ThinkProgress Logo

Yglesias

Lieberman’s Offer to You: Nothing

Well, as I wrote this morning:

That said, I agree with Chris Bowers that in a lot of ways the real story here is that the Senate leadership has, at every step of this process, underscored that a “reconciliation” path to a health care bill is off the table. That means Lieberman has unlimited control over what happens, and no incentive to compromise, so it shouldn’t surprise anyone that he’s being uncompromising. Can’t liberals be just as stiff-necked as Lieberman? Sure, they could. But liberals members do have an incentive to compromise—the tens of thousands of people who die every year for lack of health insurance. The leverage that Lieberman and other “centrists” have obtained on this issue (and on climate change) stems from a demonstrated willingness to embrace sociopathic indifference to the human cost of their actions.

And it looks like Lieberman used that leverage to the hilt and we’re looking at a bill with not so much as a faint trigger of a public option.

Health

Democrats Strip Medicare Buy-In From Health Bill, Can They Still Achieve The Goals Of The Public Option?

Moments ago, Democratic Senators told reporters that the caucus yielded to Sen. Joe Lieberman’s (I-CT) demands and dropped the Medicare buy-in provision from the Senate health care bill, leaving only a network of nonprofits to stand in for the public health insurance option. While Senators stressed that a final decision would be made tomorrow, after the Democratic caucus meets with President Obama, most agreed that the fate of the Medicare buy-in was all but certain.

“The general consensus was that we shouldn’t make the perfect the enemy of the good and if we’re going to get all the insurance reforms accomplished and a number of other things [and] dropping the Medicare expansion was necessary, well then that’s what should be done and it appeared that would be necessary to get the 60 votes,” Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN) told the Hill. “At some point you have to switch from the sentiment, the emotion of the words, to the facts,” said Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV). “And then you’ve got to decide if I didn’t get what I want, in the form that I wanted it, am I willing to cashier 31 million Americans? I want a bill.”

CNN confirmed these reports:

When Democratic leaders initially announced the compromise last week, progressives claimed that the Office of Personnel Management’s (OPM) network of nonprofits would do little to increase competition or lower health care costs. Public option ‘godfather’ Jacob Hacker argued that “because Blue Cross and Blue Shield (BCBS) is the most likely national non-profit to take advantage of this new opening, and because the Blues dominate most states, the plan perversely amounts to trying to increase competition and choice by encouraging Blue Cross and Blue Shield to compete against, you guessed it, Blue Cross and Blue Shield,” Hacker wrote, asking “That’s competition?

Now, with the public option dead (and the OPM proposal ineffective), Democrats should demand a list of policies in its stead. These proposals should seek to accomplish the goals of a public plan (competition, cost savings, transparency and accountability) through regulatory means and ensure that health reform does not reward private insurers with millions of new customers.

Among the options are proposals to strengthen the Medicare Commission (now known as IMAC) to focus on a more systematic approach and target more providers, allow all state-based exchanges to act as prudent purchasers and select only the most efficient insurers, work to strengthen the consumer protections in the bill or bolster the mechanisms that oversee insurer compliance with the new regulations. Lawmakers should also consider including more dynamic regulatory authority that would allow the Secretary of Health and Human Services to prevent insurers from designing new ways of excluding sicker beneficiaries and give the agency the authority new insurer abuses.

Politics

Franken: Republicans ‘haven’t read the bill and are not very familiar with it.’

This afternoon, Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) openly challenged Sen. John Thune (R-SD)’s claim that the Senate health care bill does not offer benefits until 2014. “We are entitled to our own opinions; we are not entitled to our own facts,” Franken asserted. “Benefits kick in right away.” He concluded:

I stand here day after day after day and hear my colleagues, my good friends from the other side, say things that are not based on fact. […]

Senator Thune did say that none of the benefits started next year. He just, I guess, hasn’t read the bill. .. I do find that many of my colleagues who I’m very friendly with, haven’t read the bill and are not very familiar with it.

Watch a compilation:

The Senate health care bill spends $10 billion between 2011 and 2014 on interim benefits. Franken pointed out that the bill offers immediate insurance reforms for Americans purchasing coverage in the individual market and closes the donut hole in Medicare Part D.

Health

Franken Spars With Thune, Accuses Republicans Of Not Reading The Senate Health Bill

This afternoon, Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) openly challenged Sen. John Thune (R-SD)’s claim that the Senate health care bill does not offer benefits until 2014. “We are entitled to our own opinions; we are not entitled to our own facts,” Franken declared. “I stand here day after day after day and hear my colleagues, my good friends from the other side, say things that are not based on fact.”

The Senate health care bill spends $10 billion between 2011 and 2014 on interim benefits. Franken explained that the bill offers immediate insurance reforms for Americans purchasing coverage in the individual market and closes the donut hole in Medicare Part D.

“Senator Thune did say that none of the benefits started next year, but he just, I guess, hasn’t read the bill,” Farnken said. “I do find that many of my colleagues who I’m very friendly with, haven’t read the bill and are not very familiar with it.”

Watch a compilation:

The exchanges don’t open open until 2014, but the Senate health bill immediately prohibits insurers from rescinding coverage or imposing life-time or annual limits. Americans who are denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition could participate in a national high-risk pool program and young Americans can stay on their parents’ policies until they turn 26. Under the Medicare buy-in compromise, Americans between 55 and 64 would also be able to enroll in the Medicare program on day one.

Franken may have overstated his case, however. While the bill offers some substantial immediate benefits, the bulk of reform does not kick in until 2014, once the exchanges are established.

Politics

Lieberman cites Finance Committee bill he opposed to justify Medicare flip-flop.

After Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) let it be known that he would filibuster a health care reform bill with Medicare buy-in, many bloggers, including ThinkProgress, pointed out that he campaigned in favor of such a proposal in 2000 and reiterated that support just three months ago. In an effort to explain the flip-flop, Lieberman spokesperson Erika Masonhall told the Daily Beast that Lieberman changed his position after the health care reform bill reported out of the Senate Finance Committee “contained extensive health insurance reforms” that “would benefit” those between 55 and 64 who would be eligible for the buy-in. Masonhall says extending Medicare would thus be “duplicative”:

Masonhall explained to The Daily Beast via e-mail. “Senator Lieberman’s comment reported by the Connecticut Post in September was made before the Finance Committee reported out the Baucus bill, which contained extensive health insurance reforms, including a more narrow age rating for pricing health insurance premiums and extensive affordability credits that would benefit this specific group of individuals. These health insurance reforms and affordability credits have been strengthened in Senator Reid’s Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and will provide even greater relief for those 55-65 years old. Any inclusion of a Medicare buy-in for that same age group would be duplicative of what is already in the bill, would put the government on the hook for billions of additional dollars, and would potentially threaten the solvency of Medicare, which is already in a perilous state.

Unmentioned by Masonhall, however, is the fact that Lieberman told Don Imus in October that he opposed the Finance Committee bill because he thought it was “trying to do too much” and was “actually going to raise the price of insurance for most of the people in the country.”

Yglesias

Endgame

All I could say was, “Why, why, oh why, oh why, Why is it always like this?”

— I’d missed Charles Lane’s cunning plan to boost employment by creating deflationary expectations.

— Daniel Gross says the employment pessimists are wrong and jobs are coming soon.

— Netanyahu showers settlers with money.

— Racial disparities in stroke deaths attributed to “greater frequency of stroke risk factors, including obesity, hypertension, physical inactivity, poor nutrition, diabetes, smoking and socioeconomic factors such as lack of health insurance.”

— Investments in cancer research are paying dividends.

— The government should do more about potential asteroid collisions. Seriously.

In honor of painful and annoying health care compromises, Jawbreaker’s “Bad Scene, Everyone’s Fault.”

Security

Sanctions Bill Will Undercut Growing International Consensus on Iran

The Times of London, which has a spotty record in much of its reporting, claims to have obtained documents indicating that Iran may have begun working on a nuclear weapon as early as 2007. The widely respected David Albright, former inspector for the IAEA, was quoted saying that if the story is true than it “It looks bad — there is no doubt about it.” If confirmed, this story should strengthen the Administration’s efforts to build a coordinated international sanctions regime in response to Iran. Unfortunately, there is every likelihood that this report will be used by leaders on the Hill to push through a counterproductive sanctions bill that, instead of strengthening international resolve, will weaken it.

In the midst of its efforts to engage Iran, the Administration has been working simultaneously to build a unified international approach toward Iran – something that was sorely lacking during the Bush administration. These efforts appear to have paid dividends, as there now exists a pretty clear consensus between the US and Europe on dealing with Iran and there is even some mild optimism that Russia may support come on board as well. In the last week the European Union, France, the UK and the Obama administration all released nearly identical statements on Iran. Additionally, last month 25 countries, including all five permanent members of the UN Security Council voted to censure Iran at the IAEA for its lack of transparency on the nuclear issue. In an interview with the Middle East Bulletin, Karim Sadjadpour, an Iran expert at the Carnegie Endowment, noted:

In contrast to the Bush administration, I think the Europeans, and even the Russians and Chinese, recognize that since Obama’s inauguration last June the United States has made numerous overtures to Iran, made a good-faith diplomatic effort to change the tone and context of the U.S.-Iran relationship, but Tehran was either unable or unwilling to reciprocate. For this reason the Obama administration is in a much better position to attain a robust international sanctions regime than the Bush administration was.

Despite the formation of a multilateral consensus, the US Congress now seems determined to screw things up by imposing unilateral sanctions. The sanctions bills marauding through the House and Senate threaten to undercut this international consensus. Washington Post columnist David Ignatius who participated in an Iran gaming scenario game put on by Harvard reached this conclusion as well:

The Obama team was confounded by congressional demands for unilateral U.S. sanctions against companies involved in Iran’s energy sector. This shot at Iran ended up backfiring, since some of the key companies were from Russia and China — the very nations whose support the United States needs for strong U.N. sanctions. The Russians and Chinese were so offended that they began negotiating with Tehran behind America’s back.

One of the chief problems with the effort by Congress is that for sanctions on Iran to be effective they have to have broad international backing, because the US on its own does not have enough leverage to make much of an impact. David Herbert of the National Journal described one of the major problems with Congress’ efforts to put in place gasoline sanctions last month:

It’s unclear whether the legislation will be enough to dissuade Iran’s main suppliers — Royal Dutch Shell, France’s Total, China’s state-run Zhuhai Zhenrong Corp. and Russia’s Lukoil, among others — from continuing to import gasoline. Tehran has said it will cut off any company that complies with U.S. sanctions, a threat that will keep some companies in line. And even if some gasoline exports to Iran can be curtailed, Russia and Venezuela have the excess refining capacity to plug the gap.

In other words, the sanctions bills pushed by Congress will likely backfire. Not only will they undercut the Green Movement, as Matt Duss notes, but by upsetting the delicate international consensus that currently exists on Iran, this legislation if enacted will in the end only leave Iran less isolated. In this sense, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard could not have written an oped more favorable to their interests this morning than the one penned by Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinan.

Politics

Eric Cantor refuses to say that Sarah Palin is qualified to be president.

On Fox News last night, House Minority Whip Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) fielded questions about Sarah Palin from host Geraldo Rivera. In a near-repeat of a similar exchange on MSNBC last month, when Haley Barbour refused to say that Palin is qualified to be president, Cantor refused to tout the qualifications of Palin. Rivera then quipped that both Cantor and Barbour seem to be “scared” of Palin’s rise:

RIVERA: Haley Barbour question: yes or no, is she qualified to be president?

CANTOR: Haley Barbour, he is an expert. That guy is one of the smartest people I know and he’s a real leader. [...]

RIVERA: And he didn’t answer the question, and neither did you. Alright Congressman Eric Cantor, thank you very much. Like I said to my friend Mike Huckabee last night, I think Sarah Palin scares mainstream Republicans like Eric Cantor and Haley Barbour as much as she scares the Democrats.

Watch it:

Cantor is straddling a new fifth wheel in Republican politics. While he’s uncomfortable endorsing the notion that Palin is even capable of holding the Oval Office, he knows that she is critical in bringing in support from the tea party base. Already, Cantor’s awkward response has generated outrage from pro-Palin websites, like Free Republic.

Yglesias

Ignorance is Bliss

There’s long been an argument out there that if you equipped people with “smart meters” that report their energy use in detail, they’d be surprised by what they learn and do a lot to conservative. Instead, Matthew Wald reports for the New York Times that the new meters, where installed, are leading to a lot of public anger and “Some consumers argue that the meters are logging far more kilowatt hours than they believe they are using.”

This is framed in the piece as undermining the hopes of the smart meter crowd, but I think it largely underscores the point. People can only respond rationally to the incentives that exist to conserve energy if they know how much energy they’re actually using and where and when. And it’s clear the reaction to smart meters that people actually have no idea what’s going on. Making them aware leaves an impressive.

Climate Progress

Climate change hits Canada, which says “Bring it on!”

OK, our neighbors up north don’t talk that way, as the video below make clear

But they — or, rather, their government, seems to be trying to outdo our last Administration in inviting climate change to do its very worst (see “A Canadian view of Copenhagen“).

Here is the last of the five “mouth” videos that I filmed up way too close and personal in sardine-like conditions.  This is Rick Bates, Executive Director of the Canadian Wildlife Federation — yes, I was surrounded by an impressive, eclectic international crowd, all brought together in one small place thanks to the incompetence of the UNFCCC in handing out twice as many credentials as the Bella Center could hold!

Watch (but cover your eyes):

Read more

Older

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up