Here’s what we have been waiting for and waiting for and waiting for –Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus’ outline for “bipartisan health care reform.” You’ll find the 18-page document here.
Keep in mind this is still a work-in progress. But I couldn’t help but notice a gift to the for-profit insurance companies near the very top of the document:
Insurance Reform in the Non-Group Market. Beginning January 1, 2013, health insurance plans in the individual market would be required to offer coverage on a guaranteed issue basis and would be prohibited from excluding coverage for pre-existing health conditions. Limited benefit plans and lifetime limits would be prohibited, and health insurance companies would be prohibited from rescinding health coverage.
Health insurance premiums would be allowed to vary based only on tobacco use, age, and family composition according to the following ratios:
- Tobacco use – 1.5:1
- Age – 5:1
- Family composition:
o Single – 1:1
o Adult with child – 1.8:1
o Two adults – 2:1
o Family – 3:1
Premiums could also vary to reflect geographic differences. Taking all these factors together, premiums could vary by as much as 7.5:1
Insurers won’t be able to charge you more if you are sick. But they will be able to charge more if you are older—in fact, they are allowed to charge you five times as much!
If you smoke, they can charge you 50 percent more; if you have children they can charge you 50% more than they would charge a childless couple, and if you are a single parent, they can charge you 80% more than they would charge a single adult. (Since children’s health care costs are, by and large, significantly lower than adults’ costs, that seems a pretty steep surcharge for the sin of single parenthood.)
I can imagine that some readers would say that it is only fair to charge smokers more. But consider this: the vast majority of adult smokers in the U.S. are poor. Many will qualify for full subsidies; others will be eligible for partial subsidies. So who will pay 50% more for their health care—you, the taxpayer. If he receives a subsidy, the 50% surcharge isn’t likely to induce a smoker to stop smoking. This is simply another way to funnel more taxpayer money to private sector insurers.
Single parents also tend to cling to the lower rungs of the income ladder. Many will qualify for at least a partial, if not a full subsidy. Who pays the extra 80%? That’s right—you and I.
Finally, if insurers can charge 50-somethings five times as much as they charge 20-somethings (who the Baucus plan refers to as “young invincibles”), a great many of them are going to need subsidies. More tax-dollars winging their way to Aetna.
But wait, there is a loophole here: “An exemption [from mandate that everyone buy insurance] is permitted if coverage is deemed unaffordable – defined based on a circumstance where the lowest cost premium available exceeds 10% of a person’s income.” Okay, here’s the answer for 50-somethings that just can’t afford paying five times as much as younger customers: we excuse them from the program. No penalty, no mandate. In other words, we don’t cover them at all—at the point in their life when they are most likely to need heath care.
Somehow, this isn’t what I thought they meant by “universal coverage.”
Oh, and in case you wondered. . . No, there is no public sector insurance option in the Baucus plan. The private sector insurance industry will have a monopoly on the millions of new customers who will be coming their way, tax subsidies in hand.
I still wonder Maggie, if you think the public option has a shot?
My read is it’s DOA. So much for change we can believe in. It’s the same old United States of Corporations.
Unbelieveable. I read every word of the “group of six” document. What a sham!! Its been written by insurers!??!?!?
These guys need voted out of office for their incredulity.
Now Obama should have something to point at to show the bad effects of insurers, they are so powerful they can get what they want writen by the 6.
I don’t know whether to scream, or cry, or vomit, or…ughh…where’s the emesis basin?
Ok, now that that’s over with, here’s some useful analysis and forward thinking ideas about what to do with this mess from long-time political activists and community organizers who happened to be very involved with Obama’s Presidential Campaign (you know, that campaign that did quite a few things right):
We Have the Hope. Now Where’s the Audacity?
WaPo,By Peter Dreier and Marshall Ganz, 8/30/09
“…Once in office, the president moved quickly, announcing one ambitious legislative objective after another. But instead of launching a parallel strategy to mobilize supporters, most progressive organizations and Organizing for America — the group created to organizeObama’s former campaign volunteers — failed to keep up. The president is not solely responsible for his current predicament; many progressives have not acknowledged their role.
…In short, the administration and its allies followed a strategy that blurred their goals, avoided polarization, confused marketing with movement-building and hoped for bipartisan compromise that was never in the cards. This approach replaced an “outsider” mobilizing strategy that not only got Obama into the White House but has also played a key role in every successful reform movement, including abolition, women’s suffrage, workers’ rights, civil rights and environmental justice.
…What’s needed now is a campaign to shift the ground beneath Congress. First, it must concentrate on winning support for a specific bill that incorporates the key principles Obama has been advocating: universal insurance coverage, no denial of coverage for preexisting conditions, the public option and controls on exorbitant drug and insurance industry costs. The Limbaugh loyalists know what they are against. But Obama and his allies have to be clear about what they are for.
…This [three-pronged] strategy could begin to restore the combination of hope and audacity that drives successful reform movements — and that put Obama in the White House.
Kennedy understood that reforming health care is a moral obligation, and that the responsibility to heal the sick is at the heart of every faith tradition and is required for a civilized society. He was hoping to live long enough to see it happen. Obama and people of conscience cannot allow that victory — and that tribute to the late senator — to slip away.
read full article and comments at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/28/AR2009082801817_pf.html
—-
Fire Dog Lake blog is an excellent activist resource with constant updates on members of Congress and ways to take action to influence health reform. Here’s their site http://campaignsilo.firedoglake.com
As much as I try, I can’t bring myself to fake surprise.
We have two parties in DC: the Moneycrats and the Doughpublicans.
“The president is not solely responsible for his current predicament; many progressives have not acknowledged their role.”
You might what to take a look at what the leaders of these organizations were up to.
http://campaignsilo.firedoglake.com/2009/09/06/van-jones-a-moment-of-truth-for-liberal-institutions-in-the-veal-pen/
It is not particularly pretty. The link I’m posting here describes their behavior during the Van Jones affair, but it is a very good proxy for the whole health care reform saga.
Glenn Greenwald also has a very revealing article about that.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/08/19/obama/index.html
“When it comes to defiant progressive members of Congress — as opposed to supposedly defiant Blue Dogs and “centrists” — the Obama White House has proven itself extremely adept at compelling compliance with the President’s agenda. Consider what happened when progressive House members dared to oppose the war supplemental bill which Obama wanted passed:
The White House is playing hardball with Democrats who intend to vote against the supplemental war spending bill, threatening freshmen who oppose it that they won’t get help with reelection and will be cut off from the White House, Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.) said Friday.
“We’re not going to help you. You’ll never hear from us again,” Woolsey said the White House is telling freshmen
When progressives refuse to toe the White House line, they get threatened. Contrast that with what the White House does with Blue Dogs and “centrists” who are allegedly uncooperative on health care — they protect them.”
Gary, Joe Says, Ann
Gary– The public option is not DOA– though
many in the media want you to think that is the case.
If the adminstraiton wants to, it can pass the public option with a simple majority in the Senate (51 votes) and a much larger majority in the House.
I doubt Obama will throw in the towel on the public option tonight. But, whatever he says, some in the media will interpret it that way. (The backlash agaisnt Obama is intense. Traditionally, the media build someone up—then tear him down. This sells newspapers and attracts eyeballs.
But if you listen for yourself, I doubt you will hear Obama say “The public. option is no longer part of the discussion. .”
Could be wrong, but I doubt it.
Joe Says–
Yes, the “Group of Six” document is about what one would expect–and just not acceptable.
Ann–
INtersting that you sent this Op-ed co-written by Gantz.
He and I were involved in a roundtable discussion recently where we were essentially on the same page.
We’ve corresponded a bit since.
I’m planning to write about his ideas.
The difference between “marketing” healthcare reform and “building a movement” is crucial.
Also, Gantz understands that we should not be telling people what we think they want to hear– we should be telling them what they need to know.
.
If the public option becomes a reality, how would that change employers’ healthcare benefits?
(Apologies if you covered this elsewhere.)
Watched Obama last night, he did an excellent job, but he seems to be standing alone.
I also watch Axelrod in three appearances on discussion shows following the President’s speech.
Axelrod does not help the cause. He is inarticulate and simply “shifty looking.” Maybe he is valuable to the president, but he needs to get the heck out of the public eye, he is an ebbassinment when it comes to making a point. He stammers, sounds shrill, accusatory, wont answer simple questions, rather he deflects them leaving them not just unanswered, but apparently below him.
Look, I understand that not all people are good at everything, I just wish Mr. Axelrod would understand that too.
The President should put up Wendell Murray to defend the plan.