Obama’s New Health Insurance Rate Authority: New Policy or Just More Cynical Politics?

[slipslidingaway]

http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/02/22/obamas-new-health-insurance-rate-authority-new-policy-or-just-more-cynical-politics/

"...Since Obama has made it clear that the final health care bill has to be based on the current Senate bill, and the Republican party has made it equally clear they will not sign on to a slightly modified Senate bill, the only path forward is reconciliation. Anything in a reconciliation bill must not violate the Byrd rule (unless Joe Biden is willing to play hardball). After extensive study of the matter, I find it very likely that this new Health Insurance Rate Authority would be ruled in violation of the Byrd rule.

If Joe Biden is unwilling to play hardball, the Byrd rule can still be waived to protect the new agency by a vote of 60 senators. I doubt any Republican will vote to waive the Byrd rule for this new agency, and suspect even a few Democrats, like Ben Nelson, would also vote against it. As a result, the prospects of this Health Insurance Rate Authority becoming law seems remote. It would likely get stripped from the bill at the last moment. Although it would provide Democrats with an good talking point to attack Republicans who took a standalone vote against this one provision.

Personally, I’m upset about the potentially cynical politics of this move. There are several things that could likely be passed through reconciliation that might hold the insurance companies honest. Things like a public option, Medicare/Medicaid/Tricare buy-in, possibly tougher minimum medical loss ratios, and/or maybe even a national exchange. That fact the Obama’s health care proposal contains none of these potentially Byrd rule-proof ideas to “hold the insurance companies honest,” but instead contains a new agency unlikely to become law, is highly disappointing.

It sounds like a classic Rahm Emanuel idea of a win-win. Republicans are forced to take a difficult vote. Democrats get to pretend they supported something popular, but, in the end, Democrats don’t need to worry about hurting a potential donor because the insurance companies also win when Republicans kill the idea. Of course, in the end, regular people are the big losers because they are forced by the government to buy a poorly regulated product from private insurance companies."

[Jackpine Radical]

1. That's exactly what is tounds lke--a Rahmjob.

[slipslidingaway]

9. Yes, new talking points after the PO was cut, but where are the votes for this. n/t

[PHIMG]

12. Yeah..i agree. Just like pass NAFTA now, "fix" it later.

Still waiting for the fix.

[Cleita]

2. My vote is for cynical politics. n/t

[slipslidingaway]

18. How can it not be? Kucinich has been talking about this for months...

that there was no control on premium prices and that companies were raising their rates.

Suddenly a few people realized this loophole last week, what else is lurking that is not being addressed.

[Individualist]

3. It's classic DLC/NDC politics,

government of, by and for the corporations.

[slipslidingaway]

16. And with the internet it is becoming evident to more people...

I had hoped that this administration would have fought more for the people.

:(

edited for clarity

[sandnsea]

4. FDL should be banned from DU

Same as the other sites that do nothing but distort Democratic values and policies.

[NJmaverick]

6. Agreed, it's a factually challenged website

with highly questionable motives

[PHIMG]

11. Censorship is a Democratic Ideal!

Wait...no that's a Chinese Communist Party ideal.

If you can't handle constructive criticism you should go move to a totalitarian state.

[NJmaverick]

14. Should DU start posting stuff from Drudge, FAUX and World Net Daily?

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[inna]

15. What an absurdly reactionary statement. Absolutely disgusting.

:puke:

[slipslidingaway]

19. Specify what is being distorted here, do you think this part of the

bill will be able to pass using reconciliation, if not then it is just a talking point.

[Better Believe It]

27. Can you refute any of the points made in the article, anything at all?

I'm listening.

I can't take you seriously if you're unable to critique the article.

[NJmaverick]

28. Why should anyone care

if you take them seriously or not?

[Better Believe It]

30. Can you refute any of the points made in the article, anything at all?

Probably not, or you would have done that by now.

Absent a critique, would you care to moan and whine a bit?

[NJmaverick]

33. The whole article is complete and utter nonsense

and I feel dirty (like when I go to Free Republic) for having visited that site.

[Better Believe It]

34. Well, you certainly did a fine job demolishing every single point in that article!

Do you read books?

If the author wrote a story about cows would you also call it udder nonsense?

:)

[NJmaverick]

37. The article is nonsensical rantings by a person who lacks the credentials

or background to be making any of the statements made, with out support with fact and reasoned logic. Instead it was unqualified opinion masquerading as fact.

[aquart]

39. IOW, you can't.

But no idolater can permit a hint of criticism. No matter how justified. No matter how huge the betrayal.

[NJmaverick]

40. "idolater"

is that the term that is in vogue with the basher crowd?

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[T Wolf]

5. How sad is it that we do not now believe anything coming out of the White House? Yeah - still bette

than Bush, but the difference is getting smaller every day.

Unless that time-traveling multi-dimensional chess game is so far beyond us that we just cannot understand it with our little brains.

[slipslidingaway]

20. Yes it is sad, but so far those with the little brains have been right to

be skeptical.

:)

[Oregone]

7. I hope they are as effective as those guys watching over the banking sector

[slipslidingaway]

21. Heck of a job the head of the NY Fed did since 2003. n/t

[JDPriestly]

8. Political deception.

[slipslidingaway]

22. Agreed...thanks. n/t

[PHIMG]

10. Cynical Politics - Medicare for All or BUST!

[slipslidingaway]

23. Yes, Medicare for all could be done through reconciliation, not sure

about this new Medical Insurance Rate Authority.

[ProSense]

13. This speculation is beyond idiotic

The bill was created to pass in its entirety via reconciliation.

[slipslidingaway]

24. And you know for a fact that this new Medical Insurance Rate Authority

will be allowed to pass under reconciliation?

[NJmaverick]

29. Agreed!

[inna]

17. Sounds about right:

It sounds like a classic Rahm Emanuel idea of a win-win. Republicans are forced to take a difficult vote. Democrats get to pretend they supported something popular, but, in the end, Democrats don’t need to worry about hurting a potential donor because the insurance companies also win when Republicans kill the idea. Of course, in the end, regular people are the big losers because they are forced by the government to buy a poorly regulated product from private insurance companies.

I'd say, it's quite likely. This new Insurance Rate Authority is a good idea, but the odds of it passing are considerably less than 50%.

[slipslidingaway]

25. Sounds right to me, but questioning whether or not this new authority

would be able to pass under reconciliation is now distorting Democratic values and policies.

:shrug:

[Better Believe It]

32. The health insurance industry will be able to increase rates without prior government approval.

That being the case, what kind of government regulations are we talking about?

According to President Obama's proposal:

"If a rate increase is unreasonable and unjustified, health insurers must lower premiums, provide rebates, or take other actions to make premiums affordable."

Define unreasonable and unjustified?

That is about as general and vague as one can get.

And what will the panel do if they determine a rate hike is unreasonable? Well, they can do all sorts of things to bring down those premiums. They could even propose rebates .... or they might not. That's pretty much left up to the panel members to decide with no apparent clear guidelines on how to proceed with punitive actions. Of course, the insurance industry anti-trust exemption will remain intact so the insurance companies won't have to worry too much.

Who will be on that panel, especially if a Republican becomes President in 2012 or 2016?

[slipslidingaway]

36. Thanks and you know what amazes me is that this is just becoming an issue now...

and was ignored for the past year.

You are right about this being vague and what could happen if there are regulators who really are not regulating.

[inna]

42. ... from a Corrente post:

http://www.correntewire.com/obama_goal_maybe_possibility_slowing_growth_health_insurance_murder_and_theft

Obama goal: the maybe possibility of slowing the growth of health-insurance murder and theft

NYT headline:
"Obama to urge oversight of insurance increases — President wants government to have power to block excessive rate hikes"


In related news, Obama mulls strategies for potentially slowing the growth (if deemed excessive) of terrorist attacks and child abductions.

Be sure to see the top post on that site, which is for some reason unlinkable right now:

http://www.correntewire.com/how_we_know_president’s_proposal_health_care_really_obamas_baby

Definitely worth reading.

[slipslidingaway]

44. Thanks for the links and the link for the second article mentioned

now works.

Saving millions or billions, which is greater.

:(

http://www.correntewire.com/how_we_know_president%E2%80%99s_proposal_health_care_really_obamas_baby

"...Let me start by quoting this sentence from "The President's Proposal":

Fraudulent billing to Medicare and Medicaid programs costs taxpayers millions of dollars each year.

Millions! Just fancy! This from an administration, and a President, that's leaving at least $350 billion a year on the table by refusing to consider the only solution on offer that can actually be shown to work with evidence: Single payer.

And to save those millions -- that would be millions with an M, not billions with a B, or trillions with a T -- the "Proposal" spends many precious paragraphs of its twelve pages on a geek-type wonkfest of technical detail on -- yes, the standard Republican talking point -- "waste, fraud, and abuse": ..."


And from early 2009 and linked in the comments...

http://madamab.wordpress.com/2009/01/08/no-republican-left-behind/

"Um, huh? Is that it? Modernizing computer records? I’m sorry, but could he think ANY SMALLER? Do we really need to discuss the massive problems our health care system faces? And how will this cover the 47 million without health care now? Besides…is it me, or is this idea kind of, um, unoriginal?

In 2003, President Bush said he wanted most Americans’ medical records to be computerized within 10 years. The savings from moving away from paper could rise into the hundreds of millions a year, the president said. And electronic records can reduce medical errors, proponents said..."

[riskpeace]

35. The subsidies open up the rate-setting process to reconciliation

In my opinion, if the federal government is going to pay a portion of insurance premiums for a large number of people, then insurance rate-setting policy has an effect on the federal budget.

[slipslidingaway]

38. Time will tell, so far the Dems have given up plenty from the original

HC ideas and the insurance companies have gained what they wanted.

[maryf]

41. Sadly the public option was a cynical deceit...

not too long after its conception...Improved Medicare for All!!! On edit, of course K&R!!

[slipslidingaway]

43. Yes it was, thanks n/t