Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Hamsher: Grijalva: Baucus Bill Has “No Legitimacy”--'an insider trader move to protect the industry'

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
seafan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-13-09 11:05 AM
Original message
Hamsher: Grijalva: Baucus Bill Has “No Legitimacy”--'an insider trader move to protect the industry'
Grijalva: Baucus Bill Has “No Legitimacy”


By: Jane Hamsher Saturday September 12, 2009 6:23 pm


Amy Goodman asked Rep. Raul Grijalva, leader of the Progressive Resistance, what he thought about the Max Baucus bill crafted by former health insurance lobbyists:

REP. RAUL GRIJALVA: I think the product that has come out from his committee and himself, I really believe that it has no legitimacy in this debate. It’s an insider product. It’s there to protect the industry. It is not there to try to look for that middle ground. He is key in holding up deliberations, has been key in trying to work on a consensus, but everything you see in his legislation had to be approved by the industry before it became part of the plan. So I don’t think it’s legitimate. I think we’re struggling with real issues in some of the other pieces of legislation from the House and even from the Health Committee. And that’s where the focus of the attention should be. I consider Senator Baucus’s proposal to be essentially an insider trader move to protect an industry and really doesn’t have validity at all, both political validity or content validity.


Rep. Grijalva is doing what we always ask progressives to do. While others stood by and watched Van Jones and Yosi Sergent and a huge piece of progressive infrastructure swept away by capitulation to Glenn Beck's McCarthyist tactics, he's fighting.

Let him know we need more of that.





Yeah, while we're talking about it, let's fire ACORN for giving legal advice, but let's rehire Blackwater/Xe to continue murdering people.


:sarcasm: :mad:




For the life of me, I cannot understand the reasoning that is coming out of the White House lately.



They are giving away the store, capitulating to right-wing nutter insanity, hashing all kinds of deals behind the scenes with The Big Boys, and allowing the right-wing lunatics to froth all summer so we couldn't have rational discussion in public about health care reform or anything else.


The time is fast upon us that another 'do-or-die speech', delivered by our eloquent President and hyped by the media, will no longer substitute for direct and rapid action for the benefit of people over the corporations.


Mr. President, your presidency will forever be defined by this.


What is it going to be?






















Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
debbierlus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-13-09 11:13 AM
Response to Original message
1. If you want to understand why the White House is acting this way - watch this video
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flyarm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-13-09 11:19 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. or go here..i have lots of links on here ..that everyone should read..
I just don't have time to re-post..i posted most of these yesterday as well..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4057225&mesg_id=4057225

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
havocmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-13-09 11:22 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seafan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-13-09 03:42 PM
Response to Original message
4. Abysmally deep cynicism is taking over.
Robert Reich lays it all out in its greed and glory:


September 11, 2009



The real political race for healthcare has just begun. The significance of the president's speech to Washington insiders was its signal about where the White House is placing its bets and its support. More on this in a moment. First, let's be clear about who's racing and why. Think of the speech as the starting gate of a two-month sprint between two competitors -- and they're not Democrats and Republicans.

On one side are America's biggest private insurers and Big Pharma. They're drooling over the prospect of tens of millions more Americans buying insurance and drugs because the pending legislation will require them to, or require employers to cover them. The pending expansion of Medicaid will also be a bonanza. Amerigroup Corp., UnitedHealth Group Inc. and other companies that administer Medicaid are looking at 10 million more customers. Healthcare Inc.’s Medicaid enrollment is expected to jump by 43 percent, according to its CEO. WellPoint Inc., the largest U.S. insurer, is also looking at big gains.

But the big insurers hate the idea of a public option because it will squeeze their profits. A true public option will force private insurers to compete in markets where there's now very little competition, and also have the bargaining power to force drug companies to offer lower prices. Big Pharma also wants to prevent Medicare and Medicaid from having the power to negotiate lower prices, for the same reason. Private insurers and Big Pharma would rather fudge the question of where the savings will come from or how all this will be paid for. They certainly don't want to pay for wider coverage with a surtax on the rich, because, hey, their executives and shareholders are mainly rich.

On the other side lies the Democratic base (organized labor, grass-roots progressives, leading activists) whose main goal is to make healthcare more affordable for a hundred million American families who are now paying through the nose (higher and higher co-payments, deductibles and premiums, not to mention wages that are depressed because of employer-provided health insurance), and affordable to the tens of millions who can't get it now. To this end, the Dem base wants a public option and wants Medicare and Medicaid to have negotiating power. That's because every dollar that's squeezed out of the private insurers and Big Pharma is a dollar saved by average Americans on their healthcare -- or a dollar saved by taxpayers who otherwise end up footing the bills for Medicare and Medicaid. There's simply no more direct way to control costs. And the Dem base isn't at all reluctant to put the burden of paying for wider coverage on the wealthy.

Private insurers and Big Pharma are being represented in this race by Max Baucus and his Senate Finance Committee. Senate Finance is on the verge of reporting out a bill that requires that just about every American have health insurance and just about every business provide it (or else pay a fee). But the bill will not include a public option. Nor will it change current law to allow Medicare to negotiate low drug prices. Nor will it include a surtax on the wealthy. The committee's only real nod to cost containment is a small tax on expensive insurance policies, which doesn't worry the private insurers because its cost is so easily passed on to the beneficiaries. The Democratic base is being represented by Nancy Pelosi and House Dems, who have reported out a bill that includes a public option, want Medicare and Medicaid to have negotiating power, and will pay for universal coverage with a surcharge on the rich. The Senate's Health, Education, Labor, and Pension Committee, formerly chaired by Ted Kennedy, also represents the Democratic base, and reported a strong bill that parallels that of the House.

.....




And, all during the summer, the questions on the lips of everyone who has been paying attention have been:

*Where does our President stand on all of these bills coming out of 3 House committees and 2 Senate committees?*

*What, exactly, is he demanding to be present in a health care reform bill that he would sign or otherwise reject if those conditions aren't met?*

*And what, and how large, is the influence of recalcitrant Blue Dogs in the House and ConservaDems in the Senate, and of conniving and backstabbing Republicans, on our President's thinking processes?*



Reich answers these questions for us:



Where's the White House? For months now, it's been straddling the fence -- reassuring the Dem base that the president is with them (he did it as recently as Monday with a rousing speech to organized labor), while at the same time nodding and winking in the direction of the private insurers and Big Pharma. Last spring the White House agreed to Big Pharma's demand that Medicare not be permitted to negotiate low drug prices in return for Pharma's agreement to support the healthcare bill emerging from the Senate Finance Committee. Since then it has quietly told private insurers that it will work with Senate Finance to find less potent alternatives to the public option, such as Kent Conrad's "cooperatives" or Olympia Snowe's "trigger" mechanism, in return for the private insurers' support of the compromise. And it has told the private insurers and Big Pharma that it will not support a surtax on the wealthy.

.....

But (Obama's Wednesday night) speech also made clear that the White House has decided to side with the Senate Finance Committee and against the Democratic base on the details. The president was careful to note that a public option is only a means to an end and he remained open to other ideas (read: Conrad's cooperatives or Snowe's trigger). The speech included nothing about Medicare bargaining leverage, thereby letting the drug deal stand. The president clearly sided with Senate Finance on the funding mechanism of a tax or fee on high-end insurance rather than a surtax on the wealthy.




We were told in the speech that 'there is agreement on 80% of the issues.'


But, we the people have NOT been clued in to just what 'the issues' are. It's nearly a slam-dunk bet that the 'issues' were spelled out to the President by Big Health Insurance and Big Pharma and Big Medical Equipment Suppliers.


And another deep suspicion is that the reason that any public option that manages to survive will not take effect until 2013, is because of the promises that were exchanged from The Big Boys to steer lots of cash into the re-election of Democrats in 2012. It just fits too neatly.


If true, this is nothing but quid pro quo, at the American people's expense and peril.


And now that Reid and Pelosi are starting to waver since Wednesday's speech on any public option at all, to see this yesterday?



What is happening to us?


I am not going quietly.









Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
inna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-13-09 03:59 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. OMG, this absolutely deserves its own thread. thank you for posting this,

i wish i could recommend your post.


how unbelievably sad, though. i really didn't expect that from Obama. :(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seafan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-13-09 07:13 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. I will do that, inna, as I'm not about to keep my powder dry. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seafan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-13-09 05:04 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. It's not about us, Mr. President. It's about you.
We will be haunted for years to come, I am afraid.


Taking Single-Payer off the table before any health care discussions even began this past summer, robbed us of our best weapon against the deafening and very destructive August battles with the teabaggers, birthers, deathers, tenthers and town-hall gun toters. Without Single Payer in the discussion, the battle for health care reform was lost on the spot.


This health care battle has exposed the raw and bloody divisions in this country, between Big Money and the rest of us. We cannot escape it.


But, more than any Republicans, Blue Dogs, ConservaDems or Progressive Democrats,... President Obama alone, has it in his hands to shape and direct this battle, into a win for the people, by resurrecting Single-Payer Medicare For All as the solution.



Right now, what is flashing before my eyes is the ominous similarity between September 5, (now 13th) 2009 and September 12, 2001...


Because just as surely as George W. Bush squandered the outpouring of good will from the world for America after the tragedy of September 11, 2001, I fear that our new, young visionary President is at the brink of committing the same tragic error of missing an historic opportunity to strengthen the people of America after years of despair.



And today, September 5, 2009, Mr. President, it is not about us.


It is about you.





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
inna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-13-09 03:55 PM
Response to Original message
5. and the worst thing is that this monstrosity of the Baucus plan -

-or its slight modification - is likely to be the end result of this cruel joke of a reform.

"The president’s speech guarantees that the more moderate Senate Finance Committee bill will be the basis for the negotiations to come."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/11/opinion/11brooks.html


kudos to Grijalva anyway; he is one of the few remaining real Democrats in the Congress.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabrina 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-14-09 02:51 AM
Response to Original message
9. After reading the OP and the piece from
Reich, something occurred to me. I hope I'm wrong.

I remember when Paulson literally ran to the floor of the House waving his three-page demand for hundreds of billions of dollars and at first thought it would be months before Congress would even consider making a decision like that. Instead before anyone had time to do anything, bills were rushed through Congress, members were threatened if they not vote for Paulson's demands, and while everyone was still in shock, a bill was signed and they handed over the money. 'The biggest heist in history' some people called it.

I wondered why Obama was in such a rush to get a health-care bill by August. Considering the enormity of what he was taking on, assuming what he was going to do was get a national health-care system in place similar to those of other countries. I don't think anyone expected this to happen overnight.

But I see the same urgency with this that we saw with the bail-out bill. And now I'm wondering. Baucus's Bill is written by the Insurance Cos. Paulson's by Wall St.

People are losing their jobs at a rate that is hard to keep up with. They are also losing their healthcare. And the Insurance Cos. are losing revenue.

In yesterday's speech, Obama said that soon, one half of the population will be without healthcare. What will that do to the Insurance Industry's profits?

So, what if they approached the candidates with this problem? That could explain why it was hard to distinguish between the proposals of all three candidates. And why they were so vague. All of a sudden Health-care became a major issue. Just as Wall St. has.

What if this is really all about saving the Insurance Industry just as the Bail-outs were all about saving Wall St. rather than reforming the system? They are all inter-connected after all. Something hasn't felt right about it from the beginning.

Jane Hamsher tells us that Rahm Emanuel screamed at the liberal groups for going after the Blue Dogs, Baucus being the main target. That made no sense if they really wanted Health-care reform and Baucus was blocking it, unless you think of it in the same way as the Wall St. bail-out.

And while we were thoroughly frustrated by the antics of the tea-baggers and birthers et al, with no push-back at all. But when you think of it this way, they fit right in. It seemed strange how much media coverage they were getting with little response from the WH, if any. But not if you consider how useful they were in making it seem that Americans did not want a Public Option or Single Payer system. Which may be why Rahm called off the liberal groups (who should have walked out on him, but it seems even they have succumbed to the temptation of money).

I know this seems outrageous to even consider, but so did everything that led up to the bail-out. Too big to fail. I hope I'm wrong, but so much has not made sense. The blatant exclusion of anyone who even mentioned Single Payer or at least a Public Option.

If Bush was still president, I wonder would anything be different right now, other than the fact that we would not believe a word he said and would know right away that something else was behind his sudden interest in providing health-care for everyone.

Another thing, Obama said that the number of uninsured was 30 million. We know that is not accurate. That number was mentioned again in the 60 Minutes program tonight. Maybe that's all they need to have covered. It's not like Obama to make a mistake like that.

Wish I could make this more concise. I'm probably just being paranoid, but this OP and the Reich piece are enough to make anyone paranoid. Now I'll try to forget what I just said, because if it turned out to be true, it would be the biggest betrayal of Democrats ever.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabrina 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-14-09 03:09 AM
Response to Original message
10. After reading the OP and the piece from Reich
Edited on Mon Sep-14-09 03:15 AM by sabrina 1
something occurred to me and I hope I'm wrong.

When Paulson literally ran to the floor of the House waving his three-page demand for hundreds of billions of dollars it looked like it would be months before Congress would even consider making a decision like that. Instead bills were rushed through Congress, members were threatened if they not vote for Paulson's demands, and while everyone was still in shock, a bill was signed and the money was handed over. 'The biggest heist in history' some people called it.

I wondered why Obama was in such a rush to get a health-care bill by August. Considering the enormity of what he was taking on, assuming what he was going to do was get a real national health-care system in place. I don't think anyone expected this to happen overnight.

But I see the same urgency with this that we saw with the bail-out bill. And now I'm wondering. Baucus's Bill is written by the Insurance Cos. Paulson's by Wall St.

Think about this. The Insurance Industry has to be in trouble as more and more people are losing their jobs. They are also losing their health-care. Which means the Insurance Cos. are losing revenue.

In yesterday's speech, Obama said that soon, one half of the population will be without healthcare. What will that do to the Insurance Industry's profits?

So, what if they approached the candidates with this problem? That could explain why it was hard to distinguish between the proposals of all three candidates. And why they were so vague. All of a sudden Health-care became a major issue. Just as Wall St. has.

What if this is really all about saving the Insurance Industry just as the Bail-outs were all about saving Wall St. rather than reforming the system? They are all inter-connected after all. Something hasn't felt right about it from the beginning.

Jane Hamsher tells us that Rahm Emanuel screamed at the liberal groups for going after the Blue Dogs, Baucus being the main target. That made no sense if they really wanted Health-care reform and Baucus was blocking it, unless you think of it in the same way as the Wall St. bail-out.

And while we were thoroughly frustrated by the antics of the tea-baggers and birthers et al, the WH seemed un-phased by it all. But when you think of it this way, saving the Insurance Industry, even that whole bizarre scenario begins to make sense. It seemed strange how much media coverage they were getting. But not if you consider how useful they were. They helped give the impression that Americans did not want a Public Option or Single Payer system. Which may be why Rahm called off the liberal groups (who betrayed everyone and just disappeared for the summer as he ordered).

I know this seems outrageous to even consider, but so did everything that led up to the bail-out. Too big to fail. I hope I'm wrong, but so much has not made sense. Starting with the blatant exclusion of anyone who even mentioned Single Payer or at least a Public Option.

If Bush was still president, I wonder would anything be different right now, other than the fact that we would not believe a word he said and would know right away that something else was behind it.

I guess what I'm wondering is, is this all about bailing out the Insurance Industry rather than Health-care reform?

Wish I could make this more concise. I'm probably just being paranoid, but this OP and the Reich piece are enough to make anyone paranoid.

Now I'll try to forget what I just said, because if it turned out to be true, it would be the biggest betrayal of Democrats ever.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tsuki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-14-09 03:49 AM
Response to Original message
11. Lately, I have been wondering if Gov. Dean's exclusion from the
administration wasn't deliberate on the part of the President to purge all progressive elements from the debate at the higher levels. I hate doubting like that, but as I try to slough through the bill, and read what other who have sloughed through the bill have written, I get this sinking feeling.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-14-09 06:35 AM
Response to Reply #11
12. I didn't wonder. I knew.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 05:05 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC