Insurance-rate regulation dropped from latest health bill

[Political Heretic]

Insurance-rate regulation dropped from latest health bill
BY STEVEN THOMMA
MCCLATCHY NEWSPAPERS
WASHINGTON -- A Democratic plan for new federal power over health insurance rates was dropped Thursday from the final health care bill, squeezed out by the way the Democrats are pushing the bill through Congress.

Rolled out with fanfare just weeks ago, the Democratic plan was a response to double-digit rate increases proposed by health insurance companies in California and elsewhere.

It was first proposed by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., then picked up by President Barack Obama.

It would have given the federal government the power to reject proposed rate increases. It also would have allowed the secretary of health and human services to order insurance companies to give back part of premiums if the government decided that the companies spent too much of their incomes on salaries or advertising.

(more)
http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/03/18/1536309/insurance-rate-regulation-dropped.html

___________________________

A bunch of people were denying this happened earlier today, so....

[DJ13]

1. It gets better and better by the moment

:banghead:

[Jackpine Radical]

3. You stole the words out of my mouth.

Jesus Holy Shit.

They will next eliminate any regulations about pre-existing conditions and rescission.

There is nothing left but the mandate. We are now officially worse off than we were. Much worse off.

But do not fear. The next step is privatization of Medicare.

[PufPuf23]

59. Zeke Emanuel's Idea about mandates

is that mandates are the means to phase out Medicare.

[defendandprotect]

88. Didn't know that!! But do know Obama/Rahma/DLC are after Medicare/Social Security!!

That's quite clear -- !!

In fact, anything the left wants . . . like peace, less military,

less national security, less Patriot Act --

Women's rights --

Unions . . . though not sure if that's not already concluded with Trumka/AFL-CIO

saying "YES" to health care reform!!!

All New Deal regulations are out --

Excuse me, I'm out!!

[Maraya1969]

121. This is what is said at the end of the story

It sounds like a red tape thing. I don't believe that it will stick. I'm sure that they will make it go through again another way.

"A White House aide said Thursday that the Senate parliamentarian had ruled that the new insurance-rate regulation proposal didn't qualify to be included in that bill under rules for reconciliation.

In particular, the parliamentarian ruled that the proposal ran afoul of the Byrd Rule, named for Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., which requires that anything passed under reconciliation - and therefore exempt from the threat of filibuster - be limited to budget measures.

Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/03/18/1536309/insurance-rate-regulation-dropped.html#ixzz0igAWG9AG


Obama plans to try again later, the aide said.

"We will continue to push for legislation to give the HHS secretary the authority to help prevent unfair rate hikes," said the aide, who spoke only on the condition of anonymity in order to discuss legislative strategy. "However, the health insurance reform legislation that Congress is about to pass contains several important measures that will make insurance companies more accountable for how they are spending your premium dollars."

Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/03/18/1536309/insurance-rate-regulation-dropped.html#ixzz0igAAJge7

[Echo In Light]

35. +1

[Cal33]

80. Yes, with so many Al Capones holding high positions, both in

government and private industry, what else can anyone expect?
Our country will continue to go down-hill with these many
sociopaths around.

[liberalpragmatist]

2. I think they should attach this to the Defense Appropriations Bill

Or pass it as a separate, standalone bill. But I prefer the first option - attach it to a "must-pass" piece of regular legislation (which is a fairly common tactic).

[LonePirate]

4. Yeah, let's load up the defense bill with all sorts of goodies

Rate regulation, anti-trust exemption, Grayson's Medicare for all bill, the DADT repeal, a progressive tax system that restores the tax base of the federal government, etc. We need to force those bigoted, anti-American, right wing zealots to actually make this country a better one.

[pokercat999]

77. I'd rather have them hold the defense spending bill hostage to

the troops being out of Afghanistan and Iraq BEFORE passage. Then reduce the defense budget until all troops had to come home from EVERYWHERE.

There is no hope for the insurance bill and it should be scrapped until we have a Democratic majority in both the House and Senate.

[grantcart]

5. It wasn't dropped by the Democrats it was ruled as not appropriate by the

Senate parlimentarian.

While not entirely surprising because the rules for reconciliation limit what can be added to reconciliation bills the issue is not completely dead and the issue can be appealed, although it is somewhat uphill and requires them to demonstrate that it is budget reducing move.

The way that this is phrased by McClatchy papers is highly misleading.

Reaction at DU that this is some catastrophic betrayal is odd because the plan is a very recent addition and not part of the original Senate bill and there are many other ways that it can be passed if it is not allowed by the parlimentarian.

[amborin]

6. well, the whole bill is a catastrophic betrayal, so what's one more ghastly feature

[grantcart]

7. your free to have your opinion I prefer Sanders and Deans

[ibegurpard]

8. maybe you 'll have to ask them but I would assume

that they could live with the bill as it stood not after provision after provision was stripped out in the process.

[grantcart]

10. See this is the problem I have

everytime I get into an extended discussion with someone who is 100% negative about the bill we get into the details and find out that they really haven't read the bill, aren't really conversant about what it will effect and so on.


Now in this case lets be clear, the proposal that Senator Feinstein was proposing was never in the bill and was not being stripped away. They were trying to add it. The Parlimentarian for the Senate has ruled that they cannot do it. No Democrat has agreed to drop it, the parlimentarian must give permission for anything in reconciliation to be added and he has to do it according to the rules.

Key to the reconciliation process is that it must reduce the federal deficit. In this case while the regulation would have a great impact on individual health care policy holders and their private policies it will have no impact on the federal budget because the enforcement was on individual policies. The authors knew that but hoped they might get it through.

Again

1) Not being stripped off.

2) Not being dropped by Democrats

3) Wasn't part of the original bill but Democrats were trying to get it added when only deficit reducing ammendments can be added.

4) Democrats still love this bill and there are 100 ways to get this passed included adding it to a defense bill or something else that Republicans feel compelled to vote for.

[ibegurpard]

12. expect more problems

[704wipes]

13. If govt is going to subsidize some, then it would reduce deficit

The plan has the government subsidizing to some extent families making under 80,000, and couples making under 54,000. Maybe I am not exact on that, but no matter... if this is not in there holding down insurance premiums then the government subsidies as a total will go up, will they not? So having this or keeping this would lower government outlays. Thus the argument that it does not reduce the deficit does not wash to my way of thinking about it.

[ArcticFox]

30. I think I agree with what you're saying. . . .

If something costs $10, and then the government decides to give a lot of people who can only afford to pay $5 a $5 bill if they buy that thing, then it's probably going to head toward $15 pretty soon. Then the government will have to throw in a $10 bill so those people can still afford it. And on, and on.

Meanwhile, the person buying it doesn't notice the price increases. All that person knows is that it still costs $5, and for some reason taxes and/or the deficit are rising.

This has happened with higher education costs already. Government aid led to higher tuition, etc., which required more government aid, allowing schools to charge higher tuition again. When my boss went to law school in the late '70s, he graduated without any debt. I graduated in 2002 with about $120,000 in debt (and I think there are people out there with more debt than that). Why? Tuition went up. How? The easy availability of student loans.

[defendandprotect]

93. Why subsidize anything . . . ? We are already paying as much as Swiss pay for a luxurious . . .

health care system -- and we are not getting the care!

Why subsidize people who can't afford health care -- when obviously we are

not only OVERPAYING for health care -- but we are NOT GETTING THE HEALTH CARE WE ARE

PAYING FOR!!!????

PS: We are the "government" and we pay for debt . . . if we add more subsidies to the

debt, then we also pay for those additions!!

[defendandprotect]

90. Baloney . . . Everyone wants MEDICARE FOR ALL -- -

by huge majorities --

This is a Repug bill, even at its best!!

Howard Dean made very clear . . . "this is not health care reform" --

It's a "Romney-type bill."

[jonathon]

19. Sanders did it for the clinic money - Dean just sold completely out

[Political Heretic]

31. Dean's just blinded by the good, failing to see that the harm outweighs the good

Many people will be helped by this bill, at least in the short run. That's a truth. Unfortunately, many more people will not be helped by this bill. I say that because, if your health costs put you into bankruptcy before this bill, and your health costs will still put you into bankruptcy after this bill (a family of four at Oregon's median income, in a year of crisis medical need where they hit the out of pocket cap would be on the hook for approximately $17,500 all told, or nearly 30% of their total annual income) - then you weren't "helped."

Worse still, the ammount of concessions made to insurance and for profit hospitals in this bill guarantees that both insurance premiums and cost of health services will continue to rise overtime with little to nothing to prevent that - meaning that those helped in the short run by this bill will eventually find themselves back in the exact same position we are in now - with out of control premiums and health care costs that are unaffordable.

Dean's not looking at the long run, he's looking at the short term help millions of Americans will get. But its our responsibility to look at those who will not be helped AND the long term effects of policy - and the long term outlook is bleak.

[defendandprotect]

94. Dean said: "this is NOT health care reform" . .. "It's a Romney-type bill" . . ..

This bill will do great harm, not only to citizens it will not help, but

to taxpayers and to the Democratic Party --

[eridani]

33. Well, at least Sanders got a reach-around out of being fucked n/t

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

44. Sanders also obtained more Medicaid funding for VT.

[SandWalker1984]

55. Bernie also did it for $600 mil to cover VT's medicaid costs.

Now we know HIS price for a yes vote.


By the way, the 2 clinics and medicaid reimbursement are to cover the costs for PUBLIC OPTION health care for VT residents. So the rest of us are good enough tax payers to pay for public options for VT residents but we're not good enough (according to Bernie) to have the choice of a public option for ourselves.

Nice work Bernie.

[ArcticFox]

29. Yeah, can't have your own opinion now, can you?

[grantcart]

45. see this in line with the allegations that people are being told to "shut up"

I told the responder that she was free to have their opinion but I prefered the opinions of some other folks, that't my opinion.

It does take alot of hubris to stand up and say that you are better informed and more progressive than Sanders, Dean, Kennedy, Sherod Brown, Move on, and on and on and on.

But you are free to have your opinion, free to have your own hubris as well.

[liberation]

73. Somehow I get the impression that "hubris" does not mean what you think it means...

Seeing someone using hubris in order to chastise other people's alleged hubris is rather amusing exercise in projection from your part. LOL

[defendandprotect]

95. Everyone you're mention is opting for "lesser of evils" . . . but this isn't even that!!

This is insurance company control of our health care --

insurance companies which Obama has made clear are "evil."


Mandates should be illegal -- poor precedent to start!

[KoKo]

68. Howard Dean on CNBC this a.m. called it "Mitt Romney's Bill."

Said, it wouldn't have been my bill...it's not the best bill."

[liberation]

74. It doesn't matter, they got the sound bites they needed from Dean, Kucinich, and Sanders....

Dean's attempt at working out a reasonable strategy with the DLC, parallels in an ironic way, Obama's attempts at doing the same with the GOP.

This whole charade has gone from being a Greek comedy, into a full blown Greek drama centered around personality disorders.


Oh, well. At least it is entertaining....

[KoKo]

76. It has...but we shouldn't trash those who held out and "fought the good Fight" to Ridicule..

That's what's wrong about the minority voices here on DU. They go around with Jack Boots tromping on folks who've been with this for years who have some knowledge and when challenged they have NO ANSWER with FACTS to REFUTE...but depend on their Handful of PEEPS to DEFEND THEM ...and hopefully, imho to get other DU'ers Tombstoned in a Brawl!

[defendandprotect]

96. ....and Dean said last night . . ."this is NOT health care reform ...this is a Romney-type bill" . .

That was either on Olbermann or Rachel --

[Deep13]

71. In fairness, Dean and Sanders see this as better than nothing...

...and are not suggesting that corporate primacy should have been the starting point for legislation.

[defendandprotect]

97. In fairness, they BOTH plan to live their futures connected to Dem Party . . .

We are not seeing them taking a stand which would cause them to walk away

and do something new politically!!

Same with Schultz . . .

Same with Kucinich whom I can somewhat sympathize with -- he's not a fanatic --

he's not willing to alone try to STOP this legislation - he has a conscience --

and he wants to continue in the Dem Party. It's helpful to have someone like him

inside government to give us a clue now and then as to what's really going on --

and he has a sub-Comnmittee which is valuable.

[Deep13]

113. Sanders is an independent.

And frankly, the political connections detract from your argument as it gives them a reason to support it besides doing what's best.

[defendandprotect]

116. Sanders is an independent, who usually supports Democratic legislation . . .

Sanders is not GOP, that's for sure!

Again -- Sanders plans to live out his time among Dems in Congress --

[pokercat999]

78. Can't blame them, who wants to be the last

LEMMING OVER THE CLIFF?

[defendandprotect]

98. But most of us recognize the dire consequences of not taking a stand . . .maybe by next year,

or next month, or next ten years -- but eventually this is all going to blow up.

[defendandprotect]

89. Which is . . . ???

[western mass]

17. I'm sure the Dems were *shocked*, just shocked!

I'm sure they never saw that coming!

It's not like they were just going through the motions of pretending to want to regulate the HI industry. No way. Uh-uh. 9-D chess.

[defendandprotect]

99. +1000% ... can we all remember that we have government by PRIVATE DEAL NOW????

Obama with private deals with Big Pharma --

and deals with "for profit" health care industry --

'NO GOVERNMENT RUN HEALTH CARE' . . .

"Don't worry about it guys, you're covered" . . .

Wow!

Why are we even bothering to elect a Congress?

[jonathon]

18. The whole thing has been a betrayal.

From the lies about the public option to the sell out of drug reimportation to the undermining of women's rights and reproductive health...

This bill isn't just bad.

It has reached ATROCIOUS.

And, it is really sad to see so many on DU, so united in the beginning of the process for real reform - now reduced to defending the indefensible.

The dems just sold us all out. Lock, stock, barrel.

[defendandprotect]

100. Absolutely . . . and Medicare and Social Security will soon be on chopping block...GOP Agenda...

carried out by a faux Democratic president!!

[readmoreoften]

32. Oh, well then if it's only being dropped due to parliamentary error, everything must be kosher!!!

:sarcasm:

Really. I mean, please.

[PA Democrat]

37. The typical American won't care why it was dropped.

They will blame the removal of this provision on the party in power. The President and Democrats were very vocal about adding protection against unwarranted large rate increases to the bill. It looks like they made a mistake to make promises before checking on their ability to follow through. I sincerely hope that some type of legislative fix can be passed very quickly because otherwise it is going to cost us votes in the midterms.

[Tom Rinaldo]

43. True, but it is another case of promising something that isn't delivered

That promise helped some liberals make their peace with this HCR effort, and then it subsequently vanishs. It is a problematic pattern.

[twitomy]

115. Ok, so regulating the insurance rates is not germain to a

bill that MANDATES we pay the rates, but changes to student loan program is?? Gimmee a freakin break!

[OhioChick]

9. K&R n/t

[Lorien]

11. Holy f*ck

:grr: :nuke:

[jonathon]

14. This thing is FOUL - they can pretend the base wants this all they want

MANY of the left are not fooled by this charade. Thanks for the link - I will post it far and wide.

[defendandprotect]

101. There is no "base" that wants this ... Americans want MEDICARE FOR ALL.. by huge majority...

That's why it can't even be mentioned by Democrats or Obama!!

Think the last number I saw was 77% . . .

And Catholics support a government run plan by about 73% or maybe more now?

They also want reproductive health care in it -- and contraception and ABORTION covered!!!

So, not only are Dems lying, but the US Catholic Bishops are also lying in order to try

to gain control over their own members/wom who have abortions at the same rate as any women.

It's an attempt by RCC to control all of society and end reproductive freedom.

[Dinger]

15. SSDD

Pathetic.

[FrenchieCat]

16. It wasn't allowed due to the bill being a reconciliation bill......

the guy with the rule book made them take it out.


from article posted in op....

White House aide said Thursday that the Senate parliamentarian had ruled that the new insurance-rate regulation proposal didn't qualify to be included in that bill under rules for reconciliation.

In particular, the parliamentarian ruled that the proposal ran afoul of the Byrd Rule, named for Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., which requires that anything passed under reconciliation - and therefore exempt from the threat of filibuster - be limited to budget measures.

Obama plans to try again later, the aide said.

"We will continue to push for legislation to give the HHS secretary the authority to help prevent unfair rate hikes," said the aide, who spoke only on the condition of anonymity in order to discuss legislative strategy. "However, the health insurance reform legislation that Congress is about to pass contains several important measures that will make insurance companies more accountable for how they are spending your premium dollars."

Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/03/18/1536309/insurance-rate-regulation-dropped.html#ixzz0iavm7pYn


y'all don't like the bill no matter what's in it or not,
so I don't see this making any difference one way or the other.
You gonna dog out Obama on this or on something else no matter. :shrug:

[slipslidingaway]

21. And nobody thought about that in advance??? n/t

[ipaint]

47. Thinking one step ahead and facing facts

denies them the much needed PR spin that gets spread far and wide, like manure, by more folks who can't think one step ahead.

It's hard work not facing reality. Ask the last administration, they were always hard at work running away from the obvious consequences of their actions. The more things "change" the more they stay the same.

[tbyg52]

54. Gets harder and harder to defend this steaming pile, doesn't it? nt

[slipslidingaway]

86. The final push for this bill - insurance companies are raising rates so

we need to pass this bill, do not fear we plan to have a rate authority to moderate premiums!

Now ... Who could have know this would not pass through reconciliation, it is not our fault, the other guy did it.

:shrug:

:hi:

[defendandprotect]

102. Insurance companies should be out on their asses --

Isn't this the same president who was telling us how "evil" they are?

Now, American citizens are being forced to buy health care from them!!


Also, we can see that they know that even pre-BRIBED and pre-OWNED legislators

have their quirks . . . therefore, everything is being taken out of the hands

of Congress. Why we're even bothering to elect a Congress, I'm not sure!!

Everything back rooms and private deals!!

Obama leads the way -- sickening!!

[slipslidingaway]

126. Agreed, forcing people products from them is disgusting. n/t

[saracat]

24. Really and you will love this no matter what it says.Seriously . The Bill could say

we have to eat our pets in Times Square and you would justify it if that was what the President wanted."The President is smarter than anyone else. We have to trust him.He knows what is best " La! La! La!
I actually don't care about Obama at all. He is irrelevant other than he has screwed up HCR and we will not have another opportunity for decades and we have also likely lost our majority over a crap bill not worth the paper it is printed on. But come NOV, some will be in line denying Obama had anything to do with the losses.
And it really makes me mad that some really good people, who are mot necessarily as left as I am are going to lose their seats. I don't give a damn about the majority.they weren't doing anything with this anyway if this is all they can come up with after a year but some really good folks, who do care, were hung out to dry with this and the WH doesn't even care.They set them up and are letting them take the fall, That is unforgivable.

[slipslidingaway]

27. And I'll be reminding them ...

"...But come NOV, some will be in line denying Obama had anything to do with the losses..."

:evilgrin:

[eridani]

34. Well, we can still hope the Repukes turn up the sociopathic whackjob act and turn off voters

I really hate to think of that as our main hope, though.

[slipslidingaway]

40. Me too, but they also backed us into a corner, either way this will

not turn out good.

:(

[WorseBeforeBetter]

70. I don't think they'll have to. "Mandates" should be sufficient. (n/t)

[defendandprotect]

128. Evidently, everyone was turned around . . . "to protect Obama's from being 'delegitimized'"--!!!

That seemed to be what Kucinich had echoing in his head and whether he realized

it or not, excitedly stressed in the interview with Amy Goodman!

So, it's not about losing alleged health care for citizens --

it's about saving Obama's political ass !!!


And, all this time we thought it was about doing something to help American people!!

[icee]

Correctamundo

[icee]

63. Dupe

[defendandprotect]

106. Private deals with corporations equals . . . Cheney/Obama ...

Odd how everyone here could see how wrong it was that Cheney/Scalia got away with

the private meetings/deals with energy companies --

But Obama making private deals with insurance companies - "for profit" health care industry --

Big Pharma -- doesn't much bother them!!

Obama promised the 'NO GOVERNMENT RUN HEALTH CARE SYSTEM' ... Wow!!

Why in the hell are we even bothering to elect a Congress?

[LibDemAlways]

119. There are delusional posters on this board who think this bill is

going to help the Dems in November. Yeah, help them into the unemployment line.

One of my local tv news (use the term loosely) stations is running a commercial promising a "how the bill will affect you" series next week. There are going to be plenty of jaws on the floor once people get wind of what this turkey is all about. Dems who vote "yes" better plan on leaving the country and laying low for awhile.

[slipslidingaway]

127. I doubt that it will, nobody wants to be forced to buy from these

greedy corporations.

:(

[defendandprotect]

129. ... and if you don't "buy" they will send IRS after you to take 2% of your paycheck!!

The more I find out about this bill, the crazier it gets!!!

[defendandprotect]

104. Well, they've only been working on this for .... fill in the blank...not perfect...WAIT!!

Obama and the Dems will get it right in the next . . . eh, 15 years?

Why are we even bothering to elect a Congress when we can have Cheney/Obama making

private deals with Insurance companies and Big Pharma???


:sarcasm:




Disgusting!!!

We need to change the name of this website to small "d" democratic underground . . . !!!

[slipslidingaway]

25. Another poster at FDL questioned it - Pfeiffer's reply ...

Vaunted Health Insurance Rate Review Authority Kicked Out of Reconciliation Bill

I’ll remind everyone that this was basically the major carrot inside reconciliation, the one new thing that most people agreed would improve the bill significantly.

This was obvious from the moment it showed up in the President’s reconciliation proposal. I wrote the day it was released:

But there are a couple pieces of the proposal that could not really pass through reconciliation. The new federal rate reviewer, for example. I see no way that has a budget number attached to it, meaning it would be subject to a Byrd rule challenge. But this may be just what the White House WANTS. When I asked Pfeiffer about it, he said that they took the limitations of reconciliation into account, and that ultimately, what passes muster is up to the Senate parliamentarian. But there could be a vote to waive the parliamentarian’s decision, one that would require 60 votes. At that point, Republicans would have to make the choice to vote down a federal regulator devoted to making sure customers across the country don’t get gouged on their health insurance premiums. That’s smart politics, and I could see why they’d welcome such a vote.

Of course, because that would be smart, they’re just taking it out of the bill altogether and saving themselves the trouble.

Perhaps you’ll see a standalone bill on the rate review board in the future; it would mirror the vote in the House to repeal the insurance industry’s anti-trust exemption. You’ll notice that hasn’t moved in the Senate yet."


White House Health Proposal – The Politics

By: David Dayen Monday February 22, 2010 8:02 am

http://news.firedoglake.com/2010/02/22/white-house-health-proposal-the-politics/

[tallahasseedem]

58. It wont matter how much reason you inject...

into this argument...they're going to find a reason to complain anyway. I mean hell, they're even throwing Dean under the bus.

[joycean]

91. Thanks for the heads up.

We knew some of the proposals would be rejected by the parliamentarian. And the Byrd rule is lame, but it is still a rule. Ezra Klein wrote an article about this last year, arguing against the Byrd rule (which limits legislation under reconciliation to deficit reduction). Klein said:

"And even if reconciliation had only ever been used to cut the deficit, an observer might wonder what renders deficit reduction so much more pressing than, say, ending the punishing human cost of the health-care crisis, or saving the planet from catastrophic climate change. Why should cutting programs be exempt from the Senate rules but not saving lives?"

Here is the article if you are interested: http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_fifty_vote_senate

[slipslidingaway]

20. knr - Key Provisions in the President’s Proposal:

"...And another important idea included is improving insurance protections for consumers and creating a new Health Insurance Rate Authority to review and rein in unreasonable rate increases and other unfair practices of insurance plans."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/health-care-meeting/proposal


Obama’s New Health Insurance Rate Authority: New Policy or Just More Cynical Politics?

By: Jon Walker Monday February 22, 2010 7:35 am

http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/02/22/obamas-new-health-insurance-rate-authority-new-policy-or-just-more-cynical-politics/

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7770000&mesg_id=7770000

"...After extensive study of the matter, I find it very likely that this new Health Insurance Rate Authority would be ruled in violation of the Byrd rule...

Personally, I’m upset about the potentially cynical politics of this move. There are several things that could likely be passed through reconciliation that might hold the insurance companies honest. Things like a public option, Medicare/Medicaid/Tricare buy-in, possibly tougher minimum medical loss ratios, and/or maybe even a national exchange. That fact the Obama’s health care proposal contains none of these potentially Byrd rule-proof ideas to “hold the insurance companies honest,” but instead contains a new agency unlikely to become law, is highly disappointing..."

[girl gone mad]

28. Oh, but he writes on Jane Hamster's site..

obviously he doesn't know what he's talking about.

Tralalalala... Liar Dog Fake!

Leftbagger! America hater!

:sarcasm:

[slipslidingaway]

41. Exactly and of course this topic moves from keeping the insurance

companies in check ... to who cares.

:shrug:

[havocmom]

22. So our dear DLC is selling working Americans into servitude

Fucking swell.

[defendandprotect]

107. If we can't find a way to end "Corporate-Dems" we better have a new plan . . .

a better plan ... than voting for the "lesser of evils" . .

Cause what we keep fishing out of that lake is more evils!!

Meanwhile, why the hell are we electing a Congress when we can have Obama/Cheney

run around making secret, private deals with insurance companies/Big Pharma???

Disgusting!!!

[slipslidingaway]

23. Charlie Brown, Meet The Newest Football: The National Insurance Rate Authority

http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/03/18/charlie-brown-meet-the-newest-football-the-national-insurance-rate-authority/

"In what is likely to be one of the last acts of health care reform kabuki theater, the role of the football will be played by President Obama’s proposed National Insurance Rate Authority. As always, the role of the Lucy shall be played by the Senate.

The role of the football has previously been played by direct Medicare drug price negotiation, the public option, Medicare buy-in, 90% minimum medical loss ratio, and a national exchange. Not surprisingly, the Huffington Post is reporting that the Rate Authority will likely be dropped because it can’t survive the Byrd rule in a reconciliation bill.

Like previous provisions that have played the role of the football, the National Insurance Rate Authority was a smart-sounding, progressive idea put forward to make people feel more kindly toward the health care bill, only to see it pulled away at the last minute.

What makes this final act with the Rate Authority so disgusting is the incredibly pure cynicism all around. Within minutes of seeing that Obama proposed it be part of the reconciliation bill, I questioned its ability to survive the Byrd rule. It simply did not seem likely, based on my knowledge of reconciliation..."



Obama’s New Health Insurance Rate Authority: New Policy or Just More Cynical Politics?
http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/02/22/obamas-new-health-insurance-rate-authority-new-policy-or-just-more-cynical-politics/

[blindpig]

36. That seems to be the modus operandi

How many times now?

[slipslidingaway]

42. Too many times for people not to notice . n/t

[girl gone mad]

26. They were never going to use it anyhow.

I guess someone got scared that people might actually elect effective politicians some day..

[mmonk]

38. When will they change "reform" to "tinkering"?

I guess tinkering doesn't sound as proactive even when it is only what you're really doing.

[defendandprotect]

108. This is health care DEFORM . . .

[MadHound]

39. And the hits just keep coming

And there are posters on this board who are wondering why the insurance industry is screaming. The longer they keep screaming, the more they get.

This is going to kill the middle class and working class. A mandated monopoly without even the polite fig leaf of rate control. :banghead:

[ehrnst]

46. Until everyone is covered, cost controls are not going to work

Without subsidies, mandates will not work.

Mandates to ensure universal coverage, subsidies to make coverage affordable universally, pricing regulations to keep costs down.

There are three legs to health reform - all three have to be in place at the same time.

[Lorien]

61. Ever heard of the NHS?

if they were serious about controlling costs they would have pushed a single payer system. They have a very different agenda.

[uponit7771]

48. ***SENATE PARLIMITARIAN DROPPED THIS RULE NOT DEMOCRATS***

[ipaint]

50. ***THEN WHY PUT IT IN TO BEGIN WITH?***

Dumb as a box of rocks.

[Javaman]

65. So they can misdirect us.

This part won't get the big news that it should.

Yesterday's news will, but todays news not so much.

You see it's all slight of hand.

the cheerleaders for this bill railed on and on up until yesterday stating that the bill does limit the amount rates can go up, but today, those same cheerleaders puff up and say, "well, well, this is all parliamentary rules and all, can't help that!".

Which then goes back to what you said, "why the fuck did they put it in in the first place?" so they can play a little 3 card monty with our emotions.

There would have been a percentage drop in support of those terms had been shown to be total and complete bullshit earlier this week.

I love their midnight confessions.

Just more game playing and deception by those in charge who are calling this a massive reform.

Just more of the usual smelly bullshit and blurry mirrors.

Why get outraged at the same thing over and over? It's just business as usual in washington.

[eleny]

51. ****Vice President Biden can overrule the Parliamentarian****

[Better Believe It]

52. True, but, he hasn't and won't.

[eleny]

53. Yes and it's more than disappointing. It's galling....

Once the insurance companies get this major windfall, they'll become more powerful than ever. :(

[Political Heretic]

56. VP can overrule - and I really don't care who did what. I care that its out.

[defendandprotect]

109. *** WHY BOTHER ELECTING A CONGRESS WHEN OBAMA MAKES PRIVATE DEALS?***

As disgusting as Cheney making private deals with energy companies --

[nightrain]

132. that's so true, it's almost pointless...

[blindpig]

49. Lucy and the football.......

How many times have we seen this in the past year?

k&r

[Max Stein]

57. No surprise

Be interesting to see the final bill. It ain't for the people.

[Lorien]

60. You'll be forced to buy a product, no matter how much it costs

Why on earth would ANYONE-outside of wealthy investors and insurance execs-support this?

[Stinky The Clown]

62. Bend over, America.

[icee]

64. So, basically, we have to buy insurance and the insuranc companies

are free to set rates? Ohhhhhhh, thank you, Obama. Just what we needed. How could I have been so stupid?

[pundaint]

66. Keep believing in Change. Change will fix this bill. Once the Democrats take over

we can change this corporate give away into Reform. As Obama is telling us "I got your Change right here!"

[defendandprotect]

110. Any minute now . . . change will come . . it's a chess game... he's only been in office 12+ months!

And you want a pink pony!

Geez what damned hogwash they've thrown up --

Well, at least one of them has apologized now!!

[freddie mertz]

67. Horrible news. Drip drip drip....nt.

[laconicsax]

69. AWESOME!!!

So not only do I get to look forward to mandatory private insurance I may not be able to afford, I get to look forward to mandatory private insurance I may not be able to afford going up in cost subject to the whims of a predatory industry.

[gleaner]

72. Geeze! What a nice surprise!

This turkey seams to be the gift that just keeps on withholding.:argh:

[jtrockville]

75. Not sure it matters.

As sure as the sun will rise tomorrow, health insurance premiums will rise, with or without "regulation".

[kenny blankenship]

111. You'd think after watching the endless parade of regulatory evasion - Enron, Madoff

the mortgage fraudsters, and especially the big banks that were running multi trillion dollar scams right under the government's nose - people would have developed a gut level understanding that BIG MONEY operations can bamboozle, capture, and co-opt their supposed regulators -ALWAYS. None of these scams were exposed to public knowledge, or caught by the govt. over the course of many years, until they blew up in the perps' faces.

When they get sufficiently large like banks and insurance racketeers, they have too much legal talent at their disposal, they have too much political firepower. They can win just by drowning the regulators in paperwork. They are also in it for the long haul, while the politicians come and go from the Washington stage, and the civil service regulators move in and out of government and the very companies they're supposed to be regulating through a revolving door.

If there's one thing we should all know by now it's that you can't finesse these guys. They finesse you. They're vampire squid and you cannot tame them.

[d_b]

79. hey, at least it's a win

and then Obama will point to Mitt Romney in the 2nd debate and say, "It's your plan too, Mitt"

hot-dog, I can't wait for that zinger!

[county worker]

81. It was not in the Senate bill, it can't be added through reconciliation,

but please don't let reason get in your way.

[laughingliberal]

82. Yes

This bill of Feinstein's has been cited repeatedly as another justification for passing the bill and proof that we will be able to bring down premiums. As soon as it's gone we either hear from them that it's not gone or it wasn't important any way. Sort of like the months of trying to get the public option. Incessant screaming that the public option wasn't dead. Then incessant insistence, once it was obviously dead, that it didn't matter that much, anyway.

[liberal_at_heart]

83. so it has a mandate but no public option and no insurance rate controls

This just gets better and better every minute.

[mwrguy]

84. Insurance stocks soared today.

Go figure.

[Lorien]

105. that deserves a thread of it's own. nt

[defendandprotect]

85. What a disgrace . . .!!! What are we going to do about this?

MOBILIZE . . .

http://www.singlepayer.org /

http://www.freespeech.org /

Upper left/Petition

[readmoreoften]

87. The article says they "squeezed it out". Very apropo for this piece of shit legislation.

[LWolf]

92. k&r

[Lorien]

103. So why do supporters STILL believe that it will lower costs and increase access to health CARE?

? There's no controls, just a mandate to shell out for an ever more expensive "service" which often won't pay a single claim!

[defendandprotect]

112. Which supporters? I see a few arguing here for it . .. that's all . .

The usual thing . . . a few with disinformation . . . taking a battering from

those who now know better.

At least that's my impression --

Who'll possibily celebrate passage of this bill?

Meanwhile, with Obama making private deals all over the place, why are we even bothering

to elect a Congress?

Obama/Cheney?

:)

Though I'd better add a smiley -- which you deserve anyway -- 'cause I'm so aggravated

I want to be sure I'm not coming off as disagreeing with you!!!

[Lorien]

125. I share your aggravation

We went through eight years of hell together, it sure would be nice to celebrate a legislative victory for a Change. But it's not looking good; they're hellbent on serving corporate "persons", not American citizens. :-(

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

114. Congress pawned

and us too.

[bvar22]

117. And the "Bait & Switch Con" enters the final pahse.

For the "Bait & Switch Con" to work correctly, "The Mark" must be kept confused.

Obama & The Centrists have worked this CON masterfully over the last year.

[colsohlibgal]

118. What A Debacle

And they were worried about the fate the democratic party would face if this bill did not pass, I think the chances are their fate will be worse when this give the insurance companies what they want bill passes.

[NorthCarolina]

120. Don't worry, they still have the public mandate

:puke:

[4dsc]

122. Get it the next time around.

[seafan]

123. The consequences of this bill's passing will be much worse than if it fails.

Another Lucy and the Football moment.


Insurance-rate regulation dropped from latest health bill

By STEVEN THOMMA
McClatchy Newspapers

March 18, 2010

WASHINGTON -- A Democratic plan for new federal power over health insurance rates was dropped Thursday from the final health care bill, squeezed out by the way the Democrats are pushing the bill through Congress.

Rolled out with fanfare just weeks ago, the Democratic plan was a response to double-digit rate increases proposed by health insurance companies in California and elsewhere.

It was first proposed by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., then picked up by President Barack Obama.

It would have given the federal government the power to reject proposed rate increases. It also would have allowed the secretary of health and human services to order insurance companies to give back part of premiums if the government decided that the companies spent too much of their incomes on salaries or advertising.

.....

A White House aide said Thursday that the Senate parliamentarian had ruled that the new insurance-rate regulation proposal didn't qualify to be included in that bill under rules for reconciliation.

.....

Sorry, people, that mean old Parliamentarian took out our plan to regulate health insurance rates. Too bad.

Signed,

The Democrats in Congress

[liberal_at_heart]

124. It will be cheaper to pay the penalty than to buy insurance

[New Dawn]

130. Kick for truth. Voters will not be happy when their premiums skyrocket...

Or when the IRS comes to fine them.

[Canuckistanian]

131. The bill is only symbolic now

Not just because of this, but because of all the other provisions stripped out.

I heard yesterday that the anti-trust amendment was ditched, too.

Yes, some people will be helped, but far too few to call this meaningful reform.