What progressives want is the same thing the President wants: to build power for a majority in Congress and the country that will support our issues, and will perceive us as powerful; and to win the best possible health reform.
So far the President has played a pretty smart game. He kept the insurance industry at bay long enough that even the mainstream pundits are willing to say publicly that the industry has no credibility.
But it’s time to cut the cord.
Progressives need to play a smarter hand.
It’s important to sit in at insurance companies. But here’s the thing: 1. Insurance companies have no shame. They really don’t. 2. Even Republicans were willing to throw them under the train back in February. 3. They don’t vote.
Here are some people who vote: Senators Mary Landrieu, Louisiana; Blanche Lincoln, Arkansas; Joe Lieberman, Connecticut; Evan Bayh, Indiana; Ben Nelson. Nebraska
Take Mary Landrieu. She says she won’t support a public option because it would force the country to go bankrupt.
Now Mary Landrieu is not a stupid person. She knows that the CBO says a strong public option saves more money than negotiated rates or no public option.
She’s been elected twice in a Republican state, including in 2008 when Obama got only 40% of the vote.
Is she in the pocket of the insurance industry? The Center for Responsive Politics says she gets virtually no money from health interests, and raises half her money in-state. She’s the 47th least wealthy person in the Senate.
Does Louisiana need health reform? Here’s some information about Louisiana:
Second highest rate of female poverty in the US
Highest rate of black poverty
63% white
4th highest rate of uninsured for ages 0–64 (22%), 3rd highest for ages 19-64
One of the highest recipients in the country of federal Medicaid funds, one of the lowest in per capita Medicaid spending
35% of population live in primary care shortage area, 3rd highest % of population who didn’t see a doctor in the last year because of cost (18%)
In 2008 Obama lost to McCain, but Landrieu won among the same demographics that voted for Obama:
Women
Younger people
African Americans
Among the 9% of voters who said health care was their most important issue, Landrieu got the widest issue-based margin over her opponent: 72% voted for her.
Why can’t a populist organizing campaign rile up some voters in New Orleans and environs to communicate with Senator Landrieu? And in Arkansas, Connecticut, Indiana and Nebraska; and the holdouts in the House. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have signalled they're ready to play. Are we paying attention?
Showing posts with label Blue Dog Dems. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Blue Dog Dems. Show all posts
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Thursday, July 30, 2009
And You Thought 1984 Was So Last Century: Blue Dogs Claim "Savings"
The Blue Dog Dems are pulling a fast one, this time claiming that more is less.
These "fiscal conservatives" on the House Energy and Commerce Committee have reached a temporary agreement to do the following: raise Medicare payments to (their) rural hospitals; shift the cost of Medicaid expansions away from the feds and on to (their) poor states; and to increase all provider reimbursement rates under the public plan. (see clips below.) This all will add about $10 billion a year to the bill.
To the public: We will have a busy month in August, getting the Senate to come up with something the House can live with; and getting Speaker Pelosi and other Dem leaders to craft a House bill that the Progressive Caucus can vote for, and which, by the way, would really be fiscally conservative.
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Daily-Reports/2009/July/30/Thursday-House.aspx"The new proposal includes a public health insurance option to compete against private insurers, but it does not tie the payments to Medicare's rates of reimbursement to health-care providers, something many liberal lawmakers had sought. Instead, it calls for the health secretary to negotiate rates with hospitals and doctors, just as private insurance companies do. Rural health-care providers generally receive less in Medicare reimbursements than their urban counterparts, and delinking the public plan from Medicare was considered critical for conservative Democrats" (Kane and Murray, 7/30). The New York Times : "Medicaid would be expanded, as under the original bill, but states would pay a small share of the additional costs, perhaps 7 percent. The federal government would have paid all the additional cost under the original bill. People with low or moderate incomes could still get federal subsidies to help them buy insurance, but they might have to spend slightly more of their own income — a maximum of 12 percent, rather than 11 percent" (Pear and Herszenhorn, 7/29). Kaiser Health News reports that Rep. Mike Ross, D-Ark., "said that, all told, the revised bill would cost $100 billion less over 10 years, although precisely how that would be accomplished will be unclear until the CBO prepares a cost analysis of the overall bill. House senior Democratic aides said that the demands for revised reimbursement rates and more protection for small businesses would actually add $100 billion to the cost of the bill, and would have to be offset with savings elsewhere."
These "fiscal conservatives" on the House Energy and Commerce Committee have reached a temporary agreement to do the following: raise Medicare payments to (their) rural hospitals; shift the cost of Medicaid expansions away from the feds and on to (their) poor states; and to increase all provider reimbursement rates under the public plan. (see clips below.) This all will add about $10 billion a year to the bill.
To the public: We will have a busy month in August, getting the Senate to come up with something the House can live with; and getting Speaker Pelosi and other Dem leaders to craft a House bill that the Progressive Caucus can vote for, and which, by the way, would really be fiscally conservative.
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Daily-Reports/2009/July/30/Thursday-House.aspx"The new proposal includes a public health insurance option to compete against private insurers, but it does not tie the payments to Medicare's rates of reimbursement to health-care providers, something many liberal lawmakers had sought. Instead, it calls for the health secretary to negotiate rates with hospitals and doctors, just as private insurance companies do. Rural health-care providers generally receive less in Medicare reimbursements than their urban counterparts, and delinking the public plan from Medicare was considered critical for conservative Democrats" (Kane and Murray, 7/30). The New York Times : "Medicaid would be expanded, as under the original bill, but states would pay a small share of the additional costs, perhaps 7 percent. The federal government would have paid all the additional cost under the original bill. People with low or moderate incomes could still get federal subsidies to help them buy insurance, but they might have to spend slightly more of their own income — a maximum of 12 percent, rather than 11 percent" (Pear and Herszenhorn, 7/29). Kaiser Health News reports that Rep. Mike Ross, D-Ark., "said that, all told, the revised bill would cost $100 billion less over 10 years, although precisely how that would be accomplished will be unclear until the CBO prepares a cost analysis of the overall bill. House senior Democratic aides said that the demands for revised reimbursement rates and more protection for small businesses would actually add $100 billion to the cost of the bill, and would have to be offset with savings elsewhere."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)