Even Howard Dean says "NO" to voting on this health care bill.

[Danno 1,228]

Health-care bill wouldn't bring real reform

By Howard Dean

Thursday, December 17, 2009; A33

If I were a senator, I would not vote for the current health-care bill. Any measure that expands private insurers' monopoly over health care and transfers millions of taxpayer dollars to private corporations is not real health-care reform. Real reform would insert competition into insurance markets, force insurers to cut unnecessary administrative expenses and spend health-care dollars caring for people. Real reform would significantly lower costs, improve the delivery of health care and give all Americans a meaningful choice of coverage. The current Senate bill accomplishes none of these.

Real health-care reform is supposed to eliminate discrimination based on preexisting conditions. But the legislation allows insurance companies to charge older Americans up to three times as much as younger Americans, pricing them out of coverage. The bill was supposed to give Americans choices about what kind of system they wanted to enroll in. Instead, it fines Americans if they do not sign up with an insurance company, which may take up to 30 percent of your premium dollars and spend it on CEO salaries -- in the range of $20 million a year -- and on return on equity for the company's shareholders. Few Americans will see any benefit until 2014, by which time premiums are likely to have doubled. In short, the winners in this bill are insurance companies; the American taxpayer is about to be fleeced with a bailout in a situation that dwarfs even what happened at AIG.

From the very beginning of this debate, progressives have argued that a public option or a Medicare buy-in would restore competition and hold the private health insurance industry accountable. Progressives understood that a public plan would give Americans real choices about what kind of system they wanted to be in and how they wanted to spend their money. Yet Washington has decided, once again, that the American people cannot be trusted to choose for themselves. Your money goes to insurers, whether or not you want it to.

To be clear, I'm not giving up on health-care reform. The legislation does have some good points, such as expanding Medicaid and permanently increasing the federal government's contribution to it. It invests critical dollars in public health, wellness and prevention programs; extends the life of the Medicare trust fund; and allows young Americans to stay on their parents' health-care plans until they turn 27. Small businesses struggling with rising health-care costs will receive a tax credit, and primary-care physicians will see increases in their Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement rates.

Improvements can still be made in the Senate, and I hope that Senate Democrats will work on this bill as it moves to conference. If lawmakers are interested in ensuring that government affordability credits are spent on health-care benefits rather than insurers' salaries, they need to require state-based exchanges, which act as prudent purchasers and select only the most efficient insurers. Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) offered this amendment during the Finance Committee markup, and Democrats should include it in the final legislation. A stripped-down version of the current bill that included these provisions would be worth passing.

In Washington, when major bills near final passage, an inside-the-Beltway mentality takes hold. Any bill becomes a victory. Clear thinking is thrown out the window for political calculus. In the heat of battle, decisions are being made that set an irreversible course for how future health reform is done. The result is legislation that has been crafted to get votes, not to reform health care.

I have worked for health-care reform all my political life. In my home state of Vermont, we have accomplished universal health care for children younger than 18 and real insurance reform -- which not only bans discrimination against preexisting conditions but also prevents insurers from charging outrageous sums for policies as a way of keeping out high-risk people. I know health reform when I see it, and there isn't much left in the Senate bill. I reluctantly conclude that, as it stands, this bill would do more harm than good to the future of America.

The writer is a former chairman of the Democratic National Committee and was governor of Vermont from 1991 to 2002.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...1601906_pf.html

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Yes, Danno. Howard Dean has joined the ranks of the Tea Partiers and opposes the current state of the bill for the same reasons.

Hey look....

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Howard Dean has joined the ranks of the Tea Partiers and opposes the current state of the bill for the same reasons.

I don't see much commonality between the very valid points of criticism offerd by Dean and the blanket opposition the Tea Partiers have put forth from day one. The Democrats and the President have indeed managed to let themselves be maneuvered into a corner from where there is no escape that can be called a win. They lose if this sham of a bill passes and they lose if it fails. They managed to ** this thing up and they'll pay the price for it. And they should. The President included.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Howard Dean has joined the ranks of the Tea Partiers and opposes the current state of the bill for the same reasons.

I don't see much commonality between the very valid points of criticism offerd by Dean and the blanket opposition the Tea Partiers have put forth from day one. The Democrats and the President have indeed managed to let themselves be maneuvered into a corner from where there is no escape that can be called a win. They lose if this sham of a bill passes and they lose if it fails. They managed to ** this thing up and they'll pay the price for it. And they should. The President included.

I agree with Sen. Sanders...Reid should use Reconciliation to piece meal meaningful reform through. If the Republicans could use Reconciliation to push their tax cuts for the rich through, Reid could grow some testicles and do it for this. There's just no way under the current political climate, to be able to get such a monumental piece of legislation passed that is filibuster proof.

Either Reconciliation or change the Senate rule on filibustering.

[Dan J 277]

The problem with the whole process is that a threat of a fillibuster is enough to give alot of power in crafting the bill to a select few individuals. AKA, I wont vote unless it does XYZ.

I suggested a long time ago that it would be politically impossible to get meaningful healthcare refrom at a national level and that the effort should be expended in the progressive states. Unfortunately that would create a patchwork of many different systems, but its probably the only way we will get to an end goal.

[Danno 1,228]

Yes, Danno. Howard Dean has joined the ranks of the Tea Partiers and opposes the current state of the bill for the same reasons.

Hey look....

I never suggested our oppositions were the same, just that we can't find one person to claim it's a "good bill".

[Ban Hammer 13,658]

The problem with the whole process is that a threat of a fillibuster is enough to give alot of power in crafting the bill to a select few individuals. AKA, I wont vote unless it does XYZ.

I suggested a long time ago that it would be politically impossible to get meaningful healthcare refrom at a national level and that the effort should be expended in the progressive states. Unfortunately that would create a patchwork of many different systems, but its probably the only way we will get to an end goal.

along with the federal government does not have a mandate to do so, but they sure are trying - see the 10th amendment.

i'd much rather see the states perform this function.

[Danno 1,228]

The problem with the whole process is that a threat of a fillibuster is enough to give alot of power in crafting the bill to a select few individuals. AKA, I wont vote unless it does XYZ.

I suggested a long time ago that it would be politically impossible to get meaningful healthcare refrom at a national level and that the effort should be expended in the progressive states. Unfortunately that would create a patchwork of many different systems, but its probably the only way we will get to an end goal.

along with the federal government does not have a mandate to do so, but they sure are trying - see the 10th amendment.

i'd much rather see the states perform this function.

You're exactly right.

States are much more suited to finding a winning program, each state competing with others on price and service and working model.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The problem with the whole process is that a threat of a fillibuster is enough to give alot of power in crafting the bill to a select few individuals. AKA, I wont vote unless it does XYZ.

I suggested a long time ago that it would be politically impossible to get meaningful healthcare refrom at a national level and that the effort should be expended in the progressive states. Unfortunately that would create a patchwork of many different systems, but its probably the only way we will get to an end goal.

along with the federal government does not have a mandate to do so, but they sure are trying - see the 10th amendment.

i'd much rather see the states perform this function.

You're exactly right.

States are much more suited to finding a winning program, each state competing with others on price and service and working model.

I think after a century or so of the states pretty universally failing to effectively address the issue one might have reason to question that approach. If the states don't want the feds to handle it, then the proper course of action would be to achieve universal coverage on the state level which would right then and there defeat any argument the feds could ever want to make to take this on. The states failed on that end. For about a century now. Just give them another century or two to try and figure it out? I'd rather not.

[Danno 1,228]

The problem with the whole process is that a threat of a fillibuster is enough to give alot of power in crafting the bill to a select few individuals. AKA, I wont vote unless it does XYZ.

I suggested a long time ago that it would be politically impossible to get meaningful healthcare refrom at a national level and that the effort should be expended in the progressive states. Unfortunately that would create a patchwork of many different systems, but its probably the only way we will get to an end goal.

along with the federal government does not have a mandate to do so, but they sure are trying - see the 10th amendment.

i'd much rather see the states perform this function.

You're exactly right.

States are much more suited to finding a winning program, each state competing with others on price and service and working model.

I think after a century or so of the states pretty universally failing to effectively address the issue one might have reason to question that approach. If the states don't want the feds to handle it, then the proper course of action would be to achieve universal coverage on the state level which would right then and there defeat any argument the feds could ever want to make to take this on. The states failed on that end. For about a century now. Just give them another century or two to try and figure it out? I'd rather not.

Perhaps working under thaTr logic, Canada might look at the failure of so many federal programs in the US and come assert control of them?... not because they have any authority to do so but because.... there is a NEED. (NEED being the lefts only recognized authority)

In fact if Canada can make our Public school system work, I might be wiling to tear up all limiting powers between the rights of states and countries.

(I hear John Lennon singing with me)

[Dan J 277]

The problem with the whole process is that a threat of a fillibuster is enough to give alot of power in crafting the bill to a select few individuals. AKA, I wont vote unless it does XYZ.

I suggested a long time ago that it would be politically impossible to get meaningful healthcare refrom at a national level and that the effort should be expended in the progressive states. Unfortunately that would create a patchwork of many different systems, but its probably the only way we will get to an end goal.

along with the federal government does not have a mandate to do so, but they sure are trying - see the 10th amendment.

i'd much rather see the states perform this function.

You're exactly right.

States are much more suited to finding a winning program, each state competing with others on price and service and working model.

I think after a century or so of the states pretty universally failing to effectively address the issue one might have reason to question that approach. If the states don't want the feds to handle it, then the proper course of action would be to achieve universal coverage on the state level which would right then and there defeat any argument the feds could ever want to make to take this on. The states failed on that end. For about a century now. Just give them another century or two to try and figure it out? I'd rather not.

Perhaps working under thaTr logic, Canada might look at the failure of so many federal programs in the US and come assert control of them?... not because they have any authority to do so but because.... there is a NEED. (NEED being the lefts only recognized authority)

In fact if Canada can make our Public school system work, I might be wiling to tear up all limiting powers between the rights of states and countries.

(I hear John Lennon singing with me)

50 different systems, one for each state could work. Its just less efficient, especially when you deal with claims across state lines. What would more likely happen is that best systems might be adapted regionally, instead of limited to one state. But its a pretty costly way to get to real healthcare reform, but its probably the only way that the US will be able to do it.

[Ban Hammer 13,658]

The problem with the whole process is that a threat of a fillibuster is enough to give alot of power in crafting the bill to a select few individuals. AKA, I wont vote unless it does XYZ.

I suggested a long time ago that it would be politically impossible to get meaningful healthcare refrom at a national level and that the effort should be expended in the progressive states. Unfortunately that would create a patchwork of many different systems, but its probably the only way we will get to an end goal.

along with the federal government does not have a mandate to do so, but they sure are trying - see the 10th amendment.

i'd much rather see the states perform this function.

You're exactly right.

States are much more suited to finding a winning program, each state competing with others on price and service and working model.

I think after a century or so of the states pretty universally failing to effectively address the issue one might have reason to question that approach. If the states don't want the feds to handle it, then the proper course of action would be to achieve universal coverage on the state level which would right then and there defeat any argument the feds could ever want to make to take this on. The states failed on that end. For about a century now. Just give them another century or two to try and figure it out? I'd rather not.

i didn't know the states were trying to implement statewide health care in 1909 or earlier.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The problem with the whole process is that a threat of a fillibuster is enough to give alot of power in crafting the bill to a select few individuals. AKA, I wont vote unless it does XYZ.

I suggested a long time ago that it would be politically impossible to get meaningful healthcare refrom at a national level and that the effort should be expended in the progressive states. Unfortunately that would create a patchwork of many different systems, but its probably the only way we will get to an end goal.

along with the federal government does not have a mandate to do so, but they sure are trying - see the 10th amendment.

i'd much rather see the states perform this function.

You're exactly right.

States are much more suited to finding a winning program, each state competing with others on price and service and working model.

I think after a century or so of the states pretty universally failing to effectively address the issue one might have reason to question that approach. If the states don't want the feds to handle it, then the proper course of action would be to achieve universal coverage on the state level which would right then and there defeat any argument the feds could ever want to make to take this on. The states failed on that end. For about a century now. Just give them another century or two to try and figure it out? I'd rather not.

i didn't know the states were trying to implement statewide health care in 1909 or earlier.

They weren't. The quest for effective health care, however, based on the belief that a country of sick people cannot be strong, has been around this nation for about that long.

Theodore Roosevelt 1901 — 1909

During the Progressive Era, President Theodore Roosevelt was in power and although he supported health insurance because he believed that no country could be strong whose people were sick and poor, most of the initiative for reform took place outside of government. Roosevelt’s successors were mostly conservative leaders, who postponed for about twenty years the kind of presidential leadership that might have involved the national government more extensively in the management of social welfare.

Continued...

The states have, however, failed to delivery anything even remotely resembling a functioning health care system and will continue to fail for decades to come. Interestingly, the states that insist on doing it themselves are, more often than not, those that have the worst situation when it comes to health care coverage for their citizens.

Edited December 18, 2009 by Mr. Big Dog