It appears that Rep. Jan Schakowsky intends to hold Republicans to their word with regard to deficit reduction. Citing studies that prove a public option would control health care costs, Schakowsky introduced the "Public Option Deficit Reduction Act".

TalkingPointsMemo:

The bill, which almost certainly cannot pass in the Republican-controlled House, is a mostly symbolic effort meant to keep the public option alive as a policy prescription. It is sponsored by Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), who is on the Energy & Commerce health subcommittee, along with Energy & Commerce Ranking Member Henry Waxman (D-CA) and 43 other lawmakers.

“The Public Option Deficit Reduction Act will give health care consumers more choice and lower their premiums,” said Schakowsky. “And, by providing a lower-cost alternative to private insurance, it would put pressure on all insurers to lower their premiums in order to compete.”

Citing an earlier estimate by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, Schakowsky expects it to reduce the deficit by some $100 billion over 10 years by boosting competition among insurers and paying providers at Medicare rates. The 2010 version of the public option was expected to reduce the debt by $68 billion over 10 years.

This probably has as much chance of passing in this Congress as a handgun ban does. But it serves a good purpose. First, it keeps the focus on Republicans' hypocrisy with regard to the deficit, because a public option would save money and keep insurance costs down. They could also introduce a Medicare buy-in bill for people 50 and up, which would really reduce the cost of Medicare and put it on the road to full solvency. Either way, there's no question that it would save money in the long run. Republicans will scurry around and whine about socialism in between whines about tyranny and guns, which keeps them from actually focusing on their own message and forces them to dance to our tune.

The other benefit is the incentive for all of us to try and overcome the insane gerrymandering and take back the Congress. I figure if people view the Congress as lower than cockroaches and head lice, there should be hope for any candidate, Democrat or otherwise, to be elected in 2014. We just need to make the case for the next two years for why this group of Republicans is toxic to the country and Democracy.

Along those lines, Democrats (particularly the DCCC) should take note: If they had contended in every district instead of ignoring 45 of them, it's possible that the popular vote edge would have even been bigger than it was. That needs to happen in 2014.

Batten down the hatches, everyone, and don't be distracted by the ongoing Republican breast-beating about how their policies are so great but they just aren't communicating them in a happy way. Forget about that, because the oligarchs are rumbling, shaking their fists and stomping their hooves over Obamacare.

Yes, that's right. Now that it will not be repealed and will be the law of the land, they're making no bones about it. You've already heard about the miserable jerk who prayed with his employees before letting over 100 of them go, but it's about to get better.

Papa John's Pizza

Like Susie, I can't stand their pizza anyway, but evidently enough people like it to keep their stock price at acceptable levels while paying decent rates of return. Still, that's not enough for CEO John Schnatter, who has declared he will cut employees' hours to bring them below the full-time threshold which would require him to provide full coverage for them.

Evidently that 14 cents per pizza is just too onerous for customers and Wall Street to bear.

"The good news is 100 percent of the population is going to have health insurance. We're all going to pay for it," he said, estimating the new law would cost the business $5 million to $8 million annually.

Under the Affordable Care Act, full-time employees — those working 30 hours or more per week — would have to be provided with insurance at companies with more than 50 workers. Schnatter said it was likely that some franchise owners would reduce employees' hours in order to avoid having to cover them.

"That's probably what's going to happen," he said. "It's common sense. That's what I call lose-lose."

He also said he had a duty to shareholders to provide the maximum rate of return. Might be worth knowing who the shareholders are. 74 percent of Papa John's stock is institutionally owned; that is, owned by other investment firms and Wall Street funds. For 2012, the earnings per share is targeted to be about $2.60, up from 2011 earnings of $2.20 per share, which was an increase of 22.2 percent over 2010.

Papa John's has a market cap of $1.15 billion, and this guy is whining about a cost of around $6-$8 million per year, or 14 cents per pizza?

I call bullsh*t. This is a temper tantrum, plain and simple. Mr. Schnatter isn't the only one, either.

Darden Restaurants: Red Lobster, Olive Garden, LongHorn Steakhouse, Bahama Breeze, Seasons 52, The Capital Grille, Eddie V's and Yard House

Yes, Darden Restaurants join the whambulance over Obamacare too. Actually, they've been whining about it for a couple of years but now they're getting serious. Like Papa John's, Darden Restaurants is public but owned by bankers and hedge funds to the tune of about 84 percent.

Darden's solution to the problem is to cut employees' hours to under the minimum required to provide health insurance because they just will not tolerate the idea of actually doing something that might cost them a little bit in order for employees to live happier, healthier lives

By the way, Darden is forecasting annual growth of 12 percent. But no Obamacare for their employees, because that might reduce the big profits down to 11.8 percent or something!

Again, shall we call bullsh*t on this one together?

Continue reading »

I don't remember reading about anything like this before, and I can't quite figure out why this isn't, in effect, a public option -- but I'm not complaining. As for the concerns about meeting state standards, the administration has done a conscientious job with the new Affordable Care Act so far, so I'm going to assume they have this covered until I see information that indicates otherwise. I hear a lot of people say they're worried about their employers wanting to drop health insurance, and this will be a ready option:

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration will soon take on a new role as the sponsor of at least two nationwide health insurance plans to be operated under contract with the federal government and offered to consumers in every state.

These multistate plans were included in President Obama’s health care law as a substitute for a pure government-run health insurance program — the public option sought by many liberal Democrats and reviled by Republicans. Supporters of the national plans say they will increase competition in state health insurance markets, many of which are dominated by a handful of companies.

The national plans will compete directly with other private insurers and may have some significant advantages, including a federal seal of approval. Premiums and benefits for the multistate insurance plans will be negotiated by the United States Office of Personnel Management, the agency that arranges health benefits for federal employees.

Walton J. Francis, the author of a consumer guide to health plans for federal employees, said the personnel agency had been “extraordinarily successful” in managing that program, which has more than 200 health plans, including about 20 offered nationwide. The personnel agency has earned high marks for its ability to secure good terms for federal workers through negotiation rather than heavy-handed regulation of insurers.

John J. O’Brien, the director of health care and insurance at the agency, said the new plans would be offered to individuals and small employers through the insurance exchanges being set up in every state under the 2010 health care law.

[...] National insurance plans will be subject to regulation by the federal government, state insurance commissioners and state insurance exchanges. That mix could cause confusion for some consumers who have questions or complaints about their coverage.

The federal standards will pre-empt state rules in at least one respect: the national health plans will automatically be eligible to compete against other private insurers in the new exchanges, regardless of whether they have been certified as meeting the standards of those exchanges.

DOWNLOADS: (556)

PLAYS: (760)

Embed

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was firm today: A public option will not be included in the reconciliation package. After reminding reporters that she has been for single payer health care since "before most of [them] were born", she explained there would be no public option in the reconciliation bill. Expanding that answer, she pointed the finger at the Senate, saying,"[the Senate] does not have the votes."

We can argue about whether the Senate has the votes or not, but as TPM reports, Senate support has diluted as more Senators make qualified commitments. Of those making some sort of commitment, only 24 have actually signed the Bennet letter. The rest have given only qualified nods.

But the latest support rests on increasingly unstable grounds, with recent additions to the list naming multiple caveats. Sen. John Tester (D-MT), for example, said, "It depends on how it was designed." Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND) said he wouldn't vote for a public option that reimburses doctors at the Medicare rate. Sen. Russ Feingold's office told TPM he'd only support a public option that lowers the deficit by $25 billion.

Despite the lack of a public option, some little-recognized provisions in the Senate bill do actually serve the purpose of offering lower-cost insurance. Policies negotiated by the OPM which cannot be operated or priced for profit is one way to force competition, particularly when it requires companies to spend 95% of the premium paid on actual benefits. I have issues with the state opt-in provisions the Senate attached, but I still expect rates to be lower than ordinary commercial policies in states where they're offered.

If the effort put into the public option was redirected into pushing Congress to remove the opt-in provisions and make the insurance exchange national as part of future legislation it would be a better use of energy. Or alternatively, push toward Grayson's solution of offering at-cost buy-in option to Medicare to everyone. Either idea has a better chance than beating a horse that's died, been laid to rest and had the coffin nailed shut by none other than Speaker Pelosi.

Alan Grayson came to the House Floor today to introduce the Public Option Act, which would allow all Americans to buy into Medicare at cost. The bill is 4 pages long, and calls for an unsubsidized option for any American to choose Medicare over private insurers.

The bill would require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to establish enrollment periods, coverage guidelines, and premiums for the program. Because premiums would be equal to cost, the program would pay for itself.

“The government spent billions of dollars creating a Medicare network of providers that is only open to one-eighth of the population. That’s like saying, ‘Only people 65 and over can use federal highways.’ It is a waste of a very valuable resource and it is not fair. This idea is simple, it makes sense, and it deserves an up-or-down vote,” Congressman Grayson said.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (1576)

PLAYS: (1162)

Embed

(h/t Heather)

I can see that Ben Nelson and the Conservadems/Baucus Dogs have a plan. They bitch and moan about the effect a public option would have on the poor, poor health-insurance industry, so if they do have to vote for a public option in the Senate that clearly benefits Americans and not his favorite donors, they will only do it under the provision that the states "opt in" rather than "opt out."

His hair has been saying this for a while now.

Nelson's hair doesn't explain why he favors the "opt in" version and Harwood doesn't bother to ask. And he can count on the media to not inform America what the differences are in an opt in or an opt out version of the PO so when we complain about it the Villagers will attack us. He was interviewed by John Hardwood, a Villager of the highest order on MSNBC.

Here's what Ben Nelson's hair said:

Harwood: You'd agree that unless a comprehensive health care bill would pass that it would cripple his presidency.

Nelson's hair: Well, I don't know that we should conclude that some form of health care reform won't pass. I believe that some form of health care will pass.

Harwood: What in your mind are stoppers, things that, knowing this place, things that either because you oppose them or other senators oppose them, simply can 't be in the final product to have it pass?

Nelson's hair: Well, it's very difficult to see how that CLASS Act that was in the HELP committe bill would make it [that's long term care provisions] I think also any kind of public option that would undermine or destabilize the private insurance that 200 million Americans have, I don't see that that would make it. But some version such as an opt-in, for the states with a state option, that could very well be in.

Digby alerted me to this clip and she astutely writes:

But I am still suspicious that there might be a play to make opt-in the reasonable alternative to opt-out. It just keeps cropping up in all kinds of places, often from White House reporters. It's worth keeping an eye on anyway.

Harwood thinks that Nelson will stick with them on cloture and I haven't heard otherwise. (and if Harwood asked him he didn't say, the putz.) But he certainly keeps dangling himself out there as a vote for opt-in, so if this thing really comes down to the wire I could see it happening. Again, I don't think the village media have clue about just how different the two things are. It's just bumper sticker slogans to them.

The Hill reports that Sheldon Whitehouse also trumpeted the same thing.

The Senate health bill is drifting toward ending up with an "opt-in" provision versus an "opt-out," one Democratic senator said Friday.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) predicted that healthcare reform in the upper chamber would shift from its current construction, which allows states to opt out of a public option, to a version that forces states to opt into such a plan.

"I think it's falling into an opt-in, versus opt-out," Whitehouse said during an appearance on MSNBC. "You have a public option, but it's up to a state to take an affirmative act to take advantage of it."

Whitehouse suggested the opt-in as a potential compromise on the public option to win enough Democratic votes in the Senate, where Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) has said he will vote against a bill containing a public option, and several other centrist Democrats have been reluctant to support the current proposal.

I'm doing some digging around to see what's really happening and I'll have news soon. Reid is already having the "opt out" scored by the CBO, but my sources indicated that the Senate has not sent out the "opt in" to be scored. From what I'm hearing. The "opt in" would not pass the House conference.

Back in September, a study by Harvard Medical School found that over 44,000 Americans die each year due to lack of health insurance. Now, in a complete reversal of both logic and the truth, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) announced that it is the availability of a public insurance option which could prove fatal. Of course, McConnell's announcement that the public option "may cost you your life" should come as no surprise. After all, in July he echoed George W. Bush and Tom Delay in declaring that thanks to the emergency room, Americans "don't go without health care."

Mitch McConnell's latest fear-mongering came during an appearance on Dennis Miller's radio show. Blasting the "opt-out" version of the public option in the Senate bill, the Senator from the state ranked 45th in health care performance insisted access to coverage could be deadly:

MCCONNELL: Well, it doesn't make any difference frankly whether you opt-in or you opt-out, it's still a government plan. You know, Medicaid, the program for the poor now, states can opt-out of that, but none of them have. I think if you have any kind of government insurance program, you're going to be stuck with it and it will lead us in the direction of the European style, you know, sort of British-style, single payer, government run system. And those systems are known for delays, denial of care and, you know, if your particular malady doesn't fit the government regulation, you don't get the medication.

MILLER: Right.

MCCONNELL: And it may cost you your life. I mean, we don't want to go down that path.

While he has generally left the myth-making about "death panels" and "pulling the plug on grandma" to Sarah Palin, Chuck Grassley and other tall tale tellers in the GOP, Senator McConnell has otherwise been fabricator-in-chief when it comes to Republican talking points on health care.

Continue reading »

d r i f t g l a s s: Nobody left but the crazies (h/t Frank Chow)

Burnt Orange Report: Lawyers speaking out in response to Todd Willingham's "utterly disgraceful" trial attorney

Abu Maqawama: The most important article on Afghanistan you'll read this week

Open Left: A second fire has started on the public option fight, this time in the House.

TPMMuckraker: Pelosi's claim that the CIA misled her is validated by the House Intel Committee

The Satirical Political Report: Bush breaks the mold as a motivational speaker

Looks like we're going to see a push to open the public option. Get on the phones and let your congress creatures know you're behind it:

Sen. Ron Wyden has doubts about the scope of the public option plan announced Monday.

"I agree with Senator Reid that health reform should give Americans more options. Now, I want to work with him to ensure that all Americans can choose those options," Wyden said. "The bottom line is that the public option can’t really hold private insurers accountable if it is only competing for 10 percent of the insurance market, because private insurance companies aren’t going to change their business practices if 90 percent of their customers can’t take their business elsewhere.

"Real reform means empowering Americans to choose insurance that works well for them and their family, while rejecting plans that don’t. Including a public option is a step in the right direction, now let’s remove the firewalls in this bill that prevent Americans from choosing it," Wyden said in a statement.

[...][Jeff] Merkley, for example, said he would be unhappy if more Americans weren't able to select the so-called public option. As a member of one of the committees that wrote a health care bill, Merkley actively supported a government-option as the best way to maintain costs and provide greater choice. Merkley said in an interview Monday that he would press for any public option to be broadly available along the lines of an amendment he successfully offered in July when the bill was in committee.

Merkley's amendment is designed to give small businesses access to newly created health insurance exchanges that, in theory, breed competition by pooling the number of customers in a specific region. Merkley estimated that his amendment would allow nearly 25,000 more businesses – employing 485,000 workers – to enter the exchanges and 32 million people nationwide.

...

That amendment would increase the size of small businesses eligible for enter the national exchange that includes a public options. He also supports giving states the right expand the size of eligible businesses even more.

"What sense does it make to keep companies from going into the exchange?" he said.

So the pressure we brought to bear on Harry Reid's office over the weekend did have some effect. The bill does have a public option, despite mutterings from unnamed sources that the mythic and coveted 60 votes would be a whole lot easier without the public option. But we're not out of the woods yet, not by a long shot.

Now we get to see the Republicans really ramp up the scare tactics--telling the gullible and easily frightened that this is just one step behind the evil Soviet Empire that St. Ronnie slayed, with its government-run health care, all evidence to the contrary. Up until this point, Obama has kept the Senate dealings at arm's length, a political calculus that made some sense, looking at what happened to Clinton's attempt to get health care passed. But it's going to take some seriously strong political leadership now to make it untenable for any member of the Senate to vote against health care reform. As Mike Lux says, "Game On":

We don't yet know whether we will get the best version of the public option in the House bill, and the Senate version is not as strong as progressives have been pushing for. But strengthening the form of the public option can be negotiated over in conference committee, once we get there.

For now, we can thank Harry Reid (HCAN has a page here) and Nancy Pelosi for their gutsy leadership, and fight like hungry dogs to win the floor fight and deliver on this hope. In the coming weeks we will have an all-hands-on-deck, all out public war with the insurance industry over whether we finally pass comprehensive health care reform or once again fall short at the bitter end after coming so far.

Here's where things are as we head into the floor fight:

1. White House staffers confirmed for me this afternoon that they are backing Harry Reid's decision "100 percent." Now that's not to say they aren't a little nervous about it. I suspect that there are still some feelings by some people working in that building that progressives should have given up and rolled over, and let them cut a deal with Olympia Snowe on her trigger-written-never-to-trigger. That would have been easier than sweating what will undoubtedly be a very tough battle to get all 60 Democrats to go along with the rest of the party. But us irritating progressive folk got in the way of doing that, and now Obama knows it's time to stand and deliver. I believe my friends at the White House when they say they will do an all-out fight for this bill. They know that starting down this path, and not being able to pull it off, would be a huge embarrassment and destroy all the momentum we've built by making it this far. They are all-in, and know how much is at stake. Rahm Emanuel and Jim Messina are famous for twisting arms and doing everything in their power to get the votes that are needed, and now is their time to deliver.

That's where you come in. Progressive Change has a petition for you to sign to ask President Obama to stand firm and fight:

"Every day, insurance companies deny care and let people die. Getting one Republican senator's vote is not worth delaying reform -- too many real lives are at stake. We need you to fight and state clearly that anything less than a strong public option is not change we can believe in."

Go. Sign. Make phone calls. Let your voice be heard.