harikari.com

Senator Harry Reid grew some balls today.  Big brass ones.  Here are some excerpts from his letter to Senator Mitch McConnell: 

Dear Leader McConnell:
 
Eleven months ago, I wrote you to share my expectations for the coming health reform debate.  At the time, I expressed Democrats’ intention to work in good faith with Republicans…
 
Obviously, the opposite has happened, as many Republicans have spent the past year mischaracterizing the health reform bill and misleading the public.  …

… 60 Senators voted to pass historic reform that will make health insurance more affordable, make health insurance companies more accountable and reduce our deficit by roughly a trillion dollars.  The House passed a similar bill.  However, many Republicans now are demanding that we simply ignore the progress we’ve made, the extensive debate and negotiations we’ve held, the amendments we’ve added (including more than 100 from Republicans) and the votes of a supermajority in favor of a bill whose contents the American people unambiguously support.

…

I know that many Republicans have expressed concerns with our use of the existing Senate rules, but their argument is unjustified.  There is nothing unusual or extraordinary about the use of reconciliation.  As one of the most senior Senators in your caucus, Sen. Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, said in explaining the use of this very same option, “Is there something wrong with majority rules?  I don’t think so.” 

…
 
As you know, the vast majority of bills developed through reconciliation were passed by Republican Congresses and signed into law by Republican Presidents – including President Bush’s massive, budget-busting tax breaks for multi-millionaires.  Given this history, one might conclude that Republicans believe a majority vote is sufficient to increase the deficit and benefit the super-rich, but not to reduce the deficit and benefit the middle class.  Alternatively, perhaps Republicans believe a majority vote is appropriate only when Republicans are in the majority.  Either way, we disagree.
 
Keep in mind that reconciliation will not exclude Republicans from the legislative process.  You will continue to have an opportunity to offer amendments and change the shape of the legislation.  In addition, at the end of the process, the bill can pass only if it wins a democratic, up-or-down majority vote.  If Republicans want to vote against a bill that reduces health care costs, fills the prescription drug “donut hole” for seniors and reduces the deficit, you will have every right to do so.
 
Sincerely,
 
HARRY REID
United States Senator

P.S.  Can you hear them clanging?

While tens of millions of hard working Americans struggled to keep their jobs and pay their mortgages and ever increasing health insurance premiums, the for-profit health insurance industry increased their profits by billions over the last year.  From today’s Seattle Times:

WASHINGTON — As the nation struggled last year with rising health-care costs and a recession, the five largest health-insurance companies racked up combined profits of $12.2 billion, up 56 percent over 2008, according to a new report.

Based on company financial reports for 2009 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the report said insurers WellPoint, UnitedHealth Group, Cigna, Aetna and Humana covered 2.7 million fewer people than they did the previous year.

The report also said three of the five insurers cut the proportion of premiums they spent on customers’ medical care, committing relatively more to salaries, administrative expenses and profits.

Prepared by Health Care for America Now, a coalition of liberal advocacy groups and labor unions, the report was aimed at bolstering the drive by Democrats to complete work on a health-care overhaul, which insurers have vigorously opposed.

Industry representatives criticized the report’s approach, noting that 2008 was a bad year financially across many industries, skewing the 2009 comparison.

“It is disingenuous to look at the profits at one company today compared to where it was in the depth of a recession,” said Robert Zirkelbach, a spokesman for America’s Health Insurance Plans, the industry’s Washington, D.C.-based lobbying arm.

While all five companies indeed reported lower profits between 2007 and 2008, a Seattle Times review of financial statements shows that the profits of three of them — WellPoint, Cigna and Humana — were higher in 2009 than in 2007, before the recession.  Outside factors such as the sales of assets can affect those numbers, however.

…

Industry analyst Sheryl Skolnick, a senior vice president at CRT Capital Group, said many of the insurance companies likely would benefit from more customers.

But they are driven to increase prices for their products to satisfy investors, which in turn drives away more and more customers.

“It is a terrible thing to run your business for Wall Street,” Skolnick said. “It creates very bad incentives, and it ultimately prevents you from doing the thing that is in the best long-term interest of your business. … There is no way that as long as these businesses are publicly traded, they can have the best interest of their customers at heart.”

Sounds to me like the greedy corporate health insurance providers could use a little competition from a lower-priced, more efficient, government-run plan.  So why is the Public Option off the table? 

Only answer I can come up with is to make the rich richer.

Like Mr. Barnes, was sying, people don’t know what’s in the healthcare bill – they just know it’s “socialist” and it must be bad, ’cause they heard about it on the most watched noise network, FOX. 

Krugman tell it to his face:

During the previous administration, Bush and his Republican chorus in Congress and the right-wing punditry exploited the fear and ignorance of most Americans to invade a country that represented no threat to us, establish what amounted to an offshore America gulag for our enemies, real or imagined, and to spy on United States citizens without judicial approval or oversight. 

Today, the GOP and allies are doing it again to stir opposition to the agenda of President Obama and the Democrats as they seek to enact comprehensive health care insurance reform and steer the ship of state in a more moderate and progressive direction.  And it’s clearly working.

Obama’s poll numbers have plummeted and Democrats have lost a senate seat in Massachusetts, of all places, and governorships in Virginia and New Jersey.  Never mind that the two previous Democratic governors in Virginia had been instrumental in making it one of the best administered states in the union.  Or that the seat won by a right-wing Republican with nothing to distinguish him save his abs was previously that of Senator Edward Kennedy, who accomplished so much for his state and his country and whose unrequited dream was universal health coverage for all Americans.

A grumpy and fearful electorate has bought into GOP lies and distortions to blame Obama and the Democrats for not fixing in a year what took the Republicans nearly three decades to break.  Sure, some blame attaches to Democrats who foolishly bought into or lacked the courage to oppose the deregulatory fervor of the right.  But it was the GOP, starting with Reagan and ending with George W Bush, who pushed the idea of the self-regulating free market and the notion that stricter government oversight unnecessarily and perniciously fettered our financial institutions.  We failed to heed the warning of the savings and loan fiasco of the 90’s and the result, in time, was an economic meltdown precipitated by irresponsible banks. 

Yet the GOP has succeeded in painting Obama as a typical big-spending liberal, ignoring the fact that junior Bush added three trillion dollars to the national debt after inheriting a budget surplus from his Democratic predecessor, and that the current deficit is partly the result of the $750 billion TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program) passed under the previous administration.  The Obama $787 billion stimulus bill, on the other hand, was a necessary response to the deepest recession since World War II that he inherited and it has helped to ameliorate what would otherwise have been a much worse employment picture.

As for the health care bill, Americans again have been guilty of both woeful ignorance and susceptibility to GOP propaganda.  A Kaiser Foundation tracking poll found that whilst Americans are evenly divided on whether they support the Democratic bills, most have no clue what’s in them.  Furthermore, when told of the bills’ specific key elements, support rises significantly.  

Yet the GOP and the right-wing punditry have managed to convince Americans, falsely, that the Democratic legislation will increase the deficit, raise their taxes, and diminish the quality of their own health insurance whilst raising its cost.

Congressional Republicans may be a despicable bunch but their manipulations of the truth could not succeed without an American electorate too lazy to find out the facts for themselves.

Say hello to the new senator from Massachusetts.

He’s the newest senator representing the G.O.P. – the party of fiscally irresponsible, xenophopic, war-mongering, freedom-hating, money-loving, hypocritical Bible thumping, mendacious moral degenerates.

He is the the pawn on the Republican side of the board that they will use to kill healthcare reform.

But the Democrats still have a big majority, so the stalling tactics of 41 Republicans and one douche bag from Connecticut shouldn’t be a big problem for the 58 Democrats, right?

Wrong!

Jon Stewart explained it best:  “Democrats will only then have an 18-vote majority in the Senate.  Which is more than George W. Bush ever had in the Senate when he did whatever the fuck he wanted to.”  (watch it here)

There is a special election going on in Massachusetts to fill the seat of the late Senator Kennedy.  It’s a race between Martha Coakley (D) and Scott Brown (R).  What is motivating the R’s to throw lots of money towards their candidate in a traditionally Democratic state?  Gail Collins explains in today’s column for The New York Times with this quote from Scott Brown:

Of course, it’s all about the health care bill. “As the 41st senator, I can stop it,” Scott Brown, the Republican nominee, says frequently.

She follows that with a special rant about the filibuster rule. 

There are 100 members of the Senate. But as Brown is currently reminding us, because of the filibuster rule, it takes only 41 to stop any bill from passing.

U.S. population: 307,006,550.

Population for the 20 least-populated states: 31,434,822.

That means that in the Senate, all it takes to stop legislation is one guy plus 40 senators representing 10.2 percent of the country.

People, think about what we went through to elect a new president — a year and a half of campaigning, three dozen debates, $1.6 billion in donations. Then the voters sent a clear, unmistakable message. Which can be totally ignored because of a parliamentary rule that allows the representatives of slightly more than 10 percent of the population to call the shots.

Why isn’t 90 percent of the country marching on the Capitol with teapots and funny hats, waving signs about the filibuster?

I couldn’t have put it better myself. 

Go to Collins’ column for more about the election, and if you are Democrat in Massachusetts, fire up!  Get out and vote.  This race should not be nearly as close as it is.

With the United States Senate poised to vote on a Democratic healthcare bill, the cacophony of verbal abuse from the right has now been joined by voices from the disillusioned left to make a veritable crescendo of opposition.  Most of these disaffected liberals agree with former Vermont governor Howard Dean that the senate bill is damaged goods and so far from the ideal that it would be better to kill it and start again.

I really like Howard Dean and I agree with him on just about everything he says about health care reform in this country; on this issue, however, he is dead wrong.

First, it ignores the reality of the American system of government. The Democrats need a super majority of 60 votes to pass legislation in the senate.  It would be great if they had 60 liberal Democrats to end debate on the health bill but, instead, they have Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, and other, decidedly more conservative senators such as Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, whose votes were essential in the face of unanimous GOP opposition.  Getting any sort of health insurance reform measure this sweeping to pass in these circumstances is an incredible feat for which Majority Leader Harry Reid deserves enormous credit.

Second, to kill the senate bill now is to sign the death warrant of any reform for another generation.  That much is certain.  Does anyone actually believe that Democrats will pick up seats or even keep all the ones they have now in the Congress in the 2010 mid-terms elections, with a grumpy electorate who have already forgotten just how awful the Republicans were at governing?  To kill the senate bill is to abandon those Americans who have no insurance, or who are under-insured and liable for massive out-of-pocket expenses or who have pre-existing conditions that make it impossible for them to even buy insurance, or who will become sick and be dumped by their insurance company.  This is why we on the left supported health care reform in the first place, to curb the victimization of those most in need by the health insurance industry.  Those people are still out there and they still need us to support this bill.

Finally, flawed though it is the senate bill contains much that is good and useful. It addresses the worst of the insurance industry’s practices mentioned above.  It contains provisions for long term care, and for pilot programmes to research more efficient ways to provide care and obtain better outcomes at lower cost.  And as part of the funding mechanism it slashes Medicare incentive funds paid to private health insurance companies for plans outside the regular programme.

We need to look at this imperfect but very worthwhile senate bill – which will almost certainly be close to the final legislation if anything is to pass – as a beginning framework for a system that can and will be improved over time.  If the insurance companies find new ways to behave badly, they will simply reinforce the case for even more government regulation, or perhaps even a single-payer system.  To use the words of Winston Churchill:  Now this is not the end.  This is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.

It’s difficult to describe how disappointed I am with our government right now, especially congress.  We elected a Democratic majority last November, and a “progressive” Democratic president.  We all wanted change.  What we have so far with regard to health-care reform is at best just a tepid shift from the status quo.

Here’s what Howard Dean wrote about the Senate bill in yesterday’s Washington Post:

Any measure that expands private insurers’ monopoly over health care and transfers millions of taxpayer dollars to private corporations is not real health-care reform. Real reform would insert competition into insurance markets, force insurers to cut unnecessary administrative expenses and spend health-care dollars caring for people. Real reform would significantly lower costs, improve the delivery of health care and give all Americans a meaningful choice of coverage. The current Senate bill accomplishes none of these.

Real health-care reform is supposed to eliminate discrimination based on preexisting conditions. But the legislation allows insurance companies to charge older Americans up to three times as much as younger Americans, pricing them out of coverage. The bill was supposed to give Americans choices about what kind of system they wanted to enroll in. Instead, it fines Americans if they do not sign up with an insurance company, which may take up to 30 percent of your premium dollars and spend it on CEO salaries — in the range of $20 million a year — and on return on equity for the company’s shareholders.

He’s right.  We are never going to get an affordable health-care system in this country as long as it remains a monopoly run by greedy insurance companies.  The only way we can make significant cuts in medical expenses is to first do away with the obscene profits, and second have the government negotiate prices for services.  Giving the people the choice of a government-run public option would be a great start in that direction, but that idea is dead in the water.

Today I read Paul Krugman’s column, and he thinks we should push through passage of this bill even though it is very weak.  Here’s what he has to say:

A message to progressives: By all means, hang Senator Joe Lieberman in effigy.  Declare that you’re disappointed in and/or disgusted with President Obama.  Demand a change in Senate rules that, combined with the Republican strategy of total obstructionism, are in the process of making America ungovernable.

But meanwhile, pass the health care bill.

…

At its core, the bill would do two things. First, it would prohibit discrimination by insurance companies on the basis of medical condition or history: Americans could no longer be denied health insurance because of a pre-existing condition, or have their insurance canceled when they get sick. Second, the bill would provide substantial financial aid to those who don’t get insurance through their employers, as well as tax breaks for small employers that do provide insurance.

…

Look, I understand the anger here: supporting this weakened bill feels like giving in to blackmail — because it is. Or to use an even more accurate metaphor suggested by Ezra Klein of The Washington Post, we’re paying a ransom to hostage-takers. Some of us, including a majority of senators, really, really want to cover the uninsured; but to make that happen we need the votes of a handful of senators who see failure of reform as an acceptable outcome, and demand a steep price for their support.

The question, then, is whether to pay the ransom by giving in to the demands of those senators, accepting a flawed bill, or hang tough and let the hostage — that is, health reform — die.

Okay, I get it, but I don’t like it.  Neither does our fellow contributor Mr. N.J. Barnes who sent me an email this morning:

I actually believe now it’s going to fail. Incredibly, incomprehensively fail. Thanks to Nelson.  Thanks to Liebermann.  Thanks to the Republicans being good at parliamentary stalling and pr even as they are brain-dead in every other way.
 
It’s actually likely to fail.
 
You know, this country and the GOP deserve each other.  They really do.

Yes… the Grand Old Party.  The obstructionist Republicans.  They ruined our country while they were in power, and they continue to ruin it even when they are in what is supposed to be controllable minority.  (Read more about that in Krugman’s column.)

Anyway, the Senate health-care bill leaves a very bad taste in my mouth.  I kind of liken it to buying a very good bottle of Bordeaux a year ago and storing it in the cellar to improve it with some bottle age.  Now it’s time to open it and enjoy it, but it doesn’t pass the sniff test.  The bottle is corked and the wine tastes like shit.  Krugman says drink it anyway.  Dean says select a different bottle.  I have to agree with Dean.

Stephen Colbert got it right last night in this edition of The Word.

From The New York Times:

WASHINGTON — After a half-day of animated debate, the Senate Finance Committee on Tuesday rejected efforts by liberal Democrats to add a government-run health insurance plan to major health care legislation, dealing the first official setback to an idea that many Democrats, including President Obama, say they support.

All of the other versions of the health care legislation advancing in Congress — a bill approved by the Senate health committee and a trio of bills in the House — include some version of the government-run plan, or public option.

But the Finance Committee chairman, Senator Max Baucus, Democrat of Montana, long ago removed it from his proposal because of stiff opposition from Republicans who call the public plan a step toward “socialized medicine.”

So Max Baucus, a DEMOCRAT who is in the MAJORITY party of the Senate and heads the Finance Committee, cut the public option from the bill even though 65% of Americans are in favor of the idea.  How did this Democrat get so much power?  Who’s ass was he kissing?  Seriously… the Democrats whipped the Republicans last November and gained control over White House and increased their numbers in Congress, yet they act like they lost.  They act like they think they are doing us a favor by listening to the losers on the Right who DO NOT represent the people.  Why is that?  How come the Democrats can’t govern like they have a mandate when they really do have one?

Max Baucus is NOT doing his job.  He is not a representative of the people.  Who could he be representing?  Could it be Satan?  No…  You want to know who?

Read:

As his committee has taken center stage in the battle over health-care reform, Chairman Baucus (D-Mont.) has emerged as a leading recipient of Senate campaign contributions from the hospitals, insurers and other medical interest groups hoping to shape the legislation to their advantage. Health-related companies and their employees gave Baucus’s political committees nearly $1.5 million in 2007 and 2008, when he began holding hearings and making preparations for this year’s reform debate.

Top health executives and lobbyists have continued to flock to the senator’s often extravagant fundraising events in recent months. During a Senate break in late June, for example, Baucus held his 10th annual fly-fishing and golfing weekend in Big Sky, Mont., for a minimum donation of $2,500. Later this month comes “Camp Baucus,” a “trip for the whole family” that adds horseback riding and hiking to the list of activities.

To avoid any appearance of favoritism, his aides say, Baucus quietly began refusing contributions from health-care political action committees after June 1. But the policy does not apply to lobbyists or corporate executives, who continued to make donations, disclosure records show.

Read it all.  Get mad.  If you live in Montana, vote the guy out of office.