Take that Deal

As difficult as it’s been to stomach the compromising and Liebercrat wankery, I simply can’t disagree with this:

To put this a bit more sharply, if I could construct a system in which insurers spent 90 percent of every premium dollar on medical care, never discriminated against another sick applicant, began exerting real pressure for providers to bring down costs, vastly simplified their billing systems, made it easier to compare plans and access consumer ratings, and generally worked more like companies in a competitive market rather than companies in a non-functional market, I would take that deal. And if you told me that the price of that deal was that insurers would move from being the 86th most profitable industry to being the 53rd most profitable industry, I would still take that deal.

And then we endeavor to augment the deal with amendments and smaller bits of legislation as we go.

One note about Ezra’s mention of the 90 percent requirement — the Franken amendment. This is a significant piece of the Senate bill that progressives should be embracing. In fact, I was a little surprised last night watching Howard Dean on Countdown — he said something about how the bill would allow insurers to continue to take, on average, 27 percent of every dollar for profit, CEO bonuses, etc.

This simply isn’t true in the Senate bill. Actually, the Senate bill is more progressive than the House bill on this front — the House bill forces 85 percent of premiums to be spent on benefits, while the Senate bill goes to 90.

But SHHH!

This entry was posted in Healthcare and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • Red Pill

    Forgive my ignorance of the particulars of the Senate bill, but could someone tell me the mechanism for the enforcement of the “90 percent requirement?” We occupy a moment in which the number of foxes assigned to guard the chicken coop (read: Timothy Geithner, et al.) continues to grow. Are we to presume that the selfsame officials bought by the industry would then be tasked with enforcement?

  • IntoxiNation

    I hate to burst the bubble, but that 90% requirement is most likely history.http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/12/14/cbo-90-mlr/We are seeing all the provisions to curb costs slowly disappear, then what will there be to stop the ins. cos from jacking up premiums?

  • Stranahan
  • cjo30080

    Whether or not the 90% provision is in there is irrelevant to my support (although it would have a real impact on insurers’ abilities to gouge us).Expansion of Medicaid, subsidies for the poor, and community rating are enough to keep my support. The benefits to the poor and those with pre-existing conditions are real. We should pass this bill, and then unite behind “Medicare for All” the day after it’s signed–no distractions this time.

  • iLLogicaL

    I’m with Red Pill. How would this be reasonably enforced?

  • cjo30080

    To be clear, my “Medicare for All” proposal would not be single payer (although that would be great), since public support wouldn’t be there. However, giving everybody access to Medicare at cost has the support of 63% of the public and could be passed via reconciliation. The 5-year sunset is a political winner for progressives! We could pass this legislation, then seek to get this done BEFORE the next election. If it doesn’t come to a vote, then it’s an issue we can use to get more progressives elected in 2010.GO!

  • eve

    Red Pill asked: Forgive my ignorance of the particulars of the Senate bill, but could someone tell me the mechanism for the enforcement of the “90 percent requirement?”we’ve been doing it for decades for not-for-profit hospitals

  • http://www.bobcesca.com Bob_Cesca

    @Stranahan:It hasn’t been removed from the bill yet. But I’m sure you’ll be back around to wank away with lots of “I told you so!” attention-whore douchery when and if it does.Hey, you know a great way to get rid of it? KILLING THE BILL! FUN! Say, why don’t you call Lieberman’s office and tattle. It’ll help you kill the bill! Exciting! Don’t forget to shit on the subsidies and Medicaid expansion when you do.

  • roxsteady

    SHH! One of the things Dean mentioned was that they could add the Medicare buy in or the public option through reconciliation after they pass this garbage. That’s what I’m hoping for. If they don’t work to improve this bill they are fininshed! Just don’t tell Joe. I’m also hoping that as soon as they pass this junk, they remove Deputy Droop Along from their Caucus and strip his Chairmanship. If they strip him the next day, they can assure themselves that the passage won’t get as much attention as the humiliation of Droopy will get. Let’s see how much Joe will want to speak with the press after that! The press won’t give a damn about the bills passage. They’ll be more interested in hearing what Joe thinks about what just happend to him.

  • Stranahan

    ” never discriminated against another sick applicant”Actually, there’s nothing in the bill that stop insurance companies from delaying, denying or overcharging sick applicants…”began exerting real pressure for providers to bring down costs”Where’s that real pressure? The public option? No. Getting rid of antitrust exemptions? No. Where is it? Oh – he made it up.”vastly simplified their billing systems”That would cut the cost to insurance companies – and so now I’m supposed to believe they would pass on those savings?Bob – why do you uncritically copy and paste everything Ezra says, despite it not being true?

  • IntoxiNation

    @eve – that used to work great but the non-profit hospitals now use “contractors” for a lot of stuff, including lab work, radiology readings, cardiac testing and even patient financial aid. The contractors they use are for-profit so they can charge what they want.I expect if this was pushed through to the insurance companies we can expect to see them follow suit. Farm out things like collections, processing, marketing, etc. Get left with the CEO and a few employees to actually make things run, pay these new contractors the rest and then live off your 90%. Of course at the same time the powers to be at the insurance companies own stock in these new contractors and make extra money that way.This is one of the very common loop holes used.

  • http://www.bobcesca.com Bob_Cesca

    @Stranahan:>>>>>Bob – why do you uncritically copy and paste everything Ezra says, despite it not being true?WHAH? Name one thing I posted that was untrue.I’m sure you’ll reply by posting a bunch of unattributed lines from other writers without using quotation marks or blockquote tags or links.

  • Stranahan

    Bob – we don’t know WHAT’S in the bill yet. The CBO scoring is still out and it’s not likely to be pretty. We have a good idea what’s out, though…If you have a problem with Lieberman, Bob, try writing a critical word or two about the White House – who told Reid to give him what he wants. That’s what you’re supporting, not me. I’m the one opposed to Lieberman and his enablers.

  • roxsteady

    While I understand some of the frustration, after all, I was the one yesterday who was praying for Joe’s death all over the interwebs, I’m still not giving up. Sadly, we’ll all have to wait and see what happens. Remember, it’s more important to get it right than to be the first to pronounce it dead.

  • Stranahan

    Look – you made a big deal of the 90% thing and it’s not in the bill and you didn’t mention all the reporting on the CBO report that indicates why it almost certainly won’t be in the bill.That’s misleading, at best.And I sure will say I told so if I’m right. Part of what pundits should do is stake out positions that they can be held to, especially if they run counter to conventional wisdom.I’ve been right about Obama for month and you’re been wrong about him. We both positions – live with yours.

  • jane

    >>Bob – we don’t know WHAT’S in the bill yet.Posted by: Stranahan [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 16, 2009 2:11 PMPhysician, heal thyself.

  • Lexaburn

    Ahhhahahahahahahahaaaaaaaa!!!

  • roxsteady

    Am I wrong? Does the President write legislation? I thought it was congress? I’m not saying the Presdent couldn’t have been more forceful but, in the end, Congress can go in and strip out whatever they want? Is the President solely responsible for the idiocy that is congress?

  • jane

    >>And I sure will say I told so (sic) if I’m right.Posted by: Stranahan [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 16, 2009 2:15 PMIn other news, the earth is still round, gravity still has pull, and longcat is still looooooooong.

  • Stranahan

    Jane – I’ll clarify.We know there’s no public option or Medicare rollback.We don’t know what other awful compromises are in the bill. The 90% won’t be, it’s safe to say. Two reasons 1) CBO report, 2) it would be bad for the insurance industry so it must die.What should be obvious by now is the trajectory of the bill – everything getting worse and worse. It was obvious to me when the House bill passed the way it did. I told you so.

  • jane

    >>I told you so.Posted by: Stranahan [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 16, 2009 2:20 PMI told you guys the earth was still round.

  • Stranahan

    Rox – did you miss that part where the White House told Reid “Give Lieberman whatever he wants”?Did you miss the PhARMA deal?Did you miss….EVERYTHING for fuck’s sake?

  • roxsteady

    No, I saw it all for fucks sake but, if you’re willing to take your balls and go home that’s on you!

  • jhw22

    I am only reading Bob’s posts for a while and avoiding reading the comments. My BP is up too high for the drama. I didn’t want anyone to think I deserted the blog so thought I would drop a note to say I’m here but not here.Thank you Bob! You and Ezra are my sanctuaries of sanity lately.Jennifer

  • http://www.bobcesca.com Bob_Cesca

    Stranahan:

    Look – you made a big deal of the 90% thing and it’s not in the bill and you didn’t mention all the reporting on the CBO report that indicates why it almost certainly won’t be in the bill.That’s misleading, at best.

    No YOU look. The Franken amendment is in there. Look it up. Say nothing of the fact that an 85 percent provision is absolutely in the House bill — the bill that’s on its way to conference.And the CBO reporting didn’t say anything about “it almost certainly won’t be in the bill.” Third party commentators like Jon Walker and Wonk Room said that. Sort of. So far, it hasn’t been dropped, nor has it really even been mentioned in a negative light since Monday’s CBO item — certainly not by any senators.

  • Stranahan

    The idea that I would apologize or not take credit for being correct is absurd.If Bob had been right about Obama’s support for the Public Option, he’d be crowing about it and I’d admit happily that I was wrong.If Bob has been right that Politico had made up the story about the White House pressure to give into Lieberman, he’s sing it from the rooftops.Bob took I Told You So credit when his piece on GOP flip flops was picked up by the DNC. And rightly so.The difference? You don’t LIKE me. I don’t give a shit – I don’t like you, either, probably. You’re a bunch of pathetic sheep for the most part. But let’s be realistic at least and not have a double standard.

  • Stranahan

    Okay, Bob …I’m saying the 90% won’t be in there.If I’m wrong, I’ll be sure to come back and say I was wrong. Doesn’t change my opinion of the bill much but if it’s in there, I was wrong.If you’re wrong, you’ll admit it too, I assume.Stake a position. That’s the pundit game. You’re staked that the 90% will be in there, right?

  • http://www.bobcesca.com Bob_Cesca

    Stranahan:>>>>I told you so.This bullshit is precisely why I can’t deal with you anymore, Lee. It’s one thing to disagree on substance and rhetoric — but your chronic self-worship without any hint of irony is simply intolerable. It indicates that this more about LOOK AT ME! JUST LOOK! than anything worthy of discussion.

  • Stranahan

    “The president keeps listening to Rahm Emanuel,” said Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.). “No public option, no extending Medicare to 55, no nothing, an excise tax, God!” he exclaimed about the Senate health care bill to Roll Call. “The insurance lobby is taking over.”"The White House has been useless,” Rep. Dave Obey (D-Wis.), the chairman of the powerful Appropriations Committee, told Politico. Referencing Senate delays, he said, “It’s ridiculous, and the Obama administration is sitting on the sidelines. That’s nonsense.”ATTRIBUTION : http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/16/democrats-lash-out-at-oba_n_394424.html

  • Kat

    *checks url*Yup. Still says bobcesca.com.

  • Stranahan

    Wait – on a site called BOBCESCA.com you’re saying I’m saying ‘look at me’?Okay – I was right but don’t listen to me or look at me or whatever.It’s your ego that couldn’t take me doing posts that disagreed with you. And that cancelled the radio show. So here I am in comments. Look at me! Woo hoo!It’s not like I have any kind of public forum beyond this site, right?No, Bob – I’m just doing what I have always done. Giving my honest opinion. And it flips your shit because you weren’t right. For months.

  • Stranahan

    Kat – god, you’re brilliant.

  • roxsteady

    I don’t consider myself a sheep. I’m a strong woman who doens’t quit. That said, I don’t like being called names by someone who would turn tail and run. Way to stand and fight for what you believe in!

  • jane

    >>If Bob had been right about Obama’s support for the Public Option, he’d be crowing about it and I’d admit happily that I was wrong.Posted by: Stranahan [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 16, 2009 2:27 PMAnd the earth would be flat.>>The difference? You don’t LIKE me.Posted by: Stranahan [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 16, 2009 2:27 PMNo, the difference is that you say it in the most unlikeable, douchiest way possible, and claim that people don’t like you because of your “opinions” and courage in “staking a position” (sic). Nothing more; nothing less.

  • jane

    >>Wait – on a site called BOBCESCA.com you’re saying I’m saying ‘look at me’?Posted by: Stranahan [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 16, 2009 2:35 PMYEAH, Bob. How vain of you not to have named your blog leestranahan.com!

  • roxsteady

    Perhaps Lee should be more concerned that his absence wasn’t noticed. At least I hadn’t noticed.

  • roxsteady

    Pesonally, I’m hoping Bob is right because if he’s wrong we’re all screwed. That would also include Lee!

  • J M Ashby

    Lee do you realize you are nothing more than a troll at this point?Its pretty clear that your mind is made up no matter what is said or done. So why bother? Give it a rest. If you don’t, you’re just trolling. An armchair toughguy looking to score some online creed.Meanwhile back in the real world, the rest of us will continue to support REAL progress, not just ideological progress. REAL progress is what you can pass and put into law. Ideaological grandstanding and spitefullness will accomplish nothing. If you think it will, then I direct you to the teabagger camp.Go ahead and call me and everyone else here who has any sense at all a band of blind sheep Obama supporters or whatever else you can conjure up. I really dont give a fuck.

  • http://www.bobcesca.com Bob_Cesca

    Stranahan:>>>>Wait – on a site called BOBCESCA.com you’re saying I’m saying ‘look at me’?Yes I am. Don’t act dumb. There’s a difference between “I’VE ALWAYS BEEN RIGHT!” and naming a blog. But maybe I should add a 700×700 Photoshop of my face to the upper left corner, this way people will literally HAVE TO look at me.What you fail to understand is that this isn’t strictly about who’s right and who’s wrong in a debate. It’s about the issues. The fact that you’re looking at it in these narrow terms underscores your lack of insight into the American political system. Incrementalism and shades of gray are the centerpieces of the American system.>>>It’s your ego that couldn’t take me doing posts that disagreed with you. And that cancelled the radio show.What canceled the radio show is the fact that, as of August, debating you was not unlike debating a teabagger. I frankly decided to bail when you repeatedly ignored the FACT about Finance Committee jurisdiction. I must’ve repeated that a hundred times and you refused to even acknowledge it as a matter of textbook fact. That’s when you ceased to be reasonable. Regardless of any other difference of opinion, you simply wouldn’t accept that this FACT ran contrary what you were saying about Obama/Baucus — it ran contrary to your calculated decision to go PUMA. That’s why I decided to quit the show.Lee, I might shift my opinion — and I reserve the right to change my mind based on how I observe the world. I will NOT apologize for that. But what I take pride in is my ability to correct myself if I make a mistake. I have yet to see you do that — EVER. Instead, you come here and troll for reaction with dickish remarks like “I told you so.” You gloat and preen and stonewall and make these ridiculous attempts to skew the conversation until the subject is so lost it’s not even worth debating.And yet you wonder why-oh-why people yell at you?

  • roxsteady

    Ouch!Kick ass Ashby!

  • roxsteady

    Bob may be onto something. I notied that instead of answering my question about who writes legislation, Lee simply pivots like the teabaggers and goes off on this rant:Rox – did you miss that part where the White House told Reid “Give Lieberman whatever he wants”?Did you miss the PhARMA deal?Did you miss….EVERYTHING for fuck’s sake?But, my question was ignored entirely. Uh Huh!

  • Stranahan

    Bob – I’m not sure what mistake you think I’ve made I’m supposed to correct myself on.Your point about Senate rules was correct but totally irrelevant to the point. I’m not sure what I was supposed to say.But I guess you don’t see the irony that you’re saying 1) somehow I’m the one with the ego and 2) I wasn’t deferential enough to you so you bailed on the radio show.I think it’s fine the site is BobCesca.com. I have my own site. But you’re special pleading is bullshit – you know that Obama had been proven to be fighting for PO, you’d have mentioned that all my chicken little whining was wrong pretty endlessly.This is YOUR site. People are here because they like you. So of course when you’re challenged here, it’s natural your fans would defend you and not the person pointing out that you’re wrong.But you’re leading people astray. You claim that you admit you’re wrong – but you sure haven’t admitted it about whether Obama was really defending the PO or about that Politico story or a zillion other things. If you’re contrite, I’ve missed it.

  • Stranahan

    Rox – I answered your question. The White House has clearly been directly involved.

  • http://www.bobcesca.com Bob_Cesca

    Stranahan:>>>>Bob – I’m not sure what mistake you think I’ve made I’m supposed to correct myself on.And there you go.>>>>Your point about Senate rules was correct but totally irrelevant to the point. I’m not sure what I was supposed to say.YOU: Obama is allowing the Finance Committee to water down reform.ME: Obama has no choice but to let the Finance Committee do its thing because the Finance Committee has jurisdiction in this area, and they have the power to spike the whole thing.YOU: Um. Obama is allowing the Finance Committee to water down reform!

  • Stranahan

    What I was saying that Obama is allowing the finance committee to water down reform BECAUSE Obama wasn’t in favor of actual reform, just passing a bill.You said – no; he wants the public option; he said it! But his hands are tied – he has no choice but to let the Finance Committee do its thing because the Finance Committee has jurisdiction in this area, and they have the power to spike the whole thing.And I was right – he didn’t support real reform. Your explanation wasn’t correct.I bet you still don’t see that.

  • Irish Girl

    @Lee, your logic is messed up. According to the radio exchange you’re basically arguing because Pres. Obama respected the Separation of Powers and the judrisdiction of the Finance Committee he was revealing a lack of support for the PO.

    Bob is trying to get you to understand that regardless of whether anyone believes that Obama supported the PO or not, there was nothing Obama could realistically do BEYOND what he had already done (there is a list of things, factual things verified by 3rd party sources, what he has done).

    Basically it comes down to, “Do you believe the Pres. really truly in his heart of hearts support the PO?” Lee says ‘no, he doesn’t’ but Lee’s position isn’t based on facts (don’t cite the Rahm meeting with Reid–evidence suggests that wasn’t ‘we don’t want the PO so make the deal with Lieberman’…that it was, ‘we wanted the PO but we can’t get it so make a deal for whatever we can get’).

    It’s assbackwards logic. Lee says since the end is not what he wanted, a PO, then someone in the process PURPOSELY, read maliciously, messed it up and that person must be Obama. So next he looks at the process and tries to find evidence of how Obama didn’t support the PO. So he finds one or two items that MIGHT be interpreted as Obama not being supportive and Lee says, ‘See! I was right!’ Lee is saying Look at the end and it will tell you all you need to know about the means! That’s like a cop deciding who the murderer is and focusing on a particular perp BEFORE they even have the coroner’s report!

    Bob is saying, he believes that Obama does truly support the PO (again the weight of evidence supports this). Bob acknowledges that sometimes you can do everything right and the end result can still be imperfect, particularly in sausage making. Or sometimes you can have the best intention in the world and still not have the best outcome. And Yes, Lee the road to hell is paved with good intentions. But it’s a start and a hell of a lot better a start than bad intentions or no intentions at all.

    Bob is saying, let’s look at the process, and as I go along I will make up my mind. This is obviously a more realistic and logical viewpoint.

    Truth is, in spite of what either one of you say or believe, you don’t know whether Obama does or does not REALLY support the PO. You’ll never be inside his head and will never know his true intentions. And you’ll never really know the full truth about whether he did give it his full effort. All we can go by are his actions that are on public record and the information given to us by participating insiders. That being the case, the preponderance of the evidence, so far, points to the fact that Pres Obama was supportive of HCR by his words, his deeds and the words of others.

    I don’t presume to know his intentions, I hope and “believe” that they were good AND he’s done the best he could given the circumstances.

    So Lee you’re welcome to your “belief” but you’ve lost the logical argument. Let it go…..

  • eljefejeff

    I remember listening to that exact exchange. It was really frustrating to listen to. Half the time was spent arguing about Senate rules which clearly Bob was more familiar with than Lee. That’s what’s been frustrating about this whole debate. You got people like Lee who say “why don’t they just get this done” and people like Bob who realize it’s easier said than done. I thought Obama would be able to influence them but I guess they’re more influenced by ego and greed. Does that make me wrong? Who cares?See Lee, this is your problem. You’re keeping score. Who cares who was right and who was wrong? Why does anyone have to say they were wrong? None of us expect that from you or Bob. Just assess the current situation and move forward.Likewise, you’re focused on who profits from this. Well the American people won’t be more screwed as a result. This bill SHOULD reign in spending and cover people who weren’t able to get coverage before. It’s less than ideal and maybe only a minor improvement, but it doesn’t hurt. And we can build on it for the future. Yes the rich will get richer. Welcome to the USA.

  • JackDanieL

    IrishGirl wins 1-0sorry jefe, just wanted one more tally! ;)

  • Stranahan

    Actually, my argument was that Barack Obama’s intentions were made clear by the secret PhARMA deal – the one that Bob denied existed for a while.And time has certainly proven that correct.And as for keeping score, the problem (here at this site) is that Bob has been so wrong for so long…and keeps being wrong…that the scorekeeping doesn’t favor him. Whatever.Remember to see what happens with that 90% thing he was talking about….

  • ceu

    The idea that I would apologize or not take credit for being correct is absurd.Posted by: Stranahan at December 16, 2009 2:27 PMwell, I, for one, have to admit that you’re right about that.

  • Mather Z

    Holy hell.”But I guess you don’t see the irony that you’re saying 1) somehow I’m the one with the ego and 2) I wasn’t deferential enough to you so you bailed on the radio show.”He didn’t say that at all. Friggin’ learn to read, and/or to remember things that actually happened to, well, you. Bob explained 1) pretty well: he doesn’t repeat “I told you so” again and again just to get attention – to say that he named the blog of HIS thoughts with HIS name out of pure egotism is dumb. 2) is really dumb: Bob explained that too (without rebuttal) by pointing out that your willful ignorance of the facts is why he quit – nothing to do with deference.Also: “What I was saying that Obama is allowing the finance committee to water down reform BECAUSE Obama wasn’t in favor of actual reform, just passing a bill”Super holy hell! IT DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY. Get it? He didn’t ALLOW the finance committee to do ANYTHING. He can’t, that is a power that he does not have. So to reply to that FACT by saying that he somehow CHOSE not to have that power because he didn’t want reform is really, really, really, really dumb. It really is.This one is just funny: “And as for keeping score, the problem (here at this site) is that Bob has been so wrong for so long…and keeps being wrong…that the scorekeeping doesn’t favor him. Whatever.”Uh, yeah. Scorekeeping is stupid. Whatever, I don’t care. But BOB IS WAY BEHIND ON THE SCOREBOARD THAT ONLY I CARE ABOUT even though it’s not important.Lee, I don’t care about keeping score either, but that’s a big fat 0-for-3.