Friday, November 6, 2009
Health A Defector in the Delegation
Posted by Eli Sanders on Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 4:55 PM
- Office of Brian Baird
Until more information is available on premium estimates and Medicare impacts, I will vote against the legislation in its current form.
Congressman Brian Baird Releases Statement Regarding H.R. 3962 — The Affordable Health Care for America Act
Washington, D.C.— I strongly believe there is a need for health care reform and I have offered my own proposal for how this should be accomplished. The bill before the House is a result of thousands of hours of effort put in by members of Congress and their staff, plus the unprecedented input from the public on all sides of this issue. Clearly, people care about how we deliver and pay for health care in this country and there is a need and opportunity for change.In comparison to the initial draft of H.R. 3200, a number of improvements have been made. To name just a few, the current bill would allow negotiations for prescription drugs under Medicare D, promote alternatives to malpractice litigation, and allow for cross state agreements to purchase cross state insurance (something especially relevant to border districts such as my own). There are also elements that could at long last correct the Medicare payment disparities that disadvantage our state, and the bill would end the anti-trust exemption long enjoyed by insurance companies.
All of those changes are commendable, but there are still reasons for concern. The most important of these is the simple fact that we do not yet have reliable estimates of how this legislation will impact the premiums paid by people who already have insurance.
This week I spoke with Nancy-Ann DeParle, the President’s chief health advisor and Doug Elmendorf, the director of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). Although some prominent economists have asserted that premiums on average may go down relative to what they would be without this bill, the CBO has yet to complete its analysis of the issue. Furthermore, just yesterday, the chief actuary for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) said he did not think a cost estimate of the House bill would be available before the scheduled vote.
This is no small matter. To insist that members vote on this legislation without having cost estimates of Medicare and Medicaid impacts by CMS or an estimate of premium impacts from the CBO seems premature and unwise.
Precisely because this matter is so important, it is critical that we do things right, and know what we are doing. At present, unfortunately, I do not believe we have answers to fundamental questions.
Another troubling matter is how the legislation will be brought to a vote. As of this writing, only one amendment will be allowed from the Republican side. No other amendments, by either the majority or minority members, will be allowed. I believe that is a mistake. For a matter of this importance, and on which reasonable people can and do disagree, there ought to be more opportunity granted for amendments on both sides.
For these reasons, until more information is available on premium estimates and Medicare impacts, I will vote against the legislation in its current form. I will wait to make a decision on final legislation until this critical information becomes available and when the House and Senate together produce one bill.
Share via
3
8
@6: Screw the "anything less than single-payer is crap" attitude. We need this bill. (Besides, that doesn't actually seem to be why Baird's opposing it.)
Firstly, it IS NOT healthcare reform, but HEALTH INSURANCE changes. Now the changes I saw regarded financing this bill on the backs of the middle and working class people, especially taxing union health plans as well as cutbacks in Medicaid, etc. Not good.
Also, it mandated the private insurance be purchased -- a boon for the private insurance vultures, as well as establishing insurance exchanges.
What these insurance exchanges are suggestive of is the government, on the tax payer dime, creating the next exchanges for Wall Street to save them the cost. Wall Street has, over the last several years, suddenly created a whole bunch of healthcare hedge funds. What these are for is usually speculation and manipulation of the markets --- driving up the costs for the rest of us while running off with their ill-gotten and seldom-taxed gains.
They have been steadily creating an entirely new class of derivatives: mortality derivatives, mortality-linked securities, mortality swaps, q-forwards, etc. They appear to be gaming the system for an entire new round of securitized financial instruments (debt-financed riches for them, sticking the rest of us with their bills). One can surmise that these will be traded, or based, upon those 2013-created insurance exchanges.
Just doesn't appear to be similar to Rep. Kucinich's HR 3200, and certainly says bad things about Pelosi for stripping out the legislative verbiage which would allow individual state governments to opt out and create their own sinlge payer networks.
Real healthcare reform would involve single payer. This appears to be simply a future backdoor bailout of the insurance industry, which like the banksters, has suffered from too many toxic assets on hand.
I'm afraid the final will contain a clause allowing states to opt out of a lot of things, especially enlarging their Medicaid rolls, and anything else that increases states' costs. Congress will just be kicking it to the states, whose blame it will be if this thing doesn't work, and every state in the country is broke right now.
This is no reform indeed, barely a change.
15
16
The information about this bill is extremely vague.
If you search on the web, you'll see people saying "Health plan good" or "Obama care bad", but the specifics are sorely lacking!
Where are the basic facts of cost, service and so on illustrated clearly?
Great Idea!
We'll back a "Progressive" in the Primary- the kind Seattle liberals can get all wet and sticky about- and beat this turkey for the Democratic nomination.
Then we can watch a Republican win the seat in November. . . .
Grayson got that seat because the Republican self-destructed.
He has ZERO% chance of being re-elected.
That is not snark or bravado or hyperbole.
It is a fact.
Research it.
Grayson is being Mr Loudmouthed Assertive Democrat because he knows he has NO chance to be re-elected and he is trying to line up a gig on MSNBC as a commentator.
(hence his weepy asskissing pussywhipped apology for the Whore comment-)
He completely changes the original message, promising that the purchase of private insurance will be mandatory, proclaiming that millions more will be covered (then immediately fudging on that promise), and misleading everyone with suggesting there will now be more competition for the insurance industry (a falsehood, just read the final legislation and do the math), along with stating that the health insurance industry will no longer be allowed to turn away applicants due to "pre-existing conditions," but then allowing them a concrete way out by also proposing tort "reform."
I'm completely flummoxed why more haven't picked up on this? Is everyone retarded? Three-second attention span?
If Obama were an authentic democract, he never would have appointed all those many Wall Street lobbyists and pharmaceutical industry lobbyists to his administration. Period!
Just look up the backgrounds of Diana Farrell, the most anti-worker, anti-union, anti-American yet! And Larry "women can't do science" Summers!
Just what the heck are you prattling about??? The dems aren't going along with "the bullies" they are fulfilling their paychecks from all those corporate lobbyists who own them. Check their voting records and their contributions (Opensecrets, wallstreetwatch.org, etc.)
Some of President Obama's toxic appointments: Diana Farrell (McKinsey Global Institute, Goldman Sachs), Laura Tyson (Morgan Stanley, NAFTA uber-supporter), Larry Summers (whored for everyone on Wall Street), Timothy Geithner (Kissinger & Associates, NY Fed), Gary Gensler (Goldman Sachs), Tara O'Toole (pharmaceutical industry lobbyist), Herb Allison (Merrill Lynch, NY Fed), Peter Orszag (Mckinsey & Co., Brookings Institution), Patterson (Goldman Sachs lobbyist), Richard Holbrooke (AIG, Perseus LLC), Rahm Emanuel (Wasserstein Perella, number one recipient of hedge fund donations while in congress), Robert Hormats (Goldman Sachs), etc., etc. etc.
Shit, the GOP cannot even get a Republican to challenge Grayson. All the usual suspects will not run against him. With out a challenger, he has a 100% chance of be re-elected. He is going to own that seat for decades, because he actually cares about the people.
Comments (26) RSS