ThinkProgress Logo

Health

Howard Dean No Longer Urging Dems To ‘Kill’ The Bill: ‘Let’s See What They Add To This Bill And Make It Work’

By Igor Volsky on Dec 20, 2009 at 1:04 pm

This morning, Howard Dean walked back from earlier statements encouraging Democrats to “kill” the Senate health care bill. On Thursday, Dean wrote that “this bill would do more harm than good to the future of America,” but during his appearance on Meet The Press, Dean argued that yesterday’s manager’s amendment significantly improved the legislation. “I would let this thing go to conference committee and let’s see if we can fix it some more,” Dean said:

Well, let’s start with the positive things. Over the last week, there were things that were improved. There were some cost containment mechanisms that were gutted. They got restored. I would certainly not vote for this bill if this were the final product, but there are, the House bill is quite a good bill. This bill has improved over the last couple of weeks, I would let this thing go to conference committee and let’s see if we can fix it some more…so there are a lot of things that need to be fixed, but if they are fixed you may actually get the foundation of a bill, coming out of the House. If most of the House provisions survive, then we can have a bill that we could work with…I hope this isn’t the compromise that’s been achieved. I think we have yet to see the compromise that we could achieve.

Watch a compilation:

Dean didn’t advocate for pushing the bill through the reconciliation process or restarting reform after the midterm elections, as he had suggested several days earlier. Instead, the former Vermont governor expressed optimism that the bill could be improved in conference, going so far as to say that some of the goals of the public option could be accomplished through regulatory means.

“Here is the major problem,” Dean said. “We have committed to go down a path in this country where private insurance will be the way that we achieve universal health care. That means we’re going to have a 30-year battle with the insurance industry every time we try to control costs and try to get them to do things.” “My position is let’s see what they add to this bill and make it work, if they can make it work without a public option, I’m all ears. I don’t think that’s possible,” he said.

Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas, who strongly opposed the Senate bill, also appeared to moderate his position. “This, this is not a done deal, we still have reconciliation to go to,” he said during a round table following Dean’s appearance.

Media

Drudge Report: ‘Obama Races Home For Blizzard’

By Brad Johnson on Dec 20, 2009 at 1:04 pm

As President Obama brokered a last-minute deal with China, India, and other nations to jointly fight global warming, American conservatives continued their assault on reason when it comes to climate science. All through the week, right-wingers from Rush Limbaugh to Fox News highlighted the fact that Copenhagen, the site of the international climate negotiations, received snow at Christmastime, which they falsely characterized as a “blizzard.” Now the Drudge Report and others are highlighting the real blizzard sweeping up the East Coast as a supposed contrast to “global warming”:

Drudge Report: Global Warming 'Agreement', Obama Races Home For Blizzard

Even CNN’s Ed Henry piled on, saying “DC snowstorm chills Pelosi’s global warming trip,” calling it a “strange twist.” Drudge, of course, linked to the story.

In reality, intense winter storms of this type are an observed result of climate change. As the Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States report issued by the federal government describes, warmer oceans and shifting atmospheric circulation are bringing “stronger and more frequent” winter storms to the United States:

– “Cold-season storm tracks are shifting northward and the strongest storms are likely to become stronger and more frequent.”

– “In winter and spring, northern areas are expected to receive significantly more precipitation than they do now, because the interaction of warm and moist air coming from the south with colder air from the north is projected to occur farther north than it did on average in the last century. The more northward incursions of warmer and moister air masses are expected to be particularly noticeable in northern regions that will change from very cold and dry atmospheric conditions to warmer but moister conditions. Alaska, the Great Plains, the upper Midwest, and the Northeast are beginning to experience such changes for at least part of the year, with the likelihood of these changes increasing over time.”

– “There is also evidence of an increase in the intensity of storms in both the mid- and high- latitude areas of the Northern Hemisphere, with greater confidence in the increases occurring in high latitudes. The northward shift is projected to continue, and strong cold season storms are likely to become stronger and more frequent, with greater wind speeds and more extreme wave heights.”

Update

Joe Romm has more on the scientific understanding for why the snowstorms are a predicted consequence of climate change.

Yglesias

Snowe Says No to Health Reform

By Matthew Yglesias on Dec 20, 2009 at 12:22 pm

225px-Olympia_Snowe,_official_photo_2

The concessions Joe Lieberman wanted in exchange for his vote for health reform sounded basically similar to the ones Olympia Snowe wanted. Which left me wondering yesterday what, if anything, was left in the bill that she objected to. Well now we know:

Senator Olympia J. Snowe, a Maine Republican who had been considered a possible Democratic ally, said she would oppose the measure because it was being rushed. “It is a take-it-or-leave-it package,” she said.

There’s obviously a certain “take-it-or-leave-it” quality to any proposed piece of legislation. You can’t say “I vote 72 percent yes.” But beyond that, she’s had an enormous amount of time to have input and win concessions. As for “rushed,” as Steve Benen says “Snowe has been complaining about the speed of the legislative process since July, but therein lies the point: how could this possible get slower?”

Yglesias

The Copenhagen Accord

By Matthew Yglesias on Dec 20, 2009 at 11:40 am

P121809PS-0839 by The White House

I probably should have said something about this yesterday, but in addition to health care we’ve had big news this week on the climate change front out of Copenhagen. The deal agreed to there is a big step forward relative to the status quo, but as Dave Roberts notes it appears to be well short of what was hoped for:

Thanks to what Obama called, at a Friday-evening press conference, a “fundamental deadlock in perspectives” (read: China won’t budge!), the accord ended up in an attenuated form that even its architect conceded is “not enough” to do what needs to be done. Gone was the firm commitment to reduce global emissions 50 percent by 2050. Gone were any short-term emissions targets for 2020. Missing were the concrete commitments to “measurement, reporting, and verification” Obama wanted from China, in its place vague language about “national communications.”

Perhaps most fatefully, gone was any explicit pledge to formalize the agreement as a binding treaty next year. That’s worrisome, because Copenhagen is only the first challenge in a three-part political obstacle course Obama will need to navigate to reach success on climate change. First was drawing China and India into an agreement. Next will be using the Copenhagen accord to fortify the U.S. Senate to pass a climate bill. Third will be to use that U.S. climate bill to convince UNFCCC countries to sign on to a binding legal treaty in 2010.

I’m not sure that the lack of progress toward a legally binding treaty is actually the worst thing about this. Treaties are hard. You need almost two hundred countries, you might need 67 (!) votes in the Senate, etc. You could get a lot done without a formal treaty if you had robust agreement among the major emitters (China, US, EU, India, Japan) plus a few others. The trouble is that the prospects for that don’t look very good. Nothing that’s happened over the past few months makes obtaining 60 votes in the Senate for a serious climate bill look especially likely, and the Chinese attitude at Copenhagen was very unhelpful.

Health

Sen. Kent Conrad: ‘The Final Bill Is Going To Have To Be Very Close To The Bill Negotiated Here’

By Igor Volsky on Dec 20, 2009 at 11:31 am

This morning, during an appearance on Fox News Sunday, Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND) stressed that the final health care bill will have to reflect the language in the existing merged Senate legislation, suggesting that moderate Sens. Ben Nelson (D-NE) and Joe Lieberman (I-CT) would vote against the bill if the conference committee loosened the Senate’s abortion restrictions or inserted a public option:

I think any bill is going to have to be very close to what the senate has passed because we’re still going to have to get 60 votes. Anybody who has watched this process can see how challenging it has been to get 60 votes….It is very clear that the bill, the final bill, to pass in the United States Senate is going to be — have to be very close to the bill that has been negotiated here. Otherwise you will not get 60 votes in the United States Senate.

Watch it:

While the Senate has surpassed the all-important 60 vote hurdle, the process of reconciling the Senate bill with the House legislation may create new problems for Democrats and force many progressives to swallow the Senate’s weaker affordability standards and tax provisions:


Senate Bill ($871 billion/10 years) House Bill ($894 billion/10 years)
Abortion States can elect “to prohibit abortion coverage in qualified health plans offered through an Exchange in such State if such State enacts a law to provide for such prohibition.” Public dollars cannot fund an insurance plan that covers abortion, even if the woman pays for the abortion with private premiums. Effectively, no plans in the Exchange would cover abortion services.
Employer Mandate No mandate, a free rider provision. Employers would have to pay penalties for employees who receives subsidies in the exchanges. Large employers who don’t offer coverage would pay a fee equal to 8% of their payroll.
Medicaid Expansion Up to 133% FPL Up to 150% FPL
Affordability Between 133 – 400% FPL on sliding scale; spend 2.8%-9.8% of income on premiums. Cost sharing is only available for individuals and families with incomes between 100-200% FPL. Between 133 – 400% FPL on sliding scale; spend 1.5%-12% of income on premiums. Cost=sharing credits are available to individuals and families with incomes up to 400% FPL
Public Option No public option but the Office Of Personnel Management will offer national health insurance plans. Yes, HHS secretary negotiates rates
Financing Excise tax, increases the payroll tax on individuals who earn more than $200,000 and families earning more than $250,000 a year, taxes on insurers, pharmaceuticals, and medical devices, tax on tanning booths; Medicare savings; Medicare Commission 5.4% surtax on individuals earning > $500,000, couples earning more than $1 million; Medicare savings

Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI), a co-sponsor of the restrictive abortion language in the House, has already promised to oppose the Senate’s abortion language while Reps. Diana DeGette (D-CO) and Louise Slaughter (D-NY) are raising the possibility that the the Senate’s abortion language may be unconstitutional. In the past, House Democrats have argued that the Senate’s excise tax on so-called Cadillac plans would disproportionately affect union workers or Americans in high-risk professions and claimed that the weaker employer responsibility provision could discourage employers from bringing on new lower income hires.

Yglesias

Avatar

By Matthew Yglesias on Dec 20, 2009 at 10:48 am

I’ve heard it analogized to Dances With Wolves, but it’s more like Dune meets Fern Gully. Technically very impressive, and the plodding dialogue didn’t really bother me, but the whole story is really staggeringly unoriginal. The allegory to American imperialism was clear enough that we didn’t really need to be hit over the head (“some kind of shock and awe campaign”) with it. I’d also add that the strategic thought behind the Na’vi counterattack is extremely unimpressive—they’re aiming for tactical victory with no real long-term plan—but that’s arguably realistic.

Climate Progress

To anyone who tried contacting me last week: Try again!

By Joe Romm on Dec 20, 2009 at 10:22 am

Same for commenters

If you sent me an important e-mail  in the last week and I didn’t respond, that may be because it quickly got buried under many dozens of Copenhagen-related e-mails every day.

And my AT&T iPhone didn’t seem to be taking any voicemails in Denmark.  And my home phone’s voicemail also maxed out.

It is possible, however, I was just ignoring your e-mail or phone call.  The only way to know is to try again.

And for CP commenters, moderation was imperfect last week since I was on Copenhagen time and didn’t always have internet access.  If your post failed to get through, try again.  Of course, it’s possible it still won’t get through….

Climate Progress

Further reading of stolen emails reveals scientists searching for the truth

By Joe Romm on Dec 20, 2009 at 9:49 am

blog banner_1

I have spent the last week reading far more emails belonging to other people than I ever would have liked. While a number of the emails have been flogged around the blogosphere and captured much of the attention, I found that a lot of emails worth seeing have gotten no attention at all. Including some that show that the denialista’s claims of a grand conspiracy is more of a grand hallucination. Because the stolen emails contain plenty of discussions that reveal just how hard the scientists work to make sure they are getting the information right.

That’s Pete Altman, NRDC’s Climate Campaign Director, writing last week on the Switchboard blog on the stolen emails you haven’t heard about.

For debunking of misrepresentations of the emails you have read about, you can go to Fight Clean Energy Smears, Union of Concerned Scientists, Pew Climate Center, RealClimate.org, SkepticalScience or links below.  But Altman focuses on the “ones that haven’t caught much attention. Any attention, for that matter. Possibly because these emails show that the denialistas claim of a grand conspiracy to exaggerate global warming is in reality a grand hallucination.”

He offers this “sample” of the myriad “discussions that reveal just how hard the scientists work to make sure they are getting the information right”:

Read more

Newer

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

Sign Up