from today’s New York Times
By DAVID M. HERSZENHORN and ROBERT PEAR
WASHINGTON — After a long day of acid, partisan debate, Democrats held ranks early Monday in a dead-of-night procedural vote that proved they had locked in the decisive margin needed to pass a far-reaching overhaul of the nation’s health care system.
The roll was called shortly after 1 a.m., with Washington still snowbound after a weekend blizzard, and the Senate voted on party lines to cut off a Republican filibuster of a package of changes to the health care bill by the majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada.
The vote was 60 to 40 — a tally that is expected to be repeated four times as further procedural hurdles are cleared in the days ahead, and then once more in a dramatic, if predictable, finale tentatively scheduled for 7 p.m. on Christmas Eve.
Both parties hailed the vote as seismic.
The full article can be found here.
—–
NOTE: Apparently, Republicans were so determined to make sure Democrats did not have enough votes, Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) asked in Senate session to pray that ailing Senator Robert Byrd’s (D-WV) health condition would worsen, or that he would die, making him unable to attend last night’s vote. Apparently, God did not hear the good Senator from Oklahoma, and from what we heard from the Washington Post, Byrd did make it in. Pretty good for a 92 year-old guy in a blizzard.
This is a key test vote. More votes are to come over the next few days, with the hope of signing the bill into law on Dec. 24. Regardless of where you stand on the health care debate, whether or not we need an overhaul of the health care industry, whether or not you think the current health care reform bill insufficient to the demand, this is a sea change in American politics that hasn’t happened since Medicare was first signed into law in 1965. Any victory is a step forward, and as a people, we need a victory.--fnb
Be:
Sometimes, I think we feel blame is more important than action, and that we don’t have a stake – in other words, we believe in powerlessness. And that to me is wasting energy. Persistence continues to be the most important tool to making things right, from civil rights to human rights and the environment.
Maybe because I’ve been part of government for so long, I tend to understand the process. Though I wish the news would inform people better about what their options are under these circumstances, and not report on it after the fact. That only increases the feeling of powerlessness and hopelessness.
BTW – if I don’t tell you enough, let me tell you again – you are a wonderful presence on this blog, and I always appreciate your cosmological and heart-felt responses.
Fe,
Have I told you lately how much I admire your clarity, your tenacity and your patience? I’m sure the tenacity is fixed Aquarius, but not sure about the clarity and patience. Anyway, thanks for wading through the blizzard of words written (any subject but in this case health care/insurance reform) to bring us the creation-jewels of the most sane observers. It would be nice to have a sanity clause wouldn’t it?
be
There is also reconciliation of the House and the Senate version, which the AFL-CIO advocates for here in their opposition to the Senate Bill:
Conference committee is where the bill is headed, and right during a retrograde, which actually may work. If you haven’t called your congressperson, do so, because a better bill can still happen.
fluidity:
Here’s a comment by one of Obama’s most vocal critics:
Tidings of Comfort By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: December 24, 2009
Indulge me while I tell you a story — a near-future version of Charles Dickens’s “A Christmas Carol.” It begins with sad news: young Timothy Cratchit, a k a Tiny Tim, is sick. And his treatment will cost far more than his parents can pay out of pocket.
Fortunately, our story is set in 2014, and the Cratchits have health insurance. Not from their employer: Ebenezer Scrooge doesn’t do employee benefits. And just a few years earlier they wouldn’t have been able to buy insurance on their own because Tiny Tim has a pre-existing condition, and, anyway, the premiums would have been out of their reach.
But reform legislation enacted in 2010 banned insurance discrimination on the basis of medical history and also created a system of subsidies to help families pay for coverage. Even so, insurance doesn’t come cheap — but the Cratchits do have it, and they’re grateful. God bless us, everyone.
O.K., that was fiction, but there will be millions of real stories like that in the years to come. Imperfect as it is, the legislation that passed the Senate on Thursday and will probably, in a slightly modified version, soon become law will make America a much better country.
So why are so many people complaining? There are three main groups of critics.
First, there’s the crazy right, the tea party and death panel people — a lunatic fringe that is no longer a fringe but has moved into the heart of the Republican Party. In the past, there was a general understanding, a sort of implicit clause in the rules of American politics, that major parties would at least pretend to distance themselves from irrational extremists. But those rules are no longer operative. No, Virginia, at this point there is no sanity clause.
A second strand of opposition comes from what I think of as the Bah Humbug caucus: fiscal scolds who routinely issue sententious warnings about rising debt. By rights, this caucus should find much to like in the Senate health bill, which the Congressional Budget Office says would reduce the deficit, and which — in the judgment of leading health economists — does far more to control costs than anyone has attempted in the past.
But, with few exceptions, the fiscal scolds have had nothing good to say about the bill. And in the process they have revealed that their alleged concern about deficits is, well, humbug. As Slate’s Daniel Gross says, what really motivates them is “the haunting fear that someone, somewhere, is receiving social insurance.”
Finally, there has been opposition from some progressives who are unhappy with the bill’s limitations. Some would settle for nothing less than a full, Medicare-type, single-payer system. Others had their hearts set on the creation of a public option to compete with private insurers. And there are complaints that the subsidies are inadequate, that many families will still have trouble paying for medical care.
Unlike the tea partiers and the humbuggers, disappointed progressives have valid complaints. But those complaints don’t add up to a reason to reject the bill. Yes, it’s a hackneyed phrase, but politics is the art of the possible.
The truth is that there isn’t a Congressional majority in favor of anything like single-payer. There is a narrow majority in favor of a plan with a moderately strong public option. The House has passed such a plan. But given the way the Senate rules work, it takes 60 votes to do almost anything. And that fact, combined with total Republican opposition, has placed sharp limits on what can be enacted.
If progressives want more, they’ll have to make changing those Senate rules a priority. They’ll also have to work long term on electing a more progressive Congress. But, meanwhile, the bill the Senate has just passed, with a few tweaks — I’d especially like to move the start date up from 2014, if that’s at all possible — is more or less what the Democratic leadership can get.
And for all its flaws and limitations, it’s a great achievement. It will provide real, concrete help to tens of millions of Americans and greater security to everyone. And it establishes the principle — even if it falls somewhat short in practice — that all Americans are entitled to essential health care.
Many people deserve credit for this moment. What really made it possible was the remarkable emergence of universal health care as a core principle during the Democratic primaries of 2007-2008 — an emergence that, in turn, owed a lot to progressive activism. (For what it’s worth, the reform that’s being passed is closer to Hillary Clinton’s plan than to President Obama’s). This made health reform a must-win for the next president. And it’s actually happening.
So progressives shouldn’t stop complaining, but they should congratulate themselves on what is, in the end, a big win for them — and for America.
i heard obama on the radio today, stating that he ‘got 95% of what he wanted’ in the health care bill, not what other people might have wanted
here are three articles that seem to tell the story
(note in the first one, the video of him promising funding for reproductive health care, and a public option, at a planned parenthood event during campaigning)
Why Is Obama Ditching the Public Option — and You?
by Jane Hamsher
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/12/23-8
Obama Double-Crossed Progressives on Health Care
by Matthew Rothschild
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/12/23-14
Demonizing Dean Won’t Absolve This Health Care Sham
by Robert Scheer
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/12/23-6
and with all respect to the concept of aiming for suburbs as opposed to a garbage dump when what you really want is a tropical beach, i think it is easy to see through the analogy, it is not the republicans that are keeping us from the beach, it is not the insurance or drug industries that are keeping us from the beach, it is obama and the democrats who could have gotten us to the beach but apparently don’t want the same things that we want, they got what they wanted (well maybe the industries have something to do with it, they pay for the politicians, and then – for some reason – the politicians do what the industry wants … hmmmm)
A special treat from jeff Lieber, one of my favorite bloggers at Daily Kos. (He’s a Hollywood screenwriter who writes about politics from time to time, and he’s a great story-teller)
Click here.
fluidity:
Yes you are right, there is too much corporate will going on in Washington, and it has been inculcated there since Reagan, so its hard to dig free of that and get a fully functioning democracy again. But even in a tightly confined area, there is room to move, and that does begin with the single step out, which is what I believe this bill, however imperfect, is. Its the start. Until you begin the move, nothing will be done. And attempts will continue to be made and they will attempt to beat it back. But dig the trench, the foundation now, and they will be worn down. The bill can be fixed in conference committee when the House reconciles their bill with the Senate’s. This is the next way out of the messy bill we’ve just approved in the Senate. So check in with your Congresscritter to make sure that happens.
The unfortunate thing is, as I’ve explained on other blogs, is that we’re dealing in the 21st century something that should have been fixed in the earlier part of the 20th century. What happened? We have Uranus-Neptune to blame for that, and an all-too-willing public continually distracted by corporate message–to some extent sold on that same message. The period we’re talking about is from 1985 (the height of the Reagan years) to 2001 and 9-11. Included in that mix is a Congress that after years of Reagan, have been too afraid to act like Democratic progressives, and became faux republicans instead. Let’s call Congress the battered wife in the battered wife syndrome.
As eric pointed out on several occasions, the Uranus-Neptune cycle takes up to a full seven years afterwards to manifest. So we’re seeing it all come out. I’ll be writing about that soon.
We will also have the alignments of Uranus-Pluto-Saturn that we’re already beginning to feel, since they give a three-year window before they become exact–to be felt. The restlessness and irritation is like the itch you get after the narcotics have worn off, and you’re plenty irritated. If there is a status quo to have a day of reckoning, its the one where our progressive Congresspeople forgot they were progressives and became something less. This is where we can give the cold shower and a wake-up call to the reps listening to move ourselves to a better place.
I say, take advantage of the merc retro to give Congress something to think about in terms of bringing a public option back into the Senate Bill, and trim off the fat to insurers. The baby is in the bathwater–clean the gunk off of her instead of throwing her completely out the window!
hi Fe
i think that the main point is that most Americans want a single-payer system, and this bill does something else. ie it betrays the will of the people, in order to do something else
i think this is a matter of ‘if you don’t know where you’re going, any step is a step forward’
you say this bill is ‘taking on an entire industry’ – i would say that it is in fact working with that industry (both the health insurance and pharmaceutical industries) in order to get more profits for those industries (note how there stocks are soaring as this bill comes closer to law), and at the same time selling out the will of the people
you call the country ‘centre-right’??? but the democrats are in power, both in the house and senate, the people (from the polls i’ve read) are staunchly in favor of single-payer, even though the media and politicians continue to skew everything against it … the people are not getting what they want, and yet they are being told to like what they are getting
on my map, going forward means that democracy is working, which would mean the will of the people … here it is obvious that it is not democracy, but corporate interests that are getting what they want
Here’s the rebuttal:
Jane Hamsher has convinced me: Pass The Bill! Mon Dec 21, 2009 at 03:10:12 PM PST
by deaniac83
Ooh, I forgot to put this up first. My bad, Jane. I pay myself. I’m a freelance web designer who’s having a lot of trouble paying for my insurance.
None other than Jane Hamsher has convinced me that the Senate health care bill is, in fact, better than the status quo. I know, what? Jane Hamsher? Isn’t she the FDL warrior fighting against this Senate bill? Yes, yes she is. But she gave me some particular pieces of information that I was very impressed by.
I got an email from her this morning excoriating the vices of the current Senate bill. Don’t get me wrong, I think the bill is full of vices. It’s also on the FDL website with a petition. And it convinced me that this bill must pass and is much, much, much better than the status quo.
She argues that the bill:
“Forces you to pay up to 8% of your income to private insurance corporations — whether you want to or not.”
What? Really? 8%? That’s incredible! If American families could get health insurance for only 8% of their income, you could bet a lot more of us would have it. In 2008, the average family premium for health insurance was $12,298. In 2003, the median income of a family of 4 was $67,019. So, umm… a typical family of 4, in the status quo is paying, let’s see, over 18% of their income in health insurance premiums. Put it another way, a typical family of four would see their premiums reduced from $12,298 under the status quo to $5361.52.
And remember that incomes over about $66,000 a year are not provided premium subsidies by the government, and still cannot be charged more than 8% by law – indicating a real and overall significant reduction of premiums going to insurance companies. Wow. This is fantastic!
Oh and by the way, the 8% cap is also an improvement over the House bill, which has a cap of 12% on premiums. It is also improved from the previous senate version, which had a 9.8% cap (link). This is real insurance reform.
If you refuse to buy the insurance, you’ll have to pay penalties of up to 2% of your annual income to the IRS. Yes, yes you will. That is, if your premiums aren’t entirely covered by subsidies. Let’s see. If you have the means to, but refuse to purchase insurance (these are the only people subject to this penalty, since there is a hardship exemption), you are going to use emergency rooms as your primary health care center. And we, as taxpayers, will be paying for you. Don’t you think it’s fair for you to pay a little bit in so that when you do come to the emergency room, they are not all closed down?
“After being forced to pay thousands in premiums for junk insurance, you can still be on the hook for up to $11,900 a year in out-of-pocket medical expenses.”
Where is she getting this $11,900 number? Out of pocket expense cap? If that’s where she is getting it, I would like to compare this to the out of pocket expenses under the status quo. There are no caps. You can have a “deductible” per incident of $1000 or more. If you have “good” insurance, maybe your insurance covers 80% of your hospital care up to 30 days every year. That’s the status quo. Under the senate bill, it caps your out-of-pocket expenses. That’s supposed to be worse than the status quo? I’m at a loss over here.
Jane is also a little misleading. The Senate bill’s out-of-pocket cap of $11,900 is on a family plan. An individual plan would have a $5,950 cap. What’s more, not everyone would be subject to this high cap. The cap is actually 10% of one’s income, and no more than the dollar amounts capped.
So in simple terms – the Senate bill is limiting the total amount of health care expenses to 18% of your income – whereas it is more than that for simply your premiums today, and all your out-of-pocket expenses (may include your home) is extra. If someone wants me to believe that this is not progress, I am going to need to see the dictionary definition of progress changed first.
“Massive restriction on a woman’s right to choose, designed to trigger a challenge to Roe v. Wade in the Supreme Court.”
Just when she was about to get one right, she screws up. Yes, the bill places disgusting restrictions on a woman’s right to choose. That’s deplorable. But it is not, in any way, shape or form, designed to “trigger a challenge to Roe v. Wade.” That’s insane. Roe makes abortions legal, and nothing more. The Supreme Court has always been regrettably deferential to Congress and legislatures about whether public dollars may fund, or contribute to any plans that fund, abortion services. That’s stupid and it’s nuts, but to say that this bill is set up to challenge Roe is nonsense.
“Paid for by taxes on the middle class insurance plan you have right now through your employer, causing them to cut back benefits and increase co-pays” [sic]
Yes, because your employer isn’t already cutting back your benefits and increasing your co-pays. And middle class insurance plans? The so-called Cadillac tax applies to individual plans costing over $8500 (and only to the amount over $8500) and family plans costing over $23,000 (and only to the amount over $23,000). It’s a steep 40% tax, and I would rather not have it, but it is not by far what most health insurance premiums cost.
“Many of the taxes to pay for the bill start now, but most Americans won’t see any benefits — like an end to discrimination against those with preexisting conditions — until 2014 when the program begins.”
This is a right wing talking point, and dead wrong. Several progressives have pointed out the benefits of the bill that begin immediately upon the drying of the presidential ink such as ending of denial of coverage based on pre-existing condition, small business tax credits for providing insurance, the ending of the most annual and lifetime benefit caps (it ends completely in 2013), etc.
“Allows insurance companies to charge people who are older 300% more than others”
Finally, something she gets completely right. 7th point out of 10. Bravo.
“Grants monopolies to to drug companies that will keep generic versions of expensive biotech drugs from ever coming to market. ”
And which bill would have allowed this, Jane? The House bill does not have a re-importation nor a quicker way to bring generics to the market.
“No reimportation of prescription drugs, which would save consumers $100 billion over 10 years.”
Ding ding! Correct, but see above. The House bill doesn’t do it either. It’s not like Jane would be falling over everyone to pass this bill if a simple reimportation clause was included. By the way, the Dorgan amendment, which I support vigorously, got a vote in the Senate. Sadly, it was defeated.
“The cost of medical care will continue to rise, and insurance premiums for a family of 4 will rise an average of $1000 a year — meaning in 10 years, you family’s insurance premium will be $10,000 more annually than it is right now.”
This is sheer baloney. First she argues that the out-of-pocket caps and the premium caps aren’t strong enough, and then now she seems to be saying there aren’t any caps at all! Your premium expenses are capped at 8% of your income, which is too high, but your premium will also go up by $10,000 even if your income doesn’t rise comparatively. $10,000 is 8% of $125,000, i.e. for your health insurance premiums to rise by $10K, your income would have to rise by $125,000 under the Senate bill. She can’t have it both ways. There can’t both be a 8% “too-high” cap on premiums, and your premium go up $10K over 10 years.
I do credit this email for focusing my attention and priorities. Overall, I am now convinced that if this isn’t a good bill, it is light years better than the status quo. I am sorry, but I am not willing to join Jane’s coalition of status quo caucus. So today, I am standing on the status of kicking status quo’s ass, however imperfectly. I’m standing on the side of a better bill. I am calling on the Senate to pass the bill.
fluidity:
Presidents have been trying to get health care reform passed since Roosevelt’s time. Medicare was the first strike in getting some form of coverage, and that was forty five years ago. It was refined from that time into the present system today.
This bill is not perfect, but I will disagree with you. This is a sea change. The country needs to make a step–its taking on an entire industry, which by the way, also employs alot of people, and will be engaged in providing care to a vast majority of people – the Baby Boomers for a good long while.
There are bloggers on the left and the right, including Mr. Moyers, who I respect but disagree on this point — the Senate made the best out of what they’ve been given with an opposition and a country that is center-right. The bill is a foundation bill that will be perfected, as long as we fight on to get what we want. But first, the job is to lay down the foundation to steer the ship around.
I’m posting a rebuttal to a “kill the bill” progressive, to show that there’s more than a few perspectives, even amongst progressives, that this bill should pass.
a sea change? a historic moment? a step forward?
from what i hear, this is a defeat of the actual movement towards single-payer health care in the states. the public option is off the table. what this bill does is force 25-30 million people, many of whom probably can’t afford it, to buy health insurance from profit-making companies.
from what i hear, this is a pretty bad bill that will hang around the necks of the democrats for the next generation, putting a pretty heavy toll on all that political capital they apparently had – if you like having the democrats in power you should be sad now
http://www.alternet.org/story/144697/matt_taibbi%2C_bill_moyers_and_robert_kuttner%3A_why_can%27t_democrats_do_anything_right
just cause it’s a health care bill doesn’t mean it’s good
and is that thing still in it that is going to cut off all (government) funding for abortions, paving the way to cut off all health insurance funding for abortions?
Be:
You never fail in providing the best kinds of information – and more grist for future planning and inspiration. Cheers, bella, you’re the BEST!!
We still have to deal with the Boomer generation, who has been the biggest population block in the country and will continue so until we pass.
Hi Fe,
Reading about historical moments never conveys the emotion or the power that accompanies them, unless it’s in a really good novel. That’s why I’m glad to be alive when it happens. So I’m giving it up for Sen. Byrd; God Love Him, he didn’t want to miss being there either!
I posted a link to an article a year or so ago, written in February, 2008, by author Eric Janszen for Harpers. In it he says that the next “bubble” would be “alternative energy” and gave his reasons for thinking that. Before making that observation he also says:
“There are a number of plausible candidates for the next bubble, but only a few meet all the criteria. Health care must expand to meet the needs of the aging baby boomers, but there is as yet no enabling government legislation to make way for a health-care bubble;”
Perhaps Mr. Janszen is re-thinking that possibility now! Here is the link to the entire article.
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2008/02/0081908
be