krugman: An Incoherent Truth....the blue dogs

[spanone]

Right now the fate of health care reform seems to rest in the hands of relatively conservative Democrats — mainly members of the Blue Dog Coalition, created in 1995. And you might be tempted to say that President Obama needs to give those Democrats what they want.

But he can’t — because the Blue Dogs aren’t making sense.

To grasp the problem, you need to understand the outline of the proposed reform (all of the Democratic plans on the table agree on the essentials.)

Reform, if it happens, will rest on four main pillars: regulation, mandates, subsidies and competition.

By regulation I mean the nationwide imposition of rules that would prevent insurance companies from denying coverage based on your medical history, or dropping your coverage when you get sick. This would stop insurers from gaming the system by covering only healthy people.

On the other side, individuals would also be prevented from gaming the system: Americans would be required to buy insurance even if they’re currently healthy, rather than signing up only when they need care. And all but the smallest businesses would be required either to provide their employees with insurance, or to pay fees that help cover the cost of subsidies — subsidies that would make insurance affordable for lower-income American families.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/27/opinion/27krugman.html?pagewanted=print

[BEZERKO]

1. Blue Cross Democrats,

not blue dogs.

[mod mom]

2. Blue Cross and any other corporate entity willing to hand them big bucks.

I've always abhorred the use of "dogs" for them. They are not loyal to the principles of their party but to the sight of greenbacks coming their way.

[mmonk]

6. Thanks for the descriptive talking point.

It's a useful one.

[snot]

3. (The horrific thing is, i.m.h.o., Blue Cross has been better than most.)

[Greyhound]

5. Very dependent on which state you're in.

Blue Cross in CA (back when I had insurance a decade ago) was one of the best, while Blue Cross in Nevada and Arizona was staggeringly bad.
:kick: & R

[seafan]

4. The moment of truth has arrived for the Blue Cross Dogs.

Krugman casts a wary eye at the Blue Dogs.

.....

Reform, if it happens, will rest on four main pillars: regulation, mandates, subsidies and competition.

.....

So what are the objections of the Blue Dogs?

Well, they talk a lot about fiscal responsibility, which basically boils down to worrying about the cost of those subsidies. And it’s tempting to stop right there, and cry foul. After all, where were those concerns about fiscal responsibility back in 2001, when most conservative Democrats voted enthusiastically for that year’s big Bush tax cut — a tax cut that added $1.35 trillion to the deficit?

But it’s actually much worse than that — because even as they complain about the plan’s cost, the Blue Dogs are making demands that would greatly increase that cost.

There has been a lot of publicity about Blue Dog opposition to the public option, and rightly so: a plan without a public option to hold down insurance premiums would cost taxpayers more than a plan with such an option.

But Blue Dogs have also been complaining about the employer mandate, which is even more at odds with their supposed concern about spending. The Congressional Budget Office has already weighed in on this issue: without an employer mandate, health care reform would be undermined as many companies dropped their existing insurance plans, forcing workers to seek federal aid — and causing the cost of subsidies to balloon. It makes no sense at all to complain about the cost of subsidies and at the same time oppose an employer mandate.

So what do the Blue Dogs want?

Maybe they’re just being complete hypocrites. It’s worth remembering the history of one of the Blue Dog Coalition’s founders: former Representative Billy Tauzin of Louisiana. Mr. Tauzin switched to the Republicans soon after the group’s creation; eight years later he pushed through the 2003 Medicare Modernization Act, a deeply irresponsible bill that included huge giveaways to drug and insurance companies. And then he left Congress to become, yes, the lavishly paid president of PhRMA, the pharmaceutical industry lobby.

.....

Now, however, they face their moment of truth. For they can’t extract major concessions on the shape of health care reform without dooming the whole project: knock away any of the four main pillars of reform, and the whole thing will collapse — and probably take the Obama presidency down with it.

Is that what the Blue Dogs really want to see happen? We’ll soon find out.

This week will be pivotal.




Digby: Until we neuter the Blue Dogs, it will be nearly impossible to enact liberal legislation. February 12, 2009


Rachel Maddow: Evan Bayh and his "ConservaDem" coalition, March 19, 2009


It's time to put some controls on the Blue Dogs' negative influence on progressive policies., March 4, 2009