Can we just agree that this proposal is so corporatized as to not be useful for the people of this country? Trash the whole thing and try again, this isn't even close to universal healthcare and its not even close to an improvement of efficiency.

it is time for reconciliation to be employed.

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

it is time for reconciliation to be employed.

Its good to have Checks and Balances and rules in the Senate.

Where was that concept when Bush Junior and the republicans lowered taxes on the very rich?

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

Where was that concept when Bush Junior and the republicans lowered taxes on the very rich?

It was the lack of 60 votes in the Senate that has the 2001 tax cuts expiring at the end of 2010.

... yes, but it was the use of Reconciliation which cut those taxes in the first place. And used more than once. It was fine then.

from wikipdeia

Under the administration of President George W. Bush, Congress used reconciliation to enact three major tax cuts. These tax cuts were set to lapse after 10 years to satisfy the Byrd Rule.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

As any good Concord Coalition-sympathizing Xer can inform you, two things about Social Security/Medicare need to be addressed:

First, the age for receiving partial Social Security payments should be going up in concert with the age for receiving full benefits (66 2/3 for those born in 1958, for example), but it isn't. Why isn't it? (In the above example, that would raise the eligibility age for partial benefits for the 1958 cohort to 63 2/3).

Estimated savings = ?

Second, the age for Medicare eligibility should be tied to the age for full SS eligibility, for those born after 1939 or wherever the upward trend starts.

Estimated savings = ?

You could probably fund a Utah-style safety-net program for the uninsured in the entire country on what you save from making these two changes alone.

While I can hardly believe it, I'm actually in agreement with you on these two proposals. The entire speculated 2040s SS shortfall is due to a projection of 6 year longer lifespans BUT no change in age eligibities. Its really stupid but it is what the Trustees are required to assume. It funny how that gets so little discussion in the Reports and is NEVER put forth by any pundits who are just so certain they know that there's a CRISIS! brewing.

With your proposal, let's set the stage for "age-appropirate solutions" (TM pending) to SS and, to some significant extent, Medicare!

On the other hand, from a political standpoint, raising the cap is a big problem. You will be moving SS from a pay-as-you-go sytem to a semi-welfare program - the wingnuts would go even more beserk in trying to destroy it.

How much $ would be saved if the liberals would simply stress working for something vs granting it for everybody? The millies are pretty much doomed. I'm sure glad that I wasn't born a millie.

Originally Posted by independent

80/75 is a joke. What other country tolerates 25% bureaucratic overhead in medicine? What other country mandates people buy a product in a way that only 75% of their cost goes to the actual product?

Well, no shirt Sherlock?! How profound?!!!

So what are we to do, oh my?! Fold up our tent? Go home? Or, as you put it, "start over again?" Yea, right. Do we wait just 15 years this time or 40 years? Let's see, using this study -
http://www.urban.org/publications/411588.html
about 300,000 Americans will die because of lack of insurance if we wait for the minimum 15 years. Real nice.

That seems like a high price to pay to avoid insurers getting 20-25% of each dollar to pay for costs as opposed to just 10%, but I guess purity is important. But it does seem to be a little ridiculous if we should get the 90% minimum under the Frankin Amendment which is still very much alive and gathering more sponsors -
http://tinyurl.com/mumxww

You do note that the current average is 70% so even the CURRENT bill's 75/80 is an improvement, no?

Originally Posted by independent

...The answer, of course, is the nuance of "political reality," which in this case means we have a lobbyist-written bill that's been through five more lobbyist-written compromises.

Okay, take your ball home. We'll leave it to the adults to deal with reality.

Originally Posted by independent

Demise nothing. Let me put this in a way you can understand.

The mayor just signed a law into place saying everyone in town has to buy season tickets to your theater. You are only required to spend 75% of the ticket proceeds on the production of the plays, and you're allowed to charge whatever you want for the tickets so long as the costs are relatively the same for seats in the same section. Front row and center stage tickets have an extra 40% tax added on. Old and poor people will get discounted tickets because the government is paying part of their bill, but you still get the full price for their tickets. Of course, if someone sees "more than a reasonable amount" of shows, you can kick them out.

How much are those tickets going to end up costing and how is that going to put you out of business?

Well, that is an incomplete analogy at best, and in this game, that means its basically worthless. Let me adjust that for you. The current group of patrons over 68 will continue to attend my theater for free (touch that and even the teabaggers will do some damage to you). Patrons between 55 and 68 can buy a ticket to my theater or to several other theaters; its just that my tickets will be 20-30 % cheaper. And yes, there will be some in this group that are poor enough that they will get subsidized ticket prices. But that will be true of the under 55 as well. Its just that the under 55 can't come to my theater, they will have to go to the other theaters (Note - maybe they will be pissed about that and take it up with the other theaters to lower their prices or with the town council to let them come to my theater - I'm okay with that). Also, it is importnat to note that the large majority under 55 will continue to get group-purchased tickets through their employers.

Now the town's local CBO does an analysis -
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezr...nate_heal.html
and finds that all those paying for individual tickets get them for 20% less than they would have AND those buying group tickets, if they see any increase in pice, it is because they get a much better show - instead of having to watch the town drunk belt out a few lines of My Fair Lady, they get a fairly decent Broadway matinee with a star or two that they've seen on TV!

Now the reason for this is that the town council past a host of other measures that are not currently covered in our analogy. The bottom line is that everyone gets to go to the theater to see a fairly decent show for a fairly decent price - and nobody's grandmother has to face a death panel!!!

Originally Posted by independent

• Average annual premiums in the private pool around $7,000

• If you would dig deeper than what the average teabagger can accomplish, starting with the link I gave you, you would see that where group rates go up, it is for much better coverage; the actuarial way of calculating this shows that the insured get a much better deal. Those having to get individual coverage see a 20% drop in rates and for 35 million people they get insured. Pretty damn good all around.
  
  
  Originally Posted by independent

  A 40% tax on premiums over $8,400 (how long will it take the average to rise to this level? At the current rate, about two years or before the law even goes into effect)
  
  So why not tax Cadillac plans and put them on the same basis as regular wages? This will bring greater clarity to the costs of health insurance (see lack of wage growth for the last decade or so). And, Indy, really, using someone's speculations of the future who has been one of the most vigorous fighters on the issue is not very credible - they tend to leave out more than just a few nuances.
  
  Originally Posted by independent
• "Reasonable" annual coverage limits

Originally Posted by K-I-A 67

How much $ would be saved if the liberals would simply stress working for something vs granting it for everybody? The millies are pretty much doomed. I'm sure glad that I wasn't born a millie.

They're probable pretty glad you're not either - one less thing their generation will have to apologize for.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Well, no shirt Sherlock?! How profound?!!!

So what are we to do, oh my?! Fold up our tent? Go home? Or, as you put it, "start over again?" Yea, right. Do we wait just 15 years this time or 40 years? Let's see, using this study -
http://www.urban.org/publications/411588.html
about 300,000 Americans will die because of lack of insurance if we wait for the minimum 15 years. Real nice.

At least you admit how pathetic the legislative process is... either we pass a horribly corrupt bill or we let people die for 15 years. Amazing how they get us to keep supporting the bad because the only other choice is worse.

That seems like a high price to pay to avoid insurers getting 20-25% of each dollar to pay for costs as opposed to just 10%, but I guess purity is important. But it does seem to be a little ridiculous if we should get the 90% minimum under the Frankin Amendment which is still very much alive and gathering more sponsors -
http://tinyurl.com/mumxww

You do note that the current average is 70% so even the CURRENT bill's 75/80 is an improvement, no?

No, because the link you posted says they're currently spending 81%!

Okay, take your ball home. We'll leave it to the adults to deal with reality.

Sorry, I'm going to have to skip the childish name-calling & taunts and stick to the policy.

Well, that is an incomplete analogy at best, and in this game, that means its basically worthless. Let me adjust that for you. The current group of patrons over 68 will continue to attend my theater for free (touch that and even the teabaggers will do some damage to you). Patrons between 55 and 68 can buy a ticket to my theater or to several other theaters; its just that my tickets will be 20-30 % cheaper. And yes, there will be some in this group that are poor enough that they will get subsidized ticket prices. But that will be true of the under 55 as well. Its just that the under 55 can't come to my theater, they will have to go to the other theaters (Note - maybe they will be pissed about that and take it up with the other theaters to lower their prices or with the town council to let them come to my theater - I'm okay with that). Also, it is importnat to note that the large majority under 55 will continue to get group-purchased tickets through their employers.

Oh, you think your theater is the Medicare one? Oh no no, you own the private theater. Try again.

Now the town's local CBO does an analysis -
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezr...nate_heal.html
and finds that all those paying for individual tickets get them for 20% less than they would have AND those buying group tickets, if they see any increase in pice, it is because they get a much better show - instead of having to watch the town drunk belt out a few lines of My Fair Lady, they get a fairly decent Broadway matinee with a star or two that they've seen on TV!

What..?

"[Nationally], AHIP found that the average single premium in mid-2009 was $2985

The average individual premium in the state [of MA] fell to $5143 in mid-2009"

Awesome, right?!

Now the reason for this is that the town council past a host of other measures that are not currently covered in our analogy. The bottom line is that everyone gets to go to the theater to see a fairly decent show for a fairly decent price - and nobody's grandmother has to face a death panel!!!

So, you're going to lower ticket prices now that everyone has to buy one, right?

If you would dig deeper than what the average teabagger can accomplish, starting with the link I gave you, you would see that where group rates go up, it is for much better coverage; the actuarial way of calculating this shows that the insured get a much better deal. Those having to get individual coverage see a 20% drop in rates and for 35 million people they get insured. Pretty damn good all around.

So why not tax Cadillac plans and put them on the same basis as regular wages? This will bring greater clarity to the costs of health insurance (see lack of wage growth for the last decade or so). And, Indy, really, using someone's speculations of the future who has been one of the most vigorous fighters on the issue is not very credible - they tend to leave out more than just a few nuances.

Yeah, I think you're the one who posted Ezra's claim that MA's expensive-as-hell insurance is proof of this proposal's strength.

yes this is another gremlin that has been recently ferreted out. Hopefully, it will be dealt with. I know, I know, damn democratic processes!

Have you been paying attention? They started with a lukewarm bill and they're only putting ice in it. I guess we should just cross our fingers and hope that Congress starts representing us? LOL

Senator Bond?! Indy, Indy. [shake heads]

Nice ad-hom, now address the policy issue: Democrats love to make small business and sole proprietors pay for laws and spending that primarily benefit their large and well-connected donors. Maybe that's not a big deal in the union land of big corporate employers, but that's taking an axe to the working and lower middle class where I come from. Since the big corporate employers aren't even hiring and the unions pretty much represent public employees and dinosaur industry, we can't keep hitching our wagon to it and praying for some trickle-down.

Expanded Medicare does exactly that by using Medicare reimbursement rates. This is at least as good as the most potent Public Option discussed - and even the House PO is a long way from that.

Expanded medicare? Not if Lieberman has anything to say about it!

Discussed above; note - you were wrong. [/LIST]
Well, that's the difference right there. You want to live in fantasyland where all the anarchists sing kumbaya to each other each evening just before blowing out the oil lamps and tucking yourselves into your buckskins blankets and pray for a better hunt tomorrow so that at least the children can eat. More power to you. I, on the other hand, choose to live in today's real world, as vicious and ugly as it may be.

More childish taunts, sigh. On the total balance, I believe people are more good than evil. Conveniently though, the strongest evil tends to identify itself by seeking out power.

from Independent

Conveniently though, the strongest evil tends to identify itself by seeking out power.

This would be a wonderfully insightful statement but it lacks one word..

insert the word CORPORATE before the last word of the statement.

It would then read

Conveniently though, the strongest evil tends to identify itself by seeking out corporate power.

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

from Independent



This would be a wonderfully insightful statement but it lacks one word..

insert the word CORPORATE before the last word of the statement.

It would then read

Conveniently though, the strongest evil tends to identify itself by seeking out corporate power.

No, he had it right the first time. The corrupting siren call of power does not only apply to the corporate world. In the U.S. the corruption of the elected needs to remain subtle and tempered, otherwise the people will vote their asses out. Doesn't mean it's not there.

The lust for power doesn't discriminate about the sources of power. Humanity has had its share of evil religious leaders, government leaders, corprorate leaders...

The reason why government is a popular magnet for them these days is because that is where the highest absolute power is. If the Pope or CEO of Goldman had an armed IRS and global military empire, I'm sure Bush would have run for that instead.

Oh really?!?!?!?!

Then why has government been impotent at tackling the abuses of corporate power for the last few decades?

Originally Posted by Earl and Mooch

It was the lack of 60 votes in the Senate that has the 2001 tax cuts expiring at the end of 2010.

How does the old saying go?
God looks out for fools, drunks and the United States of America. :

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

Oh really?!?!?!?!

Then why has government been impotent at tackling the abuses of corporate power for the last few decades?

See, I'd say that the government has been quite effective in protecting and enlarging the power of its friends.

KBR/Halliburton, Goldman Sachs, GE/NBC, JP Morgan, Monsanto, RIAA... I don't think these corporations would even still exist were it not for their symbiotic relationship with Washington D.C.

Find me a list of the most evil corporations you can think of - and I'll find you billions in government spending designed to keep them alive.

Originally Posted by independent

See, I'd say that the government has been quite effective in protecting and enlarging the power of its friends.

KBR/Halliburton, Goldman Sachs, GE/NBC, JP Morgan, Monsanto, RIAA... I don't think these corporations would even still exist were it not for their symbiotic relationship with Washington D.C.

Find me a list of the most evil corporations you can think of - and I'll find you billions in government spending designed to keep them alive.

Petronas - George Soros - Oil

Originally Posted by independent

At least you admit how pathetic the legislative process is... either we pass a horribly corrupt bill or we let people die for 15 years. Amazing how they get us to keep supporting the bad because the only other choice is worse.

In my book, a "horrible corrupt bill" (i.e it lets insurers use 20 cents on the dollar instead of only 10 cents to cover costs/profits) isn't in the same ballpark as letting another 300,000 people die for want of insurance. It's beyond just silly to seriously suggest equivalency, it approaches the moral bankruptcy of a perfectionist ideologue.

Originally Posted by independent

No, because the link you posted says they're currently spending 81%!

Here's the correct link -
http://www.lincolnjournalinc.com/def...nalinc&he=.com
and the quote -

Right now, on average, only 70 cents of every dollar paid toward health care premiums are spent on actual health care services. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act raises that ratio to 80 percent. Currently, Minnesota’s non-profit plans lead the nation in keeping administrative costs low, spending 91 cents of every premium dollar on actual health services. This amendment would set a 90 percent standard on insurance companies nationwide, allowing only the remaining portion to be spent on administrative costs, marketing campaigns, and profits.

Originally Posted by independent

Sorry, I'm going to have to skip the childish name-calling & taunts and stick to the policy.

The point here is that you want to have a pure policy, if not ideological, discussion. I could join you in that circle jerk and offer up my own pipe dreams, but that is not where things are at nor have been for months. This is now a political intercourse where policy wonking can be a big gun but only if it hasn't already been fired and drained of any and all of its ammunition. What you are proposing or, at least screaming about, is so far out of the political picture that it is close to being a laughable adolescent wet dream - it might make you feel better temporarily but it really isn't very germane or potent to what is happening right now.

Originally Posted by independent

Oh, you think your theater is the Medicare one? Oh no no, you own the private theater. Try again.

No, as I said I was trying to bring your analogy up to date and more complete. There is the "Medicare Theater" - I chose myself as its director because, well, that's where my head is at. I've given you the "private theaters" as one option for the 55-68 group and as the only option for the under 55 group. This update MAY allow you to understand at least two things that apparently you have failed to yet grasp: (1) the Medicare option for 55-68 is going to simultaneously make the under 55 pool less risky (and, that should lower their premiums) while making the Medicare group also less risky (and, lowering the overall cost per person and thereby improving the solvency of Medicare); and (2) when the under 55 sees, for the FIRST TIME, how much less Medicare premiums are for a more risky group, they are going to apply unbelievable pressure on the insurers AND the Congress to give them the same deal - bye, bye private insurers. Oh, but lets not give that much thought when we can practice our primordial scream and circle jerk because they might be getting 20 cents instead of 10 cents on the dollar in the interim.

Originally Posted by independent

What..?

"[Nationally], AHIP found that the average single premium in mid-2009 was $2985

The average individual premium in the state [of MA] fell to $5143 in mid-2009"

Awesome, right?!

OMG, the AHIP?! WTF? You're the last person I would have thought falling for propaganda.

Here, it you don't like Ezra's analysis (unlike AHIP, he don't have a dog in the fight)-
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezr...nd_that_p.html

To repeat, the CBO found that premiums go down under health-care reform

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezr...office_re.html

Congressional Budget Office: Reform will bring down the cost of health-care insurance

-then go to the primary source material -
http://cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=10781

Originally Posted by independent

Democrats love to make small business and sole proprietors pay for laws and spending that primarily benefit their large and well-connected donors. Maybe that's not a big deal in the union land of big corporate employers, but that's taking an axe to the working and lower middle class where I come from. Since the big corporate employers aren't even hiring and the unions pretty much represent public employees and dinosaur industry, we can't keep hitching our wagon to it and praying for some trickle-down.

Well, nice speech; the only thing wrong with it is the CBO analysis that shows everyone is better off with reform than without it with the exception of those in the upper, upper class - and believe me, they're not laying awake worrying about it.

Originally Posted by independent

Expanded medicare? Not if Lieberman has anything to say about it!

Well, there you may be correct. I said months ago that asswipe Joe was the real problem. It looks like the latest news is that they are going to strip out the M-extended and the PO. But it ain't over yet. Lieberman could keep demanding more to the point where Reid decides to go the reconciliation route or even the 'Nuclear Option' of killing off Senate filibustering (my preference). And then there's the conferencing with the House.

Again, it ain't over yet. Care to help out, or just bitch because, well, life ain't perfect --- nor is politics?

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

Oh really?!?!?!?!

Then why has government been impotent at tackling the abuses of corporate power for the last few decades?

For fear of offending their bedmates?

Originally Posted by playwrite

In my book, a "horrible corrupt bill" (i.e it lets insurers use 20 cents on the dollar instead of only 10 cents to cover costs/profits) isn't in the same ballpark as letting another 300,000 people die for want of insurance. It's beyond just silly to seriously suggest equivalency, it approaches the moral bankruptcy of a perfectionist ideologue.

Playwrite:

You have to admit that this thing just keeps getting watered down, and then watered down some more. Does it reach a point, for you, where it's just not worth it -- where it's more of a giveaway to the insurance industry than anything else? If it hasn't reached that point, when would it?

Just curious -- I rather like your levelheadedness throughout this entire process when both the Left and the Right are running around shrieking, btw.

Put the Senate bill out of its misery.

Originally Posted by The Raw Story

Following the jettisoning of both the public option and the Medicare buy-in provision, one of the nation's leading progressive voices on health care reportedly said Tuesday that the Senate bill is no longer worth supporting.

"This is essentially the collapse of health care reform in the United States Senate," former Gov. Howard Dean told political reporter Bob Kinzel of Vermont Public Radio. Kinzel relayed the news to The Plum Line's Greg Sargent, and the full VPR interview will air at 5:50 pm today.

"Honestly the best thing to do right now is kill the Senate bill, go back to the House, start the reconciliation process, where you only need 51 votes

I hate to say this but the US Senate is a dysfunctional body with members who are more interested in their personal perks than in the well being of the nation and its citizens.
And the rabbit hole is going to have to get a whole lot deeper before true reform becomes possible.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Playwrite:

You have to admit that this thing just keeps getting watered down, and then watered down some more. Does it reach a point, for you, where it's just not worth it -- where it's more of a giveaway to the insurance industry than anything else? If it hasn't reached that point, when would it?

Just curious -- I rather like your levelheadedness throughout this entire process when both the Left and the Right are running around shrieking, btw.

With Dean and Kos going over, I'm teetering. I'm trying to stay with Ezra on this, but it is hard. If either Ron Wyden, Tom Harkin, Chuck Schumer, Sherrod Brown, Chris Dodd or Jay Rockefeller bolts, then I would support them and the killing off of the bill. In the meantime, I'm assessing and talking to a lot of other very disappointed people.

Klein is taking a lot of heat for attributing Lieberman's recalcitrance to wanting to get back at the Netroots and Slick Joe making that more important than the likely deaths of thousands that would otherwise remain uninsured. I completely agree with Klein's analysis -

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezr...nsibility.html

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezr...failure_1.html

- I have met with Lieberman in a couple different forums - he is a complete slimeball.

The Senate bill has degenerated to a goddamn farce. I agree with Dr. Dean, kill it.

Originally Posted by The Rani

That's what he said? Good for him. About time he got his balls back.

I agree. Kill it and do it right. I know the idea is to say, ' F7ck the GOP'. But this is an American problem that one party ideals alone can carry the day.