Progressive Breakfast: House Health Care Bill Demolishes Right-Wing Lies

Cost-Saving Public Plan In House Bill

The Hill on timing for legislation: [1] "Three House committees will begin marking up their legislation before the end of the week, setting up what would be a historic vote on President Obama’s signature domestic issue in just over two weeks. In the Senate, the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee was poised to complete its four-week-long markup of its portion of the upper chamber’s bill Tuesday evening. Meanwhile, the Finance Committee would begin its markup as soon as next week."

Change.org's Tim Foley assesses the House health care bill: [2] "What’s striking is that the major controversial pieces in the bill haven’t been watered down in the face of opposition. They didn’t need to be. It still has a public health insurance option that’s more robust than the version in the Senate HELP committee, in that it would start off with Medicare rates for doctors and hospitals (although it would modify those rates upwards if the doctor took both Medicare and the public plan) before shifting over time to negotiating with providers like any health insurance plan. Far from adding to the cost of health care reform, that more robust public plan is a cost-saver, generating a surplus of $150 billion over ten years. Those who complain that the public plan will 'crowd out' private insurance no longer have the numbers to back it up – the CBO projects even this robust public plan will only enroll 11 to 12 million people. That’s a frustrating low number for those of us who think the public plan will truly be a better deal. But if it helps diffuse the 'fast march to socialism' meme, I’m all for it.

Wonk Room's Igor Volsky notes public plan found not to decimate private insurance: [3] "the CBO coverage tables undermine the conservative claim that a public option would eliminate private insurance and erode employer-sponsored coverage. The House bill actually increases the number of people who receive coverage through their employer by 2 million (in 2019) and shifts most of the uninsured into private coverage. By 2019, 30 million individuals would also purchase coverage from the Exchange, but only 9-10 million Americans (or approximately 1/3) would enroll in the public option, the rest would enroll in private coverage."

Jonathan Cohn praises, but cautions about timeframe: [4] 'It will be a while before people see the best stuff. Most of the major elements--the insurance exchange, the subsidies, the insurance regulations, the public plan--won't come online until 2013 or later. This is, I believe, also true of counterpart bills in the Senate. There's a sound policy rationale for going slow; it takes a lot of work to set up exchanges, regulations, and the like. But four years is a long time. And I suspect money has a lot to do with the pace. Slower implementation makes it possible to keep the price tag to around $1 trillion. On the bright side, some provisions--filling in the Medicare drug donut hole, bolsteirng the primary care workforce, among others--would start in the next two years. And at least one key insurer regulation would kick in right away: Come 2010, insurers could no longer yank coverage from people retroactively because they've uncovered new evidence of pre-existing conditions. This practice, known as "rescission," is among the most patently unjust features of our health care system."

Bloomberg explains the surtax on the wealthiest: [5] "[It] would be imposed based on adjusted gross income, meaning it would also apply to capital gains and dividends, which are currently taxed at a 15 percent rate."

Senators still protecting millionaires from higher taxes. W. Post: [6] "'Tax is a four-letter word' with voters, said Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.). Even families not ranking in the top 1 percent of earners 'hope they're going to be there someday,' he said. 'So they don't necessarily think it's fair.' Senate negotiators have all but abandoned plans to directly tax the wealthy and are focusing instead on an array of smaller, more narrowly targeted revenue measures that would raise money from drug and insurance companies, as well as individuals and corporations. A tax on employer-provided health benefits remains part of that discussion, but Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), who is promoting a tax on the most generous 1 percent of private plans, conceded yesterday that such a proposal is 'a very tough sell.'"

USA Today reminds some of the "cost" is to help small biz [7] "buy coverage for their workers."

Politico on Big Pharma fight: [8] "[Waxman] refused to strip a provision that reinstates price controls on drugs purchased by seniors who qualify for both Medicare and Medicaid, despite the pleas of more than 60 fellow Democrats. Those rebates will cost drug companies more than $50 billion, and they’ll lobby fiercely against them."

Blue Dogs may be assuaged with PAYGO. CQ: [9] "Members of the House Blue Dog Coalition may have some concerns with the health care overhaul bill unveiled Tuesday, but when it comes to the floor, the legislation could contain one of their top priorities: language putting the pay-as-you-go rule into law. No decision has been made on whether to combine the two issues, but House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer, D-Md., said it is an option being discussed."

The Walker Report: "Overall, I'm fairly happy with the structure of the public option but unhappy with the restrictions on who can sign up for it. [10] Expanding access to the pubic option should be an easier political fight than changing its structure. If I had to choose, I would select a well structured public plan restricted to a few, over a poorly designed public option open to all."

GoozNews laments weak funding for comparative effectiveness: [11] "...significantly less than the $1.1 billion in the stimulus act (that's over 18 months) and less than the $4-5 billion-per-year program some analysts were hoping for."

Joe Paduda predicts: [12] "the horse trading is about to ramp up to fever pitch; if stakeholders start believing reform may actually pass, they are going to renew their efforts to be 'part of the solution', also known as 'do it to yourself before Congress does it to you'."

Bloomberg: "President Barack Obama may rely only on Democrats [13] to push health-care legislation through the U.S. Congress if Republican resistance doesn’t eventually give way, two of the president’s top advisers said."

DNC running ads to pressure wavering Dems. CNN: [14] "President Obama’s political operation will begin running television ads Wednesday targeting fellow Democrats and centrist Republicans urging them to support the president’s call for health care reform this year. The 30-second TV commercial will run in eight states: Arkansas, Indiana, Florida, Louisiana, Maine, North Dakota, Nebraska, and Ohio for two weeks, according to a preview of the ad provided to CNN by Obama’s Organizing for America (OFA)."

Senate Climate Hearings Continue. Sarah Palin Is Sad.

Boxer looks to replicate House coalition. ClimateWire: [15] "Senate Environment and Public Works Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) vowed yesterday to include a major role for agriculture in her climate bill despite mounting criticism from some farm groups and Republicans."

Grist's Kate Sheppard finds Lamar! as incoherent as ever: [16] "[During the Senate hearing,] Alexander’s rants against the cap-and-trade plan favored by most Democrats conflicted with some of the arguments he’s using for his plan. For example, he insisted that cap-and-trade would raise energy costs, but that a low-carbon fuel standard would somehow come free of additional costs, which is simply not the case. Also important is that low-carbon fuel standards are designed to serve as a complementary policy to other emissions-reductions plans, not as a single solution. But throughout the day’s two hearings, Alexander remained singularly focused on the ideas he put forward in his own plan, a proposal that has yet to receive a stamp of approval from the full Senate GOP caucus ... Tuesday’s hearings made it quite clear that Democrats shouldn’t hope for Alexander’s cooperation on drafting a climate bill."

Boxer also explains to Alexander the House bill would help his pet project of nuclear power. CQ: [17] "Sen. Lamar Alexander opposes climate change legislation and wants to energize the nuclear power industry instead ... He believes building 100 new nuclear plants over the next decade is a better alternative than taking up the energy bill (HR 2454) that recently passed the House. But Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., said the nuclear industry would thrive if the bill becomes law. At a hearing today, she said an EPA analyst told her the bill would create 261 nuclear power plants by 2050."

Sen. Kerry takes on Palin at HuffPost: [18] " her promise to roll up her sleeves and tackle serious issues is followed by a column that focuses on everything but the single grave challenge that forms the basis of all of our actions: the crisis of global climate change. Yes, she manages to write about the climate change action in Congress without ever mentioning the reason we are doing this in the first place. It's like complaining about the cost of repairing a roof without factoring in the leaks destroying your home."

Change.org's Emily Gertz questions Palin's motives: [19] "Charitably, she's displaying her storied grasp of factual information and public policy details. But it's equally likely that Palin's embracing the 'cap and tax' crowd for the cynical purpose of walking an easy path to political fame and personal fortune."

Possible US-China climate deal? LA Times: [20] "U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu and Commerce Secretary Gary Locke are in Beijing this week to talk about climate change with Chinese leaders. The hope is to open the nation's market to American clean technology products while nudging China toward committing to hard targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. They have their work cut out for them."

Blaring Need For More Stim

NYT's Leonhardt magnifies the problem of the underemployed: [21] "Congress and the White House are not likely to pursue another stimulus bill until September. By then, more of the money from the last stimulus will have been spent, and the economy’s condition will be clearer. If lawmakers do decide more is needed, they would do well to remember that this is not an equal opportunity recession. By September, one out of every four Californians — and Oregonians and South Carolinians and Michiganders — who would like to have a full-time job might not have one."

Empowering Fed meets more resistance. Bloomberg: [22] "Investors led by two former U.S. securities regulators are urging that an independent board monitor firms that pose a risk to markets, breaking with the administration’s plan to give the job to the Federal Reserve. A committee led by former Securities and Exchange Commission Chairmen William Donaldson and Arthur Levitt also said the U.S. should consider limiting banks’ proprietary trading, merge some agencies and bring insurance companies under federal supervision. The group, in a report to be released today, says it’s offering a 'bolder' overhaul of market rules than proposed by the Treasury Department last month."

While Fed pushes tougher rules on big banks. Bloomberg: [23] "Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Chairman Sheila Bair, with support from Federal Reserve officials, is pushing for tougher measures to curb the size and risk-taking of the nation’s largest financial firms. The FDIC will propose slapping fees on the biggest bank holding companies to the extent that they carry on activities, such as proprietary trading, outside of traditional lending. The idea goes beyond the Obama administration’s regulation-overhaul plan, which would have the Fed adjust capital and liquidity standards for the biggest firms, without any pre-set fees."

Bloomberg on mixed reaction from Goldman Sachs boom: [24] "Goldman Sachs Group Inc.’s move to increase compensation and benefits by 33 percent after record earnings raised concern among some lawmakers in Washington over excessive pay, even after the firm repaid rescue funds from U.S. taxpayers. Others expressed relief the bank was profitable. "

Affordable Education Back on Table

Private student lenders to lose wasteful subsidies in House plan. Bloomberg: [25] "House Education Committee Chairman George Miller will introduce legislation today that would end federal subsidies for student-loan providers, backing President Barack Obama’s plan. " CQ adds: [26] "that may be particularly difficult in the Senate, although reconciliation — which would allow the Senate to pass a student loan bill by a simple majority instead of the usual 60-vote threshold — is an option."

F-22 FIght Churns

The Hill on Dem split in F-22 fight: [27] "Democratic leaders support an amendment that would strip the $1.75 billion for seven additional jets from the 2010 defense authorization bill, which is being debated on the Senate floor this week. But several senior Democrats are from states that will see gains from building more F-22s. Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), who represents the state where Pratt & Whitney builds the F-22 engine, told The Hill he was working with his Democratic colleagues to convince them to support the purchase of more jets despite the president’s opposition. Dodd also faces a tough reelection campaign next year. Sen. Charles Schumer (N.Y.), the vice chairman of the Senate Democratic Conference, will be a key vote to watch. The watchdog group Project on Government Oversight, which supports removing the F-22 funds, lists Schumer as poised to vote against stripping the money."

Wonk Room's Matt Duss on "What The F-22 Debate Is Really About": [28] "...this argument over the F-22, at least as it’s occurring in Congress, not really a debate over defending the country — it’s a test of whether the requirements of electoral politics can outweigh the requirements of American national security as defined by the Department of Defense. This isn’t to suggest that Congress has no role in determining American defense requirements — of course it does, but let’s not pretend that seven extra planes is the difference between air dominance and ceding the skies."

Terrance contributed to the making of this Breakfast