For a year, critics of the Democratic health care plans have been applying the label "ObamaCare" to whatever the current draft was. That was inaccurate -- because, as Democrats were eager to say, it was never quite clear to them what President Obama actually wanted out of a health care bill. Today, the questions end. The President has unveiled his own comprehensive health care bill. It borrows heavily from the Senate's bill, adds some White House ideas, throws in some Republican-sponsored amendments, and pronounces itself ready for inspection.
The topline highlights:
-- Proposes to cover 31 million Americans who don't have health insurance;
-- Creates a new federal facility to help states crack down on insurance industry abuses and unfair rate increases;
-- Includes significantly ramped up efforts to crack down on waste and fraud within the Medicare/Medicaid systems -- this is a nod to Republicans (Peter Roskam and Mark Kirk are behind proposals to do just this);
-- Adds a Medicare tax of 2.9% on unearned income -- hitting the wealthy; it immediately closes the Medicare Part D doughnut hole gap -- something seniors should notice before the November 2010 elections if this gets through Congress;
-- Increases tax credits to families to help them buy insurance; it spends $11 billion on community health care centers;
-- Endorses but adds consumer protections to the Senate's proposal to grandfather in insurance plans that people want to keep; it adopts the Senate proposal to require that Americans who don't buy insurance pay a flat fee -- but lowers the fee;
-- Provides $40 billion to small businesses to help them defray the costs of providing health benefits if taxpayers pay for the coverage; the president delays by five years the Senate's excise tax on so-called Cadillac insurance plans;
-- Increases fees for brand name (as opposed to generic) drugs, depriving the pharmaceutical industry of an extra source of profits;
-- Eliminates the Nebraska exemption for Medicare payments and adopts a universal, phased-in approach to help states pay for the increased costs of expanding the Medicare program. 100% of the increased costs would be paid for three years; the bill turns the fee on medical equipment providers in the Senate bill into an excise tax and delays its implementation; it also delays by three years the tax on insurance companies;
-- Finally, the bill gives the executive branch $1 billion to help efficiently implement the plan.
The political highlights: there's plenty in this bill for Democrats to like. But there's no public option. It'll be easier to get unions on board because the excise tax will be delayed and watered down a bit; the bill delays implementation of several provisions, which will annoy Democrats; it spends quite a bit of time focusing on trying to rid Medicare of waste, fraud and abuse. There's no nod to tort reform, so far as I can see.
So -- this is just a bill. How does it become a reality? It relies on the idea that Democrats now really want to get something done. There is no public option or a national exchange; the bill is still expensive and fairly complicated; there are some carrots for those concerned about the expensive of the House bill. It's hard to see how any Republicans will support the bill, although the White House is framing it in a way so as to force Republicans to defend their opposition to it during Thursday's Blair House health care summit. Since the first House vote, Democrats are down at least three votes.
The way forward: either rank-and-file Democrats accept this bill -- Obama's bill -- or they don't. Republicans could suddenly discover an upside in supporting it, which is doubtful, but if they could also reduce the number of procedural delays to help the Democrats speed its passage. If not, we might be faced with the spectacle of Republicans trying to drag the votes out through the midterms. This could benefit either party; it depends on whether Americans view this bill, which is basically a product of the bills they don't like, as something new. The reason why they might do this is because they never really opposed the provisions in the bills or the goals of the bills; it was the process that alienated them so profoundly, making health care in 2009 unlovable. (Emphasis added)
Another arrow in the White House quiver is the decision by insurers -- Anthem in California being the best example -- that decided to raise rates precisely at this moment, allowing the White House to trump them with its new insurance rate increase mitigation authority, a populist proposal that may -- or may not work, but which would be hard to oppose politically, particularly if it's seen as the centerpiece of the plan. That's why the White House, which governs through the New York Times, provided the Times with that aspect of the plan.
There is no mention of public option in the Pres.Obama-proposed plan.
There is a Federal Bureaucracy to control the ever-fast-rising health care insurance premiums.
Direct link to the President's proposal. I like it that this is only 11 pages long summary and it has the necessary tables and data that I usually look for in my first visit... and it is not not just all sale-sy. What I read so far looks quite decent.
-- Edited by Sanders on Monday 22nd of February 2010 01:00:51 PM
__________________
Democracy needs defending - SOS Hillary Clinton, Sept 8, 2010 Democracy is more than just elections - SOS Hillary Clinton, Oct 28, 2010
There's not a lot of policy news in the president's new health-care plan. The changes are pretty much what we expected: more money going to subsidies (which are now being referred to as "the largest middle class tax cut for health care in history"), an excise tax that kicks in later and affects fewer plans, a new Health Insurance Rate Authority to oversee premium increases and reject them if they're unfair, the elimination of the Nebraska deal, and so on. There's no public option, nor any significant retrenchment. In fact, the cost of the bill has increased by $75 billion, the result of more generous subsidies.
But if the changes to the underlying policies are modest, the impact on the politics will be tremendous. It might even be, as Olympic announcer Ed Olcyzk said about the Canada/U.S. hockey game, "tremendously tremendous." The release of this plan marks the end of the Scott Brown election and the resumption of the health-care process.
This is not the first time Democrats have waited out a bad political period and then used a combination of televised events, substantive releases, and legislative progress to take back control of the media's narrative. In August, when the Tea Parties geared up and the town halls went nuts and the opposition found its voice, the Obama administration and the Democrats waited out the storm and then used the president's big speech to pivot to the release and subsequent passage of the Senate Finance Committee's bill. Even as the politics fell into chaos, the process ground on, which eventually brought the media back.
In December, when Joe Lieberman killed the public option and the Medicare buy-in, when Ben Nelson cut his deal, when the Republican obstruction became uncommonly ferocious and liberals began demanding that Democrats "kill the bill," Democrats did the same thing: They kept their heads down, continued working on the legislation, and kept the Senate in session until they'd won its passage. A month of bad press gave way to articles assessing Obama's likely historic achievement.
The election of Scott Brown threw the politics of the issue back into chaos, and unlike in past instances, left the process uncertain as well. But Democrats have spent the past few weeks rebuilding the process, and today was the first step: The press will now spend a few days covering the plan itself, rather than just the politics of the issue. Then comes Thursday's summit, and if all goes well there, Harry Reid says that the Senate will use the reconciliation process to make a few tweaks and changes and, alongside the House, finish this bill.
President Barack Obama, after weeks of private talks, is putting the finishing touches on a new election-year strategy that replaces sweeping "change" with incremental reform, according to senior White House officials.
“Reform is the new change,” a senior aide told POLITICO.
The strategy involves heavy use of presidential statements and Obama's White House platform to position him as an agent of popular change, with less reliance on a complicated legislative agenda. It represents a downsizing from the heady days just a year ago when he hoped to rack up legislative achievements of a scope not seen since the Great Society triumphs of President Lyndon Johnson.
It acknowledges implicitly something Obama aides make explicit in background conversations: The president is unlikely to pass the most expansive parts of his agenda this year and is too tied in public perceptions to a messy legislative process and unpopular congressional leaders.
Presidential aides say they recognize that there’s not enough time before the 2010 elections to transform the toxic political environment that has given Republicans a real, albeit remote, chance of winning control of the House or Senate. Instead, the White House is going to try to mitigate the damage by reminding voters, especially independents, of the reasons they voted so eagerly for Obama in 2008.
The strategy, detailed here for the first time, is the culmination of weeks of internal deliberations over how to reposition Obama and congressional Democrats for the midterm congressional elections in November.
A close adviser said Obama plans to increase his travel in the country, including minicampaigns built around “a series of small but highly visible policy debates that clearly put the Democrats on the side of middle-class families, with lobbies for special interests on the other side.” Two likely targets: student-loan servicing organizations and banks.
A top administration official said that “the biggest piece of reform” will be supporting congressional efforts to limit the impact of the Citizens United Supreme Court ruling that opened campaigns to huge independent spending by corporations and unions. “Americans really turned against this opinion, the official said. “And so the biggest reform is to ensure that our politics and our campaigns are not controlled by special interests. Getting legislation that deals with the Supreme Court decision on the floor and debated — and hopefully passed — is very important.”
Senior Capitol Hill aides tell POLITICO that both the House and the Senate plan to take up such measures in coming weeks. Lawmakers and the White House were emboldened by a Washington Post-ABC News poll finding 80 percent or respondents opposed to the court decision. A top Senate Democratic official said Democrats are planning to take up legislation in response to the Citizens United ruling by Easter in order to have something on the books before the 2010 elections.