AP reports that Sen. Ben Nelson got his anti-abortion concessions and will agree to be the 60th deciding vote. Gee, thanks!

If this is the bill we end up with, it could be worse than doing nothing.

A mandate without a strong public option to provide choice and competition is fundamentally unfair. It's a major handout to insurance companies, and could eventually create more problems for families struggling to make ends meet.

In fact, a mandate only makes sense as a way to get everybody in the pool. One large pool. Like Medicare.

UPDATE: Politico has more on the "deal" and the upcoming vote schedule for next week.

WhitesCreek's picture

I observe that it is a

I observe that it is a tyranny of the anti women's rights crowd that the have me pay my taxes and then refuse to allow my money to be spent on legal medical proceedures that they have some religious objection to.

EricLykins's picture

Harry Reid wants to butter you up a lil bit

The revolution starts when the bottom 97% pitch in and buy better candidates than the top 3%

With the leading cause of bankruptcies in America related to health care costs and 528,000 Nevadans without health care coverage, we knew from the beginning that the final health insurance reform legislation had to be strong enough to cut costs, strengthen Medicare, and ensure quality, affordable care for all Americans.

We knew it had to stabilize insurance for everyone while lowering the cost of premiums for consumers and the national deficit for taxpayers.

And we had to stop insurance companies from denying health care to the sick.

The bill we proposed a few weeks ago does every one of these things - and the revisions being read right now on the Senate floor are even stronger.

The newest version will:

  • Reign in costs even further
  • Make care more affordable by expanding small business tax credits;
  • Demand even greater accountability from insurance companies;
  • Create more choice and competition for consumers.

All of these things will help lower costs for Americans, and will finally level the playing field between Nevada families and insurance companies.

There are some that believe the bill doesn't go far enough and suggest it should be stopped.

While I, too, strongly prefer a public option, I also know that this bill will make it easier for every American to afford to live a healthy life. It will ease the suffering of millions and ensure fewer die from diseases we know how to treat.

Be assured that this by no means is the end of health insurance reform, but only the beginning - and if we don't get started now, we might never have this chance again. This bill is more than worthy of support from Democrats, Independents, and Republicans alike.

However, there are also those that believe this bill goes too far, and that it should be stopped. To them I say: the status quo is not acceptable.

Our broken system cannot and will not continue.

And I am eager for when President Obama signs this bill into law and we officially end the era in which insurance companies win only when patients lose.

All Senate Democrats stand shoulder-to-shoulder with President Obama and the American people who know that inaction is not an option.

This bill is about providing quality affordable care, protecting consumers' rights, strengthening our economy, and making the hard choices necessary to do what is right.

Throughout the many twists and turns of this process - while many have tried to knock us off course - we have stayed true to these principles. And that is why we will succeed.

Sincerely,

Harry
Harry

James Wilson Doe III's picture

Not nearly hacked up enough

I cannot say strongly enough how opposed I am to the federal government picking up the full tab for the Medicare program, especially considering that if this bill passes Nebraska's subsidization turns permanent. That's not fair or right. As our generation gets older and sicker and inflation pushes costs universally higher, there's a good chance this cash cow ends up squishing us to fiscal death if we don't pay careful attention.

I also don't see what far-reaching reforms this version makes other than the stupid abortion side-show argument and freeing state budgets to spend on something that will probably end up more idiotic and less useful than spending it on state level medical reform.

My hope is that this bill dies a fiery partisan death until real reforms can be passed and enforced. Cost controls need to be installed industrywide in both the health care and insurance fields! Lawsuits and their awards have been ridiculous for decades and it does not cost $55 to manufacture a male urinal. Supply costs have to have a hard cap, for both the medical industry and patients. Strict limits have to be set for lawsuit awards.

Greed is why the health care system is in such disarray. That's why it will never be fixed either. Don't hold your breath.

R. Neal's picture

<i>I cannot say strongly

I cannot say strongly enough how opposed I am to the federal government picking up the full tab for the Medicare program

I believe you have been misinformed somewhere along the way.

Lawsuits and their awards have been ridiculous for decades

Less than 1% of the cost of health care. But if we give in to "tort reform" can we have HR676?

EricLykins's picture

I cannot say strongly

I cannot say strongly enough how opposed I am to the federal government picking up the full tab for the Medicare program

I believe you have been misinformed somewhere along the way.

That's just for Ben Nelson, and just for the expansion, not the whole Medicare program.

His objections already had helped kill the government-run insurance option in the bill. He won an agreement that the federal government will forever pick up Nebraska’s share of a proposed Medicaid expansion, a deal worth about $100 million in the first decade, according to a Senate aide. He carved Nebraska’s non-profit insurers out of a proposed industry tax.

 

Related: Louisiana Purchase

Like other Democratic moderates who knew a single vote could kill the bill, she took a streetcar named Opportunism, transferred to one called Wavering and made off with concessions of her own.

By the time this thing is done, the millions for Louisiana will look like a bargain.

 

Rachel's picture

And it's Medicaid, not

And it's Medicaid, not Medicare.

James Wilson Doe III's picture

From the Politco article referenced above

Nelson also won his own version of Sen. Mary Landrieu's much-derided "Louisiana Purchase." In Nelson's case, the federal government will permanently pick up all the cost of new Medicaid enrollees in Nebraska, rather than splitting the tab with the state, as is usually done. Nelson’s Nebraska is the only state singled out for such treatment – a $45 million cost to federal taxpayers that shows the power of a single senator in this debate.

 

The federal government will also pick up the tab for all new Medicaid enrollees in the other 49 states through 2017, but Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) said the move may prove permanent.

 

"In 2017, as you know, when we have to start phasing back from 100 percent, and going down to 98 percent, they are going to say, 'Wait, there is one state that stays at 100?' And every governor in the country is going to say, 'Why doesn’t our state stay there?'" said Harkin.

Sorry for not saying "full tab for the expansion of Medicare".

R. Neal's picture

Sorry for not saying "full

Sorry for not saying "full tab for the expansion of Medicare".

Learn the difference between Medicare and Medicaid and get back to us.

At any rate, it's wrong for the federal government to mandate expanding Medicaid unless they (meaning you and me) are going to pay for it.

Instead, I'd prefer eliminating Medicaid and instead have a single-payer national health insurance program based on Medicare.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

TN Progressive

TN Politics

Knox TN Today

Local TV News

News Sentinel

    State News

    Wire Reports

    Lost Medicaid Funding

    To date, the failure to expand Medicaid/TennCare has cost the State of Tennessee ? in lost federal funding. (Source)

    Search and Archives