Must Read for Montana Progressives

by: Matthew Koehler

Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 10:58:29 AM MST

http://www.thenation.com/artic...

Health care bill constitutional

by: Jay Stevens

Fri Oct 08, 2010 at 07:28:43 AM MST

A federal judge in Michigan on Thursday dismissed one of more than 15 legal challenges to the new health care law, becoming the first to rule that the law is constitutional.

Two other cases with higher profiles, one in Florida and one in Virginia, are headed toward hearings on the issues that were decided in Michigan. The central question, which may ultimately fall to the Supreme Court, is whether the Commerce Clause of the Constitution gives Congress the authority to require citizens to obtain a commercial product, namely health insurance....

Judge George C. Steeh of Federal District Court in Detroit ruled that choosing not to obtain insurance qualified as an example of "activities that substantially affect interstate commerce." That is the standard set by the Supreme Court for Congress's compliance with the Commerce Clause.

That is, not buying insurance puts a financial burden on taxpayers and other insurance purchasers across the country. The uninsured will still need medical care; taxpayers and the insured will pick up the tab.

Illya Somin takes a stab at shooting down the decision:

The problem with this reasoning is that those who choose not to buy health insurance aren't necessarily therefore going to buy the same services in other ways later. Some will, but some won't. It depends on whether or not they get sick, how severe (and how treatable their illnesses are), whether if they do get sick, they can get assistance from charity, and many other factors. In addition, some people might be able to maintain their health simply by buying services that aren't usually covered by insurance anyway, such as numerous low-cost medicines available in drug stores and the like. In such cases, they aren't really participating in the same market as insurance purchasers.

W-e-e-e-l-l, not quite. For starters, unless non-insurance-buyers are some kind of genetic Supermenschen, they, as a group, will experience sudden and catastrophic injury or illness at the same rate that insurance buyers do - at best. Of course, that's only considering the statistical case. In reality, the uninsured are much more likely to rack up higher long-term medical costs because they are much less likely to seek out preventative or early medical care.

But, more simply, everyone gets sick and dies eventually. No one "maintains their health." Healthcare is inevitable for all.

And ridding health care of the individual mandate and keeping the regulation on insurers will create a total clusterf*ck. Why would anyone buy insurance until they're sick? But maybe that's the way to go: insurance costs will spiral out of control and the industry will die. And then we can go to a single-payer system. In the meantime, it'd suck to be us. Wheee!

So, under the commerce clause of the Constitution and Congress' power "to tax and spend providing for the general welfare," the bill is legal. For now. The radically conservative SCOTUS, as always, looms.

Happy six months to health care reform

by: molly moody

Thu Sep 23, 2010 at 12:26:11 PM MST

After the bruising legislative battle over health reform, featuring misconceptions and outright falsehoods, September 23, 2010 is when rhetoric gives way to reality.  

Legislation of this monumental importance and complexity can be difficult to understand in the abstract. So it's no surprise that many Americans have been unsure about what's in the law or how they will gain from the passage of health reform legislation.  

Here's a quick snap shot of the reforms that become law today.

1. Bans Insurance Companies from Dropping our Coverage When We Get Sick:  In the past, insurance companies could search for an error, or other technical mistake, on a consumer's application and use this error to deny payment for services when he or she got sick. The new law makes this illegal.

2. Prohibits Excluding Coverage for Children With Pre-existing Conditions:  Insurance plans can no longer refuse to cover children younger than 19 because they were born with or develop a serious medical condition. (A similar ban on coverage exclusions for adults goes into effect in 2014.)

3. Empowers Consumers to Appeal Insurance Company Denials:  The law provides consumers with a way to appeal coverage determinations or claims to their insurance company, and establishes an external review process.

4.  Extends Coverage for Young Adults: Young adults can stay on a parent's plan until they turn 26. If you want to put an adult child on your plan, you'll be given an opportunity to do so during a special enrollment period. (This doesn't apply to young adults who already have health insurance through a job.)

5. Provides Free Preventive Care:  All new plans must cover certain preventive services such as mammograms and colonoscopies without charging a deductible, co-pay or coinsurance.

6. Eliminates Lifetime Limits on Insurance Coverage: Under the new law, insurance companies will be prohibited from imposing lifetime dollar limits on essential benefits, like hospital stays which, begins putting an end to medical bankruptcies in America.

Here is a good resource to help you follow state implementation efforts from Securities and Insurance Commissioner Monica Lindeen's office [insurance reform, www.sao.mt.gov].

If you have a question, or need advice on any aspect of reform, you can submit a question to Commissioner Lindeen's office.

This is great resource from the White House, and you can always consult with our friends at HCAN.

The American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network also has some great fact sheets (pdf) and time lines (pdf) explaining key health reform benefits for cancer patients.

Quite simply, the health reform bill ends the industry's stranglehold on our access to high quality health care and curtails industry abuses that have made life difficult for millions of Americans and thousands of Montanans for years.

With many of the most important and direct provisions of the law taking effect today, the benefits of ending this stranglehold are clear.  

Thanks to health reform, as of today, more Montanans can receive access to the care they need, when they need it. In policies issued from now on, no American will be dropped from their health coverage because they become sick.  No child will have insurance coverage denied because they suffer from a pre-existing condition, and children who do not have insurance through a job can stay on their parents' health insurance until age 26.

From today forward, lifetime caps on coverage become part of the past, annual limits on coverage are severely restricted, and eligibility for employer health plans will not be based on how much money you make.  And, recognizing that preventing people from becoming sick in the first place saves money and saves lives, the law also ensures that private insurance plans cover preventive health services, such as screening and health counseling, without requiring co-pays or triggering deductibles.  

We will finally start reaping the rewards of a health care system that works for everyone.

It's a good thing for all of us that health reform is here to stay.  The new law isn't perfect, but it's a dramatic improvement over the current broken system. Provisions in the law that take effect today give Americans more access to the care they need, crack down on insurance company abuses, replace insecurity with new measures of stability for millions of young people, and promise to improve our peace of mind along with their health.  

Big Mac lines

by: Jay Stevens

Wed Sep 01, 2010 at 10:21:25 AM MST

McDonald's plans to hire about 1,000 people across 600 restaurants in the Pacific-Sierra region, which includes Northern Nevada and California.

The company doesn't have a final estimate yet of how many people took part in the event but several stores were reporting lines this afternoon, said Jake Mossawir, regional spokesman for McDonald's.

While the lines outside of California and Nevada McDonald's restaurants augurs better service at fast-food chains in the West, I'm thinking this isn't a good sign for either the economy or the American worker.

Double-ugh:

Unemployment continues to hover well above 12 percent in the Sacramento area, and furloughs have cut hours and pay for thousands of state workers. Now, older, experienced workers compete head to head with teens and young adults for part-time positions at fast-food restaurants.
For all their differences, Smith and Giles were drawn to the McDonald's event for the same reason - the possibility of a job with health benefits.

"Medical benefits - that's the big draw right now," Smith said. "I had an allergic reaction to medication. Now I'm in debt for that."

Another strike against the health-care system. When need for insurance pushes overqualified candidates to work for a fast-food chain, that's a problem. Aren't we, as an economy, sacrificing innovation and efficiency by clinging to a broken insurance industry?

Dennis Rehberg (R-Albatross)

by: Montana Cowgirl

Tue Jun 29, 2010 at 21:22:13 PM MST

After watching the latest McDonald/Rehberg debate on television Sunday, I was surprised to read this story in today's Helena IR with the headline "Economy, immigration at heart of House race." This is simply wrong.  For example, it is impossible to argue that health care reform isn't a major current issue, yet the AP story didn't report on the discussion of health care reform at the "debate."  I wish there were some online source I could link to...but since there isn't, those of you who watched will also remember that Rehberg also faced strong accusations from both of his opponents that he'd allowed "partisan bickering" to hold up progress in Congress.

At the accusation, Rehberg feigned a shocked face and tried to claim that he'd be happy to work with anyone who offered.  Desparate to come up with an example, he was only able to think of his work with another of D.C's biggest duds, Bart Stupak, on the so-called "Northern Border Caucus." Stupak, who claims to be a Democrat, is so unpopular that more people are clamoring to take credit for his resignation than to admit they are collaborating with him on something, so it's not exactly something to brag about.

So why is it so hard for Rehberg to get others to work with him?

Perhaps Rehberg's record of failing to pass meaningful legislation prevents others from wanting to join him on a big project they actually hope will pass. Could be that his lack of legislative prowess makes his signature an albatross of sorts to a proposal. Only if by "prowess" you mean the ability to pop the top off a Bud Light Lime with one's teeth is Rehberg going to be your go-to guy.

Actions speak louder than words, and while Dennis Rehberg has shown that he'll say anything to try and score political points, he'll ultimately only do what's best for his campaign coffers, not what's best for passing legislation.  For example, when it comes to putting his money where his mouth is on his opposition to health care reform, Rehberg has once again done nothing.

Nothing of substance that is.  Rehberg has had no problem kicking the old "work ethic" into gear when it comes to  speaking to the media and collecting campaign checks from those who want reform repealed:

Rehberg said Montana Republican legislators are right to be pushing the state's attorney general, Steve Bullock, to join 18 other states in challenging federal health care legislation. Last week, more than 70 Republicans signed a letter to Bullock, claiming to represent a majority of Montanans on the issue.

At the same time, Rehberg has refused to actually do anything about it himself by signing on to the repeal bill. 

Unless of course, those wanting repeal to succeed have refused to accept his signature.  

Unlike Most Democratic Sheep, Schweitzer Not Afraid to Stick Dagger in Tea Party, on National TV

by: Montana Cowgirl

Mon May 17, 2010 at 16:44:32 PM MST

The Tea Party movement has spooked many Democrats.  Watch the national news, and see how most Democrats who serve in competitive states or districts are not willing to stand up and take the Tea Partiers on. Instead, they walk on eggshells, always reluctant to criticize them for fear of becoming a target of them or for fear of losing a few independent voters who get their news from Fox. "You are seeing some understandable anger" is the usual refrain uttered by everybody from the President to just about every Democratic US Senator or member of Congress or Governor, unless they are lucky enough to serve an electorate that is heavily democratic and thus safe.

But here is a clip of Schweitzer on the Rachel Maddow show (yay!), calmly sticking a long dagger into the Tea folks, making them look like the foolish and ignorant hypocrites they are. Here's a link to the transcript for those of you reading this at work.  And here's a quote I especially like:

The tea party people get up in the morning and they make phone calls to each other that they're going to go to a rally.  And they use a subsidized telephone system.  Then they drive down a road that was built by the government that is protected by government workers called highway patrolmen. They get to a rally and they carry their signs and they are protected by the firemen and the policemen who are in that town.  And then they eagerly drive home and say, "It was a success.  We're against the government."

I also like his stance on education,

It's not a sin to be frugal.  It's not a sin to challenge expenses. But it is a sin to cut back on education for our most valuable resource.

This is far from the only place where Schweitzer isn't afraid to say what is right even if it doesn't poll well or get him conservative voters.  Here in one of the more conservative states in America, he has made speeches praising the Canadian health system (daring Montana voters to find a Canadian citizen that doesn't like her country's healthcare).

He has openly advocated a withdrawal from Afghanistan--a war which he sees as not worth the lives or expense. He has welcomed American Indians into his government and into the political system with an emphasis not seen in Montana's political history, treating them as the sovereigns they are.  He has gone after the Obama Administration, (and perhaps Baucus and Tester, implicitly...), for selling out to Big Pharma, and not allowing Montana citizens to buy cheap medication from Canada; and recently, he went to Butte to stand up publicly in defense of Saudi and other Arab students who were being taunted and attacked by local redneck douchebags.

He has made historic investments in Montana's HHS budget, in help for the poor, the disabled, and education, and has been happy to tout them even as the Tea Party criticizes him.

Running against health care reform

by: Jay Stevens

Tue Apr 06, 2010 at 08:02:34 AM MST

In Montana, the GOP hasn't fixed on any concrete electoral strategy around healthcare. The typical reaction is, as this AP report demonstrates, labeling it as "federal takeover" and "social engineering." A KFBB report hints at other rhetoric the GOP is trying out: that the bill is too expensive and doesn't do anything to reduce healthcare costs.

If the GOP this summer goes after health care in Beck-ian fashion, don't count on it to be a winning strategy. I don't know if I'll go as far as Baucus did in the AP report and claim that most will "like" the bill once its provisions go into effect and they'll see what we got, but it's clear they'll see that it's not the bogeyman bill that will mean the end to the country that righties have made it out to be. If you've been actually following the health care debate, it's entirely apparent this bill is hardly government takeover of health care. It's not socialism or social engineering, or really any kind of change at all: most people's health insurance won't be touched by this bill.

If on the other hand, the GOP goes after it in a more responsible manner - cooling the Teabagger extremist rhetoric and concentrating on budget deficits and cost control - they'll probably do much better. (After all, in Massachusetts - the insurance reform model for national healthcare reform - insurers are suing to raise insurance premiums as high as 32 percent.)

Whichever strategy the GOP chooses, figure on its summer plans to include health care. Kellyn Brown:

State GOP Executive Director Bowen Greenwood has maintained that health care reform would be a "winning issue" for his party in the upcoming elections. Most national polls that show a small uptick in support for the legislation still record the majority of people opposing the bill. I would guess it's even more unpopular in Libertarian-minded Montana. And even more so in the Flathead, still a conservative stronghold in the state.

How this sways the November election and thus the makeup of the 2011 state Legislature will be determined by how effective the GOP candidates are in keeping the issue alive.

And whatever Republicans say this summer, what's clear is that they'll use the next legislative session to try and block healthcare reform from coming to Montana. From Brown's post:

A GOP lawmaker told me weeks ago that, if health care reform was made federal law, her party planned on introducing legislation similar to that in Virginia, which exempts that state from certain aspects of reform and laid the groundwork for suing the federal government.

Health care reform and ideology

by: Jay Stevens

Sat Mar 27, 2010 at 11:17:21 AM MST

...if one wants to argue that this is a good bill, that's reasonable, but to claim that it is an example of Democrats' "standing up to special interests and the health insurance lobby" is so blatantly false that everyone -- especially supposedly independent commentators -- should be deeply embarrassed to espouse it.

The reason this matters so much -- aside from the intrinsic need to debunk political propaganda -- is because corporate control of the Government is one of the most serious problems, if not the single most serious problem, the nation faces. Every future bill -- from "financial reform" to energy bills to national security and surveillance legislation -- is dominated by that central fact. To pretend that these interests were vanquished or "neutralized" here ...is not just deeply misleading but, worse, helps conceal what remains the greatest threat to the democratic process: a threat that is not only stronger than ever, but has been made stronger as a result of the last several months.

And therein lies some essential clue about the rift that made the left as divisive and acrimonious as it was during the 2008 primary - Sirota's angry column on the "bleeting sheeple" being led to a "corporate giveaway" healthcare bill is Exhibit A in the kind of heated internecine rhetoric too commonly found surrounding reform.

The rift is about the health care system as a whole.

Health care links...

by: Jay Stevens

Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 09:07:58 AM MST

EJ Dionne points out that this health care reform bill is essentially a Republican plan, preserving the private insurance industry and creating a better insurance market. Dionne: "Here is the ultimate paradox of the Great Health Care Showdown: Congress will divide along partisan lines to pass a Republican version of health care reform, and Republicans will vote against it." (The mandate, for example, was a Republican invention.)

Jane Hamsher: "The health care debate was essentially a fight between political parties, not political philosophies. And the public understood that."

Of course, there's no way the current Republican party could have passed any kind of health care reform. Nor did they when they held the reins of power that last decade.

And according to a March 22 Gallup poll, a majority of Americans think it's "a good thing" that Congress passed the health care bill.

Health care passes

by: Jay Stevens

Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 09:12:27 AM MST

The New York Times has a quick recap of what consumers should expect from this bill:

The uninsured are clearly the biggest beneficiaries of the legislation, which would extend the health care safety net for the lowest-income Americans.

The legislation is meant to provide coverage for as many as 32 million people who have been shut out of the market - whether because insurers deem them too sick or because they cannot afford ever-rising insurance premiums.

Read the whole analysis of the effects of the health-care bill.

I've already expressed my ambivalence about the bill here. While Matt called out some of the more ardent opposition to the bill as "Glenn Beckian" for ignoring "science and research," I think many of the bill's supporters are ignoring the fact that the bill does nothing substantial to actually reform the health-care system and battle rising costs. To wit: the way the industry is set up today, it gives incentives to

-- insurers to pass along as much cost to the consumer as they can
-- health care providers to perform unnecessary and expensive procedures
-- consumers to avoid preventative medicine and early treatment.

Which drives up cost. The bill, in short, has the government taking on some of the cost passed on to the consumer while forcing the insurer to take on more risk, and...that's about it. There will be studies and research and etc & co that might - should - translate into greater efficiencies in health care delivery, but fee-for-service payment still endures. The currently uninsured who will have insurance will no doubt be more inclined to seek out out early and preventative treatment, but the myth of "moral hazard," which believes consumers with high deductibles will choose health care procedures more wisely, instead of avoiding it altogether (which is what consumers actually do), endures.

That said, this bill will save lives. It will allow people who currently can't find any insurance to find medical coverage. Low-income families will receive subsidies to buy insurance. Insurers can no longer use pre-existing conditions to deny coverage to children. Young people can remain on their parents' policies longer. Small business owners will receive tax credit for providing their employees healthcare benefits. Eventually, purchasing prescription medication will be cheaper for seniors on Medicare,  Medicaid will be expanded, and no insurer will be able to deny coverage because of pre-existing conditions.

So, yeah. The bill is a poultice. It will help a lot of people at a reasonable cost. It's not real "reform." But then, to really have fixed the system, the government would have had to destroy the private health insurance industry.

And here's one thing that bugged me all along about this process and we critics who constantly dogged Congressmen and the bill's supporters: all the criticism seemed to imply that there was some "magic bullet" that people were too afraid to use that would have made this bill and this process picture perfect. Do you really think - given the makeup of Congress, the power of corporations and their lobbyists, and the role of the media - that the outcome could have been any better?

The less enthusiastic reaction to the health care bill

by: Jay Stevens

Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 09:53:15 AM MST

First, their leaders campaign on pledges to create a government insurer (a "public option") that will compete with private health corporations. Once elected, though, Democrats propose simply subsidizing those corporations, which are (not coincidentally) filling Democratic coffers. Justifying the reversal, Democrats claim the subsidies will at least help some citizens try to afford the private insurance they'll be forced to buy - all while insisting Congress suddenly lacks the votes for a public option.

Despite lawmakers' refusal to hold votes verifying that assertion, liberal groups obediently follow orders to back the bill, their obsequious leaders fearing scorn from Democratic insiders and moneymen. Specifically, MoveOn, unions and "progressive" non-profits threaten retribution against lawmakers who consider voting against the bill because it doesn't include a public option. The threats fly even though these congresspeople would be respecting their previous public-option ultimatums - ultimatums originally supported by many of the same groups now demanding retreat.

Soon it's on to false choices. Democrats tell their base that any bill is better than no bill, even one making things worse, and that if this particular legislation doesn't pass, Republicans will win the upcoming election - as if signing a blank check to insurance and drug companies couldn't seal that fate. They tell everyone else that "realistically" this is the "last chance" for reform, expecting We the Sheeple to forget that those spewing the do-or-die warnings control the legislative calendar and could immediately try again.

Good stuff, a real humdinger full of classic Sirota contempt and outrage.

And, yes, this bill appears to be a government bribe of the private insurance industry to take on the uninsured. Yes, the insurance and medical industries appeared to have financed the process. Yes, Democrats were the most egregious offenders - and did the Republicans abandon the process because their usual corporate overlords abandoned them for Democrats? Or did the lobbyists flock to Democrats because the Republicans abandoned reform? - my preferred party consistently ignored or even rejected the basic moral principles behind reform.

Whatever. We're stuck with a bill that doesn't really make much change to a very broken health care system, and whose cost controls are, at best, debatable.

But.

More people will have access to health care because of this bill.

Here's hoping that, as Matt does, that work on health care continues if this bill passes.

New numbers: How health care reform will help Montana

by: John_Firehammer

Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 12:41:56 PM MST

   * Improve coverage for 564,000 residents with health insurance.
   * Give tax credits and other assistance to up to 261,000 families and 34,900 small businesses to help them afford coverage.
   * Improve Medicare for 162,000 beneficiaries, including closing the donut hole.
   * Extend coverage to 117,000 uninsured residents.
   * Guarantee that 22,000 residents with pre-existing conditions can obtain coverage.
   * Protect 900 families from bankruptcy due to unaffordable health care costs.
   * Allow 76,000 young adults to obtain coverage on their parents' insurance plans.
   * Provide millions of dollars in new funding for 84 community health centers.
   * Reduce the cost of uncompensated care for hospitals and other health care providers by $54 million annually.

Our state, which is struggling with a poor economy and widespread job losses, needs the help reform will provide. Urge Rep. Denny Rehberg to do the right thing and support health care reform now.

Schweitzer's Drug Play

by: Montana Cowgirl

Fri Mar 12, 2010 at 03:20:06 AM MST

Two questions arise. First, why had the issue gone dormant? Short Answer: The Obama Administration cut a deal with the Pharmaceutical Industry, early in the healthcare reform game, in which Obama pledged to kill any efforts to reimport drugs from Canada in return for the Drug Industry running TV Ads and other media--$80 million worth--in support of Obama's healthcare plan.

That's a shady deal by any measurement, unless the ultimate Obama plan finds some way to drastically reduce or subsidize prescription prices. Thus far the plan does not appear to do so.

But more troubling, and way under the radar, is the fact that our senators have taken the bait. Both Tester and Baucus recently (and quietly) voted against a Senate Bill that would have authorized the reimportation of prescription drugs (made by American companies) from Canada.    

Beyond that, there lurks the more dark and deplorable history of Baucus giving the pharmaceutical industry one of the greatest government corporate giveaways in history.  Those were the days when Baucus was hugging George Bush as a way to get re-elected (how times have changed).  And the most insidious part of that 2002 vote by Baucus, of course, was that Baucus's Chief of Staff left Baucus's office shortly thereafter, to cash in in a new job lobbying the Senate on behalf of the drug industry, employment which quickly made him a millionaire.

The second question is what the White House and/or Secretary Sebelius is going to tell Schweitzer. Has Schweitzer gotten too cute? Has he poked the tiger one time too many? Will Obama somehow retaliate or freeze-out our Governor? Or, has Schweitzer put them in an impossible position and thus revived a very important issue, and put it on course for some sort of resolution? Perhaps even a concession from the drug industry that is something more than a promise to run stupid and ineffective campaign ads for a stupid and ineffective corporate giveaway which the White House is trying to sell us?

This is a major poke in the eye of the Obama team and is sure to get some national attention (as Schweitzer always seems to do.)  But hey, the Obama Administration deserves it. 

Now if only Glenn Beck would do the same...

by: Jay Stevens

Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 13:01:35 PM MST

LIMBAUGH: ...I'll just tell you this, if this passes and it's five years from now and all that stuff gets implemented - I am leaving the country. I'll go to Costa Rica.

What does Massachusetts mean?

by: Jay Stevens

Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 10:18:33 AM MST

What does it mean? Does it mean what Maine's Susan Collins says it does?

Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, said one of the many messages coming out of the Massachusetts election is that Americans are sick of partisan gridlock, but voters also had a much more expansive recommendation.

"They want better performance out of Washington, they want us focusing on the troubled economy and the need for more jobs and ... they're tired of sweetheart deals that were sneaked into the health care bill. They want that kind of bill to be negotiated in the open. And they're tired of politics as usual and they also want controls. They don't want unfettered, one-party control," Collins told Fox News.

I can't argue with this - I think it's probably true. Of course, Republicans are the main reason there is partisan gridlock in DC, and adding Scott Brown snarls it up even more. As for "politics as usual"...well...I'm not hopeful having Brown as a Senator is going to change that at all. While Democrats have cut deals with insurers and health care providers, their base obeisance pales in comparison to the GOP's usual pathetic grovelling at the feet of corporate America. That is, it's not lkely Brown is the solution.

Why not ditch the excise tax?

by: Jay Stevens

Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 14:35:47 PM MST

But here's the paragraph I want to talk about:

But if you think that the administration will simply give up on the excise tax -- which does them virtually no good in the first 10 years anyway -- why is it in there at all? It's unpopular with their allies and wins them no friends among their enemies. Indeed, it's easy to see why so few presidents attempt cost control: You get hammered by the people who usually like you and dismissed by the people who usually like cost controls but don't fundamentally trust you. That leaves you with, well, virtually no one.

First, the excise tax has nothing to do with cost control. It will not cut costs. Causing consumers to ditch good insurance plans will have two effects: One, they will pay more out-of-pocket for health care. Two, they will avoid seeking medical care when possible and in the long run, as a direct result, will consume more health care and more expensive health care than otherwise.

Second...it does beg the question, why is the administration so devoted to the excise tax?

Maybe they do believe, like Ezra, who's apparently here internalized private insurers' profiteering logic, that it will control costs. (Although, from experience, we know it doesn't.) More likely, IMHO, they need a funding mechanism for the bill they're passing, and are justifying it as a cost-control measure. And it's aimed at unions because they're easier to disappoint than deep-pocketed private insurers.

Reid Snowed in by Republicans

by: Jay Stevens

Thu Jan 14, 2010 at 08:22:39 AM MST

"As I look back it was a waste of time dealing with [Snowe]," [Sen. Harry] Reid is quoted as saying about the White House in a forthcoming New York Times Magazine piece, "because she had no intention of ever working anything out."

You know, Reid sounds genuinely surprised by this. I mean...he's been in the Senate, hasn't he noticed the record-setting filibuster pace the Republicans have set? Doesn't he understand the GOP would rather savage the country by blocking crucial legislation than stay out of power?

There was a lot of talk this election of ending the partisan rancor in Washington. People dug it. Obama ran a campaign on it. Only thing is, the GOP realized by upping partisanship a notch, they won't be the ones who catch h*ll.

The answer is, and always was, to go progressive and steamroll the GOP into obsolescence.  

Say "no" to the health care excise tax

by: Jay Stevens

Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 13:40:25 PM MST

Still, in the commentary I've read about the bill, I think most miss the central, and seriously flawed, premise of the tax, something that Herbert only touches on.

Herbert's against the tax because, as health care costs continue to rise (especially without any discernible cost controls present in the health care legislation), more and more health care policies will become taxable:

The tax would kick in on plans exceeding $23,000 annually for family coverage and $8,500 for individuals, starting in 2013. In the first year it would affect relatively few people in the middle class. But because of the steadily rising costs of health care in the U.S., more and more plans would reach the taxation threshold each year.

Within three years of its implementation, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the tax would apply to nearly 20 percent of all workers with employer-provided health coverage in the country, affecting some 31 million people. Within six years, according to Congress's Joint Committee on Taxation, the tax would reach a fifth of all households earning between $50,000 and $75,000 annually. Those families can hardly be considered very wealthy.

But, as Herbert notes, and as we say in the software biz, that's not bug, it's a feature.

Let tax proponent Jonathan Gruber explain:

The Senate assessment on high-cost insurance plans has much to recommend it, which is why it is almost universally favored by health policy experts. It would reduce the incentives for employers to provide excessively generous insurance, leading to more cost-conscious use of health care and, ultimately, lower spending. In other words, it "bends the curve."

Obama's first year

by: Jay Stevens

Thu Dec 24, 2009 at 00:06:04 AM MST

For one, Kossak bacalove posted Professor Robert Watson's list of Obama's "90 accomplishments" during his first term. Watson claimed Obama's "first six months have been even more active than FDRs or LBJs..."

Sadly, though, Watson's list is peppered with meaningless items. Like #1: "ordered all federal agencies to undertake a study and make recommendations for ways to cut spending." Uh, call me a cynic... Other items are nice, but neither critical nor transformative, like #5, "families of fallen soldiers have expenses covered to be on hand when the body arrives at Dover AFB." Yes, it's a meaningful gesture to the troops and their families, and is likely to have positive effects on troop morale, but it's a service provided for a few, not a major "accomplishment."

Health care reform: McCain Amendment goes down

by: John_Firehammer

Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 16:56:34 PM MST

Senators Baucus and Tester Stand Up For Seniors

Votes Against McCain Amendment Handout to Insurance Companies

Today, Sens. Max Baucus and Jon Tester stood up for seniors and voted against the McCain amendment. The amendment was defeated 58-42.

"I want to thank Sens. Baucus and Tester for looking out for Montana.  I am relieved that they realize the urgent needs seniors have for quality affordable care," said Mabel Weis, 66, of Missoula.

Before she became eligible for Medicare, Weis lived without health insurance for more than 10 years. She lost her coverage when she quit her job as a data entry clerk in order to take care of her husband, who suffered a stroke. Weis is herself a cancer survivor and says she's "been through the wringer" with the health care system.

The U.S. Senate is currently debating The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which is urgently needed to provide quality affordable health care to Montana seniors, working families and small business owners.  Opponents have played partisan games to frighten Montanans and block this critical legislation.   The McCain Amendment is more of the same-showing a disregard for the American people and pandering to corporate insurance interests.

"Seniors aren't fooled by these attempts to divert our attention and derail health care reform," said Frank Clark, 70, a retired University of Montana sociology professor. He says affordable, accessible health care is needed now, particularly since the nation's economy is in such bad shape. He said he's frustrated that two of his adult children-one self-employed and the other a student who recently went back to school in order to better her job projects-are able to find affordable medical coverage.

The McCain Amendment continues the $120 billion handout to private insurance companies running "Medicare Advantage."  According to the General Accounting Office report, in one year private insurance companies administering "Medicare Advantage" reaped an extra $1 billion in profits from overcharging- on top of the $35 billion these plans already generate in revenue.  Every tax payer subsidizes these extra perks and Medicare is moved closer to bankruptcy because of these overpayments.

"We are very pleased that Sens. Baucus and Tester stood up for Montanans over special interests.  We urge the opponents of this reform to stop their partisan games and misinformation campaigns because people of Montana are hurting.  We need The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to change this system so that seniors, small businesses and hard working families are not left at the mercy of corporate insurance interests," said Jim Fleischmann, Montana state director of Change That Works.

It is urgent that the U.S. Senate take action.  This week 44,000 Americans lost their health insurance, 17,000 Americans were forced into bankruptcy because of medical debt and 400 people lost their lives because they lacked health insurance. It's time for Congress to act and stand up to special interests and put the interests of Montana above politics.  

###

Change That Works is a grassroots organization that energizes Americans in support of a broad progressive agenda. Concentrated in 12 states that are key to federal legislative outcomes, Change That Works is a vehicle for committed individuals to act on their progressive values through collective action and advocacy.