Sen. Conrad believes Americans deserve "significantly less" than the HELP and House bills provide.

[ProSense]

KENT CONRAD AND 'SIGNIFICANTLY LESS'....

There's one thing conservative Democratic senators seem to agree on when it comes to health care reform. Despite the big Democratic majorities on the Hill and the Democratic president, they see the need for a bill that's much weaker, less comprehensive, and less effective than what the Democratic mainstream has in mind.

The Gang of Six members made this much clear late last week, and Sen. Kent Conrad (D) of North Dakota, one of the six negotiators and a long-time opponent of a public option, reiterated the point yesterday. Reform is "going to have to be significantly less than what we've heard talked about," Conrad said.

In terms of "what we've heard talked about," the center-right Democrat was almost certainly referring to Democratic proposals that have already passed the House Education and Labor Committee, the House Ways and Means Committee, the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. These efforts, apparently, don't meet Conrad's standards. Americans and their failing health care system, Conrad insists, need less.

It's likely that means legislation that costs "significantly" less and does "significantly" less.

Jonathan Cohn explains that the reform bill that's already passed four of the five relevant committees were already scaled back to satisfy the demands of less-progressive lawmakers.

In order to keep the price tag at or below $1 trillion over ten years, Democrats had to write bills that would roll out reforms slowly, over several years, so that a new system was not fully in place until 2013 or later. That's a long time to wait for change, particularly if you're one of the unlucky souls who ends up without insurance -- or with inadequate insurance -- when illness strikes.

The saving grace of those four bills was that the consumer protections and financial assistance in them remained reasonably strong. If reform ends up looking like those four bills, then financial assistance would be available to people earning up to four times the poverty rate -- or around $88,000 a year in family income. (Subsidies would be available on a sliding scale, so that a family making $70,000 would get very little, a family making $60,000 would get more, and so on.) Such a measure would also limit out-of-pocket expenses to $10,000 a year per family, while providing other crucial protections. And, of course, it would include a real public insurance option.

If Conrad and his supporters get their way, the new health care system won't be nearly as generous -- or protective. They've made clear they want a package that costs less than $1 trillion. A lot less.

<...>

Cohn concluded, "You can imagine why Republicans might think this is a dandy idea. But why on earth would Democrats agree?" Sen. Conrad, that's not a rhetorical question.

Brilliant frame!

[John Q. Citizen]

1. We need far more than what the HELP bill and HR3200 in the house provide. They are weak.

The HELP bill in the Senate and HR3200 in the House aren't reform, they are robbery!

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20090823_this_isnt_reform_its_robbery

[ProSense]

2. "The HELP bill in the Senate and HR3200 in the House aren't reform, they are robbery!" Moronic

Facts and more facts

[John Q. Citizen]

4. Your "Facts" are bullet sheets and you link to your own propaganda. That's wierd.

Two questions:

1. Does the Senate HELP Bill create 50 separate little "public option" one for each state so they are broken up and small and can't actually reduce costs or force private insurance companies to quit exploiting people?

2. Does the Congressional Budget Office estimate that HR3200, the House bill will only have 10 million people enrolled by 2019 in the mini public option conytained in that bill?


Please give me an answer to my questions thanks.

[ProSense]

6. Answer this:

Are your questions idiotic?

[John Q. Citizen]

7. Afraid to actually address the well documented criticisms of those bills? I bet you are afraid.

Just keep on pumping out the propaganda, and i will keep on putting up my links to the many different and trusted voices on the left who want more than empty promises passed off as health care reform.

Here's an interesting article. Read it and tell me what you think.
http://pnhp.org/blog/2009/07/28/does-the-congressional-progressive-caucus-care-about-its-public-option-principles/

Does the Congressional Progressive Caucus care about its "public option" principles?
Tuesday, Jul 28, 2009

by Kip Sullivan

It has become obvious that the Democratic leadership in Congress will not fight for a large “Medicare-like” program or “public option,” to use the lingo adopted early in 2009 by advocates of this idea. As I reported in an article posted on this blog on July 20, “public option” advocates originally claimed they stood for a “Medicare-like” program that would enroll 130 million non-elderly Americans, but somewhere along the line they got comfortable selling the “public options” proposed in legislation introduced by Senate and House Democrats a few weeks ago that will, at best, enroll 10 million people.

A “public option” that small will have no effect on the cost of health care in the U.S., which means it cannot bring us closer to universal health insurance. I noted in my July 20 article that neither the original proponents of the “public option,” nor Democrats in Congress, have warned the public that the “public options” contained in the Democrats’ legislation are tiny and powerless compared with the original model.

It is difficult to understand why “public option” advocates outside Congress would conceal this from the public. It is even more difficult to comprehend why members of Congress – people who actually have something tangible to lose (namely, power and a livelihood) if the “public option” turns out to be a joke – have remained silent about the degradation of the “public option.”

If you were asked to think of one group of Congress members who should be leading the campaign to warn America that the “public option” in the Democrats’ legislation is not what it’s been cracked up to be, you would think of the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC).
More at link... a very good read.

http://pnhp.org/blog/2009/07/28/does-the-congressional-progressive-caucus-care-about-its-public-option-principles/

[ProSense]

9. The Pnhp are propagandists who do not support a public option.

It has become obvious that the Democratic leadership in Congress will not fight for a large “Medicare-like” program or “public option,” to use the lingo adopted early in 2009 by advocates of this idea. As I reported in an article posted on this blog on July 20, “public option” advocates originally claimed they stood for a “Medicare-like” program that would enroll 130 million non-elderly Americans, but somewhere along the line they got comfortable selling the “public options” proposed in legislation introduced by Senate and House Democrats a few weeks ago that will, at best, enroll 10 million people.

This entire paragraph is complete bullshit: spin based on the idiotic claim that Jacob Hacker's 2001 paper, with its RW Lewin Group assessment, was the basis of the Democrats' public option. It's complete bullshit. Obama's plan is based on Kerry's 2004 plan, which had nothing to do with Jacob Hacker.

[John Q. Citizen]

10. Sure it was. That's why the Public Option folks brought Hacker to testify this year in congress.

Did Kerry testify in committee? No Dr. Jacob Hacker did. He testified on the Public Option. The reason is he invented it.

My long time friend who works for SEIU promoting The Public Option told me, Oh yeah, Hacker testified for us!
It's interesting. My same friend who works for SIEU promoting the public option also knows Kip Sullivan pretty well. I met Kip back in the early 90s. He's a brilliant guy.

Kip Sullivan is a nationally recognized expert on health care systems.

Here's where Prof. Jacob Hacker is testifying in a joint hearing to the three committees about the public option. They are the committees who produced the unfortunately lame HR3200.

http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/testimony/20090623JacobHackerTestimony.pdf

But wait, there's more!

Robert Reich, Jacob Hacker to Challenge Democrats to Fight for Public Health
Insurance Plan to Control Costs
Mon Jun 22, 2009 12:50pm EDT
http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS149290+22-Jun-2009+PRN20090622
**News Conference Call on Tuesday at 11 a.m. ET.**

New HCAN Report Shows Health Premiums Growing More Unaffordable, Forcing
Millions To Lose Health Coverage; Hacker To Preview Tues. Testimony Before Key
House Committees

Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich will join health care expert Jacob Hacker
on a conference call with reporters on Tuesday to release a new report that
shows the nation is suffering from a growing "crisis of health care
unaffordability." The report, by the Health Care for America Now coalition,
documents how health insurance premiums and costs are increasing much faster
than wages. Reich will urge Democrats to decry false "bipartisanship" and to
support a public health insurance plan.

Reich and Hacker will show how the Congressional Budget Office would have
rated the Senate Democratic reform proposals more positively if it included
the public health insurance plan. They will also explain why state or regional
health insurance cooperatives will not control costs.

Hacker will also preview testimony he will deliver Tuesday afternoon to a
joint hearing of three key congressional committees writing health reform
legislation. Hacker's 2007 "Health Care for America" plan showed how a robust
public health insurance plan -- combined with real drug-price competition and
a requirement that businesses insure employees or contribute to the cost of
coverage -- would reduce the overall cost of health reform and make coverage
more affordable.

You can be as misleading, less than honest, and selective as you want to be ProSense

And I will be right here beside you keeping you honest.

Think of me as your big strong Public Option and I'll think of you as my health insurance industry lobby!

[ProSense]

11. Wow, you have a way of connecting the dots that

makes no sense. Dr. Steffie Woolhandler testified too. Does that mean the bill is based on single payer?

[John Q. Citizen]

12. Dr. Woolhandler did testify. But she wasn't brought by the Public Option Proponents to testify for

them. She was asked by Representive Weiner and Kucinch to testify for the proponents of single payer. Which makes sense since she's an expert on single payer.

Just as Jacob Hacker is an expert on the Public Option, since he invented it with his 2001 and his 2007 academic papers on the subject.

I'll get you flying straight here yet, don't worry, PS

[quantass]

3. Conrad is GLAD he has his Gov. Run Healthcare Plan and Pocket full of Lobbyist Money

nothing new here.

[ProSense]

5. "nothing new here." Disagree,

sure everyone knows that Conrad is a sellout, but here he is not trying to convince that his failed plan is better, he flat out saying that reform should be significantly less than discussed. He is ineffect saying that his co-op plan is inferior.

[Arkana]

8. That's a shame, Mr. Conrad.

I hope North Dakotans decide you deserve "significantly less" than your Senate seat next time you're up for reelection.

You sanctimonious lobbyist-rogering prick.