Dean hopes health bill can be fixed after Senate vote

[kpete]

Source: Raw Story

Dean hopes health bill can be fixed after Senate vote

By David Edwards and Gavin Dahl
Sunday, December 20th, 2009 -- 12:27 pm
.................

He wouldn't vote for the Senate's current health insurance reform bill, but he isn't giving up on the process. After the Senate passes their bill, Dean hopes that provisions in the House's version of the bill can be combined with the Senate bill to create major health care reform.

"I would certainly not vote for this bill if this were the final product, but the House bill is quite a good bill. This bill has improved over the last couple of weeks. I would let this thing go to conference committee and let's see if we can fix it some more," Dean told Gregory Sunday.

Asked how to improve the bill, Dean immediately responded that cost controls need to apply to hospitals. He then added, "We really do need some kind of a public option. At least allow the states to have a real public option."

Asked if he advises Democrats to vote no, Dean insisted the bill could still be fixed. "If they can make it work without a public option, I'm all ears. I don't think that's possible."

more:
http://rawstory.com/2009/12/dean-health-bill-conference-fix/

Read more: http://rawstory.com/2009/12/dean-health-bill-conference-fix/

[yourout]

1. Not likely.

[Born Free]

5. well, it is possible...

but very unlikely - they could start a new bill under reconciliation as soon as this one if finished. The new bill would only have to deal with the budget matters and it could be all about adding "Medicare for All" of another "public option" to reduce the costs . It would be very, very clever and almost unstoppable as the insurance companies and republicans already used up all their ammo - what else could they say that has not already been said? How can they argue against this bill while at the same time say the next bill is the one that does it. It would be an extraordinary and clever move for the democrats, but doubtful they would have the intestinal fortitude to stand up for what is best for the American people.

I liked "Medicare for all" or as Keith Obermann said Medicare Part E - let anyone buy into Medicare that chooses to do so.



joe

[regnaD kciN]

25. That's what Paul Krugman has been saying, and I agree...

...that passing this bill makes it much easier to eventually put through a public option, Medicare for all, etc. via reconciliation, because the regulatory parts that would underpin any such attempt, which couldn't be passed via reconciliation, would have already been passed in this bill.

I would caution that I don't expect such an attempt to be made next year. But the main components of this bill won't kick in until 2013-2014. I would think the time to move on these would be in 2013 (after people have campaigned on it in 2012), when the details of the system have become more set-in-stone, and it's clearer what needs to be reformed. In particular, I'm thinking of the OPM non-profit insurance part of the bill, and how, without a public option trigger, it's unlikely any company will submit such a plan. The absence of one of the key provisions of the bill could then be used to pass a public option through reconciliation, requiring only 51 Senate votes.

[No Elephants]

50. Saying this bill may get better before it hits Obama's desk is very different from saying things

get better in a year or so. Either or both statements may be correct. It's hard to debate intelligently about the future. However, I can say with certainty that the two are not the same.

[superconnected]

62. That's exactly what I'm hoping for.

[wordpix]

29. Medicare Part E for "everyone" - I like it AND it would allow Medicare to stay solvent if

"everyone" joins in, healthy and young as well as old and not so healthy.

It maybe makes too much sense for our bought and paid for our Congressmen to comprehend, tho.

[Hissyspit]

44. VIDEO Here, Everyone:

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Hissyspit/7393

[No Elephants]

51. That is also known as "single payer" and was under the bus before Obama started his primary

campaign.

[harun]

64. That would be terrific.

[Cleita]

2. Since it has to go through the same group of Congressmen and Senators

I think Dr. Howard is being naive. Our only chance of fixing it is to get it done in small bits and pieces quietly before in goes into effect in 2014.

[joshcryer]

3. Do not confuse diplomacy with naivity. He has said it would be a "brutal battle."

He knows the problems with it which is why he doesn't want it to begin with.

Again, he's being diplomatic, nothing more.

[WestSeattle2]

4. This program will be "fixed" in small bits and pieces for

decades to come. At 49, I doubt I'll live to see the day when America has single-payer, but I think it will come to that eventually. Look at Social Security and Medicare today compared to what they were "out of the box" after initial passage, and you'll see the path that health care reform will take. Republicans will fight any change tooth and nail until a sitting republican president suggests that enrolling all Americans in Medicare is a "sound, principled idea whose time has come", then they'll be all for it. It might be 2038, but the time will come.

[nightrain]

9. I'm not that optimistic that the "path that health reform will take" will be toward a public single

payer if something close to the mandated Senate "private payer" is signed. It is a horrible policy precedent to move in the direction of transfering public money to private corporations. If it is signed and enacted, these corporations will likely become more entrenched and it would be even more difficult to get rid of them in the future.

It's a terrible policy precedent.

Obama should be ashamed of lying to his supporters if he signs something like the Senate bill.

[Cleita]

10. My only hope is that Wendell Potter, the whistleblower, former Cigna executive,

is right. He said that putting taxpayer's money into corporate insurer's hands will break the bank and while the pigs are feeding at the trough, the patients and health care providers will continue to be stiffed and shortchanged. Then Congress will have to go back and fix it. When that happens, there is only one recourse but to go in the opposite direction to rein in costs and that leads to Medicare for all. Now I am paraphrasing because I don't remember exactly his words but this is the content of what he said.

[nightrain]

14. We can hope that when and if it happens that the bank breaks that

the next movement is in the public single payer direction. But, don't you think that it's at least as likely that since this private precedent is set, that corps will find a way to evade a public program in the future?

I just have such a hard time believing that corps would give in later when the trend was in their direction. Hope I am wrong....

[Cleita]

17. Maybe some help from us unwashed masses goosing them with

a cattle prod on the rear end might inspire them as well.

:evilgrin:

[nightrain]

20. Perhaps....I'll be there with a prod! OTOH, if money is power, then the corps

with more of our money, and therefore power, will be even less likely to allow even more radical, but necessary, reform or revolution. Their increased funds will perhaps buy even more politicians.

Getting out of bed with the corporations seems to be a necessary prerequisite to any meaningful change in direction in the financing and provision of care. These bills don't address any systemic problems with the financing or provision of care, sadly, and dangerously.

Obama and Rahm are very very short-sighted in aligning themselves with the corporations' money for the purposes of the next 1 or 2 elections.

[jwirr]

16. Let us hope that they will be forced to either start over or fix it because

I can tell you that they will increase their premiums. They are already tossing those of us who are have insurance plans under Medicare D and Medicaid around like we are hot potatoes.

[nightrain]

23. yes. So stupid of Obama and Congress to get on the public's bad/angry side for such a short-term

hoped-for gain in 2010 and 2012, and beyond. Are they that stupid/desperate?

[valerief]

41. When the bank is broken, the taxypayers bail them out. nt

[No Elephants]

54. I think he said the Baucus bill was an insurance company's wet dream.

I'm paraphrasing, too, of course, but that is the gist of what he testified to Congress.

[bvar22]

22. "This program will be "fixed" in small bits ..."

YES!
Just like NAFTA and The Patriot Act!
:patriot:

[No Elephants]

52. Washington DC is a very different place today than it was when Social Security and Medicare

passed. Besides, I am not sure what radical changes those two programs have undergone. I guess Social SEcurity covers more people than it did at first. And we got Part D during Dummya's time, but that was as much for the drug companies as it was for the American people.

[Hansel]

36. I think you are right.

I think that they are going to get this bill through so that a marker has been set on health care reform. Some of the more progressive parts of the bill, such as a public option and medicare buy in, can be done through reconciliation because they are budgeting issues. I think right now they are just trying to get the foundation and framework in place by passing some of the new laws on insurance companies that they can't get through reconciliation.

Or I'm just dreaming.

[No Elephants]

59. Well, you're full of hope. I hope you are correct, but we all need to be on the phone to D.C. this

week, more than ever.

[Le Taz Hot]

47. I think Dr. Howard

is still trying to be a good Democrat and work within Das Party. If Dean's actions have taught us anything it's what the Administration thinks about those trying to enact change within the party -- THEY DON'T CARE.

[No Elephants]

53. I think your statement is not realistic. We are going to lose house and Senate seats next year, in.

part because of this year's clusterflock over health care. And in part bc this really is a bad bill. So, how are we going to improve a bill then when we could not improve it now?

[HughMoran]

6. Saw him say that

Let's hope he's right - I'd like to see it improved in the ways that he has suggested in his interview on MTP today.

[Jefferson23]

7. With little hope left, we still need to fight, I'm with Dean on that.

I will not support a piece of shit bill, but I'll call and write, go down and march if that's what it would take. What troubles me the most is that there is such limited time and resources through the MSM to get them to report on this legislation. I haven't seen Potter invited on CNN, or that he is even referred to as a source, anyone else?

The MSM focuses on the conflict, not the content of the issues, I hate them so.

[defendandprotect]

8. Imagine Dean has received a lot of threats . . .

the DLC/Democratic Party would love to move him from the scene --

Corporate/fascists are counting on bullying this legislation thru --

Don't count on Dean or anyone else to lead us out of the desert -- we need a plan B

of our own -- but we have to stick together!!!

[Cleita]

11. Yes, let's start with shutting off the money spigot.

I suggest send no more money to organizations who front DLC candidates and Blue Dogs, that means the DNC, DSCC and DCCC. Instead support your progressive candidates by giving them money directly. It will be necessary to identify the progressive dark horse candidates to run against the Max Baucus's and Ben Nelson's in office in the primaries. The only reason progressive candidates have a hard time getting elected is that they don't have the money to counter the TV ads and billboards that the corporate backed ones do.

[defendandprotect]

13. That will include DU . . . are you ready for that . . . ?????

:evilgrin:


I support the website, but I only give money directly to candidates I feel strongly

confident in.

[Cleita]

15. Why would it include DU?

They aren't on my triumvirate list. I still think you can donate to organizations that are lefty just not those above three.

[defendandprotect]

19. DU raises money for Democrats . . . including for Obama . . .

What I'm saying to you is, that would be a shocking decision/request for many here at DU . . .

probably including for Skinner!!!

:evilgrin:

[Cleita]

24. If I remember correctly you sent your money through DU to a company that

allowed you to designate whom you want money to go to. My money went to Kucinich and then Edwards. I never sent a cent to Obama nor did DU send any of my money to him. So I think you are wrong. Now if Skinner and Co. send some of my donations to them, then it's out of my hands because when I wrote the check to them, my donation became their income to do with what they wanted to and that's okay with me. My point is that when you donate to the triumvirate, they are mostly backing the most conservative dems they can find. They will do fine because the corporations will throw money at them as they are always looking for new Congressmen and Senators to buy. It's the underdog liberal candidates that we need to support with our money.

[defendandprotect]

33. That's good that you can designate . . . but I wasn't

speaking about you specifically --

I think it would be a shock to many here that it wouldn't be an automatic to raise

money on DU for Obama --

Or that Democrats may now begin to balk at the idea of giving any money to Democrats

after recent negative experiences.

[Cleita]

39. No one is suggesting that. My suggestion is to target your money to

individual candidates. It's the only control you have as to whom your money is supporting.

[defendandprotect]

45. Oh . . . just noted the user name . . .

Leaving your merry-go-round --

[maryinthemorn]

49. I totally agree with you.

[upstandingcitizens]

12. from what I've seen lately

politicians just want HCR so they have more money available for themselves. Ban the gop and rebuild the Democratic Party ASAP.

[Le Taz Hot]

48. Threats for what?

He doesn't hold office. They can't do shit to him. They tried to shout him down. All that did was piss off the base even more than we already were. I can so tell Rahm is handling all this.

[wisteria]

18. Seems like Gov. Dean has changed his turn a bit since declaring to kill the senate bill. Huh? n/t

[regnaD kciN]

26. Well, he can't keep on calling on them to kill a bill that alread has the votes...

...so, like any good political fighter, he doesn't throw up his hands, quit, and scream "we're dooooooooomed!" -- he looks to what can still be improved in the process.

[No Elephants]

60. ? Not really.

"He wouldn't vote for the Senate's current health insurance reform bill, but he isn't giving up on the process."

[bvar22]

21. There is that word "HOPE" again.

LOL.

[EFerrari]

27. Too bad we can't put verbs on ignore.

:silly:

[meow2u3]

28. The bill has to go into conference

There, the House members can put a little sense in the Senators, hoping to scrap the individual mandate--against which Obama campaigned, and restore the public option, or at least expand Medicare. Otherwise, the bill would criminalize the refusal to stuff the coffers of the already bloated insurance industry.

There is a difference between mandatory auto insurance and health insurance. Driving is a privilege but getting well after you're sick is a right.

[wordpix]

31. will there be a "conference" of a combined senate-house committee?

I'm not sure of the final phase here.

[FarLeftFist]

30. This isn't the end to HC reform...This is the beginning.

[Wardoc]

46. Not necessarily. It could be the end, or it could be revised differently than you imagine.

By the GOP.

[No Elephants]

58. You pass a good bill, one that actually does something for human beings, like

Social Security and Medicare, and you get to tweak it. You pass something that MANDATES that people enrich an industry that already got itself obscenely rich by gouging Americans, then letting them die, though, and maybe you don't get multiple more bites at that apple.

Try to imagine the uproar from voters if another TARP were to be attempted any time soon.

[Waiting For Everyman]

32. If it is fixed, it'll be because of Dean and "netroots" like us. n/t

[julian09]

42. What ever the bill looks like after conference, the senate still has to vote

Lieberman, Nelson will need to be appeased, to get the sixty votes. They both represent the insurance companies, not their constituants. They can tinker to make it better not much more. Unless we can get a few republicans, which won't happen. They are bent on destroying Obama through failure of healthcare passage.

[billyoc]

34. I wonder what he thinks of Lord Neslon's decree.

[secondwind]

35. WE NEED TO RAM THIS SUCKER THROUGH.....and then worry about the details.....n/t

[No Elephants]

56. If you were referring to single payer, instead of to a POS, you might be correct.

[neverforget]

37. I'm not going to hold my breath for any improvement. The longer this has

gone on, the worse it has gotten.

[PassingFair]

38. I'm sure we are all hoping for improvement. There certainly is plenty of ROOM FOR IT..

We must keep up the pressure.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

40. the house bill is better but

the health overhaul has a long way to go.

yes hospitals, labs, drug companies, med equipment companies etc charge too much

[NICO9000]

43. The mandate part really needs to go

That is not reform at all. What are we supposed to do if we can't afford it? Go to jail where they actually provide health care? I really respect Dean and hope he's right 'cos the current version of the bill just doesn't cut it all.

My biggest fear is that the finished bill is worthless to all but the insurance co's. That would give a huge advantage to the Rethugs who obviously won't vote for this in any form anyway. They can then crow about how they didn't ever support the bill or any mandates, with a nod and a wink to the insurers who'll keep filling their coffers. I really have to wonder why Obama and these Senators feel like they have to play ball with these assholes anymore. I realize they need the 60 votes, but if they fail at least it won't be for lack of trying and I think it would help them in the long run so they could say "We tried to give you health care reform, but the Party of No once again could care less about you or your family." This whole thing just gets me madder and madder the more it drags on.

[workinclasszero]

55. Weren't they going to fix NAFTA too?

Uh yeah, right!:eyes:

[No Elephants]

57. Anyone know what Dr. Dean said after Democrats voted for the Resolutions authorizing the

Iraq War and the WOT? How about the Patriot Act? I'm sure all of those had good tidbits in them, too.

But, seriously folks, let's ALL hope this bill improves in conference. And let's all write our Democratic AND Republican Reps. and Sens. and tell them the bill BETTER improve before Obama gets it.

[blueworld]

61. I continue to agree with Dr. Dean after noticing something else in the news this a.m.

It's easy to be cynical & expecting the worst from mega-corps is hardly psychic, however I noticed this tidbit this morning:

Sanofi-Aventis to buy Chattem for $1.9B
(AP) – 2 hours ago

PARIS — French drug maker Sanofi-Aventis SA says it has agreed to buy US healthcare company Chattem Inc. for about $1.9 billion in cash in a a deal it said would create the world's fifth-largest consumer healthcare company.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hSh-0Juu9Gn32Ws3tMTJFMuqTX3QD9CNMME01

I worked for Aventis in the Poconos when they were "Pasteur Merrieux Connaught" & were the largest vaccine producers. I don't know what the merger with Sanofi did, but I've seen their pharma price lists, distribution deals & "cooperation" with other drug makers like Merck. Now the drug companies are becoming consumer healthcare companies? Owning several sectors of the health care industry will surely allow them to shuffle profits, adjust MLR...you know what's coming when they're officially in bed together. And lower costs won't be a result.

I'm angry at the Dem leadership that didn't bother to aim for "perfect" so what we'll end up with isn't even "good", but the saga continues & perhaps I'm overly pessimistic.

[marshall]

63. If it was "fixed" it wouldn't have passed

It is what it is--and if it wasn't, if it was a bill that Dean could support, it would not have passed.