Progressive Breakfast: House Deal on Cutting Health Costs

The daily Progressive Breakfast serves up what progressive movement members need to know to start the day.

Cost-Cutting Health Commission Wins Support

Blue Dogs give list of demands to WH. CQ Politics: [1] "On Tuesday, members of the fiscally conservative Blue Dog Coalition sent the committee’s chairman, Henry A. Waxman , D-Calif., a list of 10 changes they want to the bill. Mike Ross , D-Ark., who chairs the coalition’s health care task force, said top issues include greater cost containment, a more generous exemption for small businesses from requirements that they provide insurance, and changes to the government-run plan that Democrats want to create to compete with private insurers."

Obama, Blue Dogs, Waxman agree on independent commission to cut costs. Politico: [2] "Moderate House Democrats and a key committee chairman emerged from a three-hour meeting at the White House on Tuesday with a tentative agreement to give an outside panel — rather than Congress — the power to make cuts to government-financed health care programs. OMB Director Peter Orszag called it 'probably the most important piece that can be added' to the health care bill in the House..."

Swampland's Karen Tumulty reports more deep presidential involvement to come: [3] "One close Obama ally predicted to me: 'He's going to become increasingly specific--and increasingly persistent--about the things he does and doesn't want' in the health care bill. This afternoon found the President knee-deep in negotations with the conservative Democrats known as 'Blue Dogs,' ... as a result, the President and the conservative Democrats are making common cause on one cost-containment measure that both would like to see added to the House bill ... The [commission] idea has also won words of praise from the Mayo Clinic on the very blog where it criticized the House bill yesterday [4]. And Obama's engagement may be bringing the Blue Dogs aboard."

Salon.com's Mike Madden also reviews the strategy to hold the Blue Dogs: [5] "...Democrats think they can turn the debate into Obama vs. the GOP, and wind up shocking Blue Dog-types into action. 'You don't want to get lumped in with Jim DeMint on this if you're a moderate Democrat,' one Democratic strategist said. Another benefit some Democrats see: The aggressive White House counterattack shows Obama is in the game, reassuring wavering allies who are afraid of taking lumps from the GOP. 'People are like, "Is [reform] dead?"' the strategist said. 'Fighting back on this gives us momentum points,' which might help change the cable news narrative that healthcare is in need of, well, emergency medical attention."

W. Post's Harold Meyerson lambastes [6] "The Can't-Do Blue Dogs"

The Hill keeps tabs on the schedule: [7] "The House Energy and Commerce Committee canceled a markup session Tuesday so that Obama could lobby seven centrist Democrats who are threatening to block the bill. Lawmakers said the markup will not resume on Wednesday."

Tax on insurance companies when offering big benefits gaining traction. W. Post: [8]

Orszag also said the White House is open to a proposal by Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), a Finance Committee member, to tax insurers for very generous health policies. The idea is a variation on a provision that Baucus, Grassley and others on the committee had pushed: to tax beneficiaries who receive generous policies through their employers.

Obama staunchly opposed taxing beneficiaries as a candidate, and on Monday he threatened to veto a bill that targets individuals. But Orszag said that the White House is open to the Kerry alternative, noting that a fee on high-value policies would "create an incentive for companies to create more efficient plans."

A senior House leadership aide said Democratic lawmakers there are keenly interested in the Kerry provision, along with other revenue measures with consensus support in the Finance Committee, to replace the wealth surtax that Baucus and others have already declared dead on arrival. "Our guys want to see some movement there," the aide said. "They're loath to vote on a tax increase if it is not going anywhere in the Senate."

The Sentinel Effect's RJ Eskow rebuts proponents of taxing benefits: [9] "Their reasoning went something like this: Americans spend too much money on healthcare, but they’re insulated from the consequences of that expenditures by insurance. We’ll remove some of that insulation by taxing health benefits ... [But t]ypical wage earners have little influence over their health care costs. Doctors make recommendations about care that patients are loathe to reject ... Doctors, not patients, control health demand."

W. Post notes an individual mandate is "one of the few common threads [10] running through all three bills being considered in Congress, greatly increasing the likelihood it will survive the legislative process."

Conservative Sen. Jim DeMint leads the obstructionists. Bloomberg: [11] "DeMint defended his remark [about wanted to 'break' Obama] on Fox News, saying 'the whole purpose of the Senate is to slow things down and debate them.' Obama 'wants to take over health care just as he’s taken over General Motors and Chrysler and our banking industry.'"

Corporate lobby backing obstruction efforts. The Hill: [12] "The U.S. Chamber of Commerce will launch a $2 million ad campaign this week meant to build opposition to a public insurance option in healthcare reform legislation."

W. Post slaps insurance lobbyist [13] for distorting poll data (How ironic! [14]): "The poll [Karen] Ignagni was citing actually undercuts her position: By 72 to 20 percent, Americans favor the creation of a public plan, the June survey by the New York Times and CBS News found. People also said that they thought government would do a better job than private insurers of holding down health-care costs and providing coverage. In addition, data from a Kaiser Family Foundation poll last year, compiled at the request of The Washington Post, suggest that the people who like their health plans the most are the people who use them the least ... The level of satisfaction expressed with private insurance was essentially the same as that with Medicare, the government program for the elderly and disabled."

The Walker Report slaps W. Post for distorting Medicare's impact on cost: [15] "Medicare has done a much better job controlling cost than private insurance. The Congressional Budget Office determined that Medicare Advantage, which is insurance for the elderly run by private insurance companies, almost always cost the government more than traditional Medicare. The cost of Medicare has increased at a much slower rate than the private market."

Change.org's Tim Foley debunks the latest health care conspiracy theory: [16] "Did you hear about how ... President Obama, or the House Democrats, or the Romulans somehow snuck a clause onto page 16 of HR 3200 (America's Affordable Health Choices Act) which would effectively outlaw private insurance? ... It's insidious - how did they think we wouldn't notice? Well, for starters, because it ain't there ... Not only is private insurance not being outlawed, it's receiving subsidies from the federal government."

Senate Scraps F-22

W. Post on the landmark bipartisan vote: [17] "The Senate voted Tuesday to kill the nation's premier fighter-jet program, embracing by a 58 to 40 margin the argument of President Obama and his top military advisers that more F-22s are not needed for the nation's defense and would be a costly drag on the Pentagon's budget in an era of small wars and counterinsurgency efforts ... In all, 14 members of the president's party voted to keep the F-22 production line going, while 14 Republicans joined McCain in voting to shut it down."

HuffPost's Max Bergmann celebrates: [18] "...this fight was more than just about the F-22. It was also about whether the Pentagon would be able to institutionalize the lessons from Iraq and Afghanistan and finally move out of the Cold War strategic mindset that still dominates. Gates has sought to institute a strategic shift within the Pentagon, focusing on developing a more balanced force that is not only capable of fighting conventional wars, but is capable of doing the full spectrum of operations. The military has begun to transition toward this new outlook -- moving out of the mindset that labeled stability operations as 'operations other than war' and that has focused on big ticket conventional items.

OurFuture.org's Armand Biroonak calls for more: [19] "...progressives should build on this momentum and continue calling for future cuts to wasteful defense programs– that certainly are abundant. Faced with collapsing infrastructure, failing schools and a broken health care system, progressives know that we no longer can afford to put off these priorities, while writing a blank check to the military industrial complex. What is the value of maintaining the strongest military in the world if we are defending an empty shell?

Stan Collender cautions: [20] "...this was a vote on an authorization bill and the funds can still be provided in the DOD appropriation that will be considered later in the year ... It is not inconceivable that someone who voted against F-22 in the authorization eventually will vote for it in the appropriation."

Climate Bill Opposition Fired Up as House Dems Stand Ground

Grist's Joe Romm laments lack of grassroots intensity: [21] "I have heard from multiple sources that many U.S. senators are now getting 100 to 200 calls a day opposing a climate and clean energy bill — and bupkes in favor ... the entire conservative messaging apparatus is full-throated in its opposition to this bill — and they have well-heeled funders, aka the dirty-energy bunch. Our side is half-throated, at best."

Politico reports House Dems ready for a fight: [22] "Vulnerable House Democrats are going on the offensive to blunt Republican attacks over their support for the controversial cap-and-trade bill that passed the House late last month ... Democrats from conservative districts are hitting back, arguing that the legislation will not only reduce global warming but also lessen dependence on foreign oil; create new, green manufacturing jobs; and increase national security."

Treehugger reports G-8 has ticked the Nobel Peace Prize laureate: [23] "Now IPCC chairman Dr Rajendra Pachauri has some harsh words for the G8, the AP reports. Pachauri started by saying that they 'clearly ignored' the IPCC's recommendations on how to prevent climate change, and then laid into the G8: Though it was a good thing that the G8 agreed to the aspirational goal of limiting global average temperature rise to 2°C by 2050, Pachauri said he found it 'interesting' that the G8 then proceeded to pay no heed to when the IPCC says carbon emissions should peak."

Change.org's Emily Gertz [24] and Get Energy Smart Now [25] praise NAACP's climate crisis resolution, and the Navajo Nation's green jobs program.

Breakfast Sides

EFCA compromise in flux. CQ: [26] "Sen. Tom Harkin, the lead negotiator on a contentious labor bill, declined today to confirm or deny reports that Democrats were abandoning a proposal to allow union organization by majority signature rather than secret ballot. The Iowa Democrat, who has been leading negotiations ... said talks are continuing on the legislation (S 560) aimed at speeding union certification."

Bill to end subsidies for private student lenders clears House cmte [27], reports W. Post

Bailout money going towards lobbying? McClatchy: [28] "As Bank of America faces intensifying congressional oversight during the nation's worst economy since the Great Depression, the company has spent more than $1.5 million lobbying on Capitol Hill."

Terrance Heath contributed to the making of this Breakfast