Blue Dog Democrats Strike Deal on Health Care

[angelatc]

http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1199225389&play=1

Also, Massachusetts' health care plan slammed by the Massachusetts treasurer.

[FrankRep]

Blue Dog Democrats Strike Deal on Health Care (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/health-care/1549)


Thomas R. Eddlem | The New American (http://www.thenewamerican.com/)
30 July 2009


Members of a coalition of moderate House Democrats called the “Blue Dogs” have struck a deal to move Obama’s health care legislation forward after the August recess.

"We have reached an agreement that will allow health-care reform to move forward," said Arkansas Democratic Rep. Mike Ross (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/29/health.care/), who explained a few of the changes to the press. Under terms of the deal, Blue Dogs would win 10 amendments that would pare about $100 billion from the $1 trillion in new spending in the legislation. It's unclear how many of the 50 Blue Dogs had signed on to Ross' deal with the House Democratic leadership.

According to the Congressional Budget Office (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/104xx/doc10464/hr3200.pdf), the original $1 trillion House legislation would save about $219 billion by cutting waste in Medicare and Medicaid, increase taxes by $583 billion and add $239 billion to the budget deficit over 10 years. Thus, the Blue Dog $100 billion would still amount to both a huge increase in taxes and deficit spending compared to the status quo.

Ross explained that, in the words of CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/29/health.care/), his compromise “exempts businesses with payrolls below $500,000 from having to provide health coverage for workers. He also said the bill's government-funded public insurance option — a key provision for Obama and Democratic leaders — would be a choice for consumers instead of coverage forced on people without health insurance.” In addition, the Associated Press reported (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gMRM8IFKa3ZmMaa-N_nRCuf9U9oAD99ODVVG0) that “Poor people would get subsidies to help them buy care after spending 12 percent of their income on premiums, instead of 11 percent in the existing bill.” The compromise would also raise the minimum payroll levels before employer health care coverage mandate is imposed by Washington from $100,000 to $500,000. The National Federation of Independent Businesses estimates (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124890130836791271.html) this would exempt an additional 400,000 small businesses from the bill’s health care mandate.

The cuts in subsidies to the poor under the "public" plan and larger exemptions from “universal” coverage have the far left up in arms. "It's terrible and totally unacceptable," Jerrold Nadler (D- NY) told (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124890130836791271.html) the Wall Street Journal. Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.), co-chairwoman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, who told The Hill (http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/health-deal-sparks-fury-on-the-left-2009-07-29.html) that, “It’s unacceptable. We’re not going to vote for anything that doesn’t have a robust public plan.”

Meanwhile, several small business groups have mobilized to fight the increased costs of Obama’s health care package, whether it includes the Blue Dog cuts or not. Brad Close, vice president of federal public policy for the National Federation of Independent Business, wrote that (http://www.nfib.com/tabid/565/Default.aspx?cmsid=49565&v=1) “the House healthcare bill will do nothing to lower costs and instead will actually harm not help small business owners. The House bill includes expensive employer mandates, punitive payroll taxes and a new government-run program that threatens the viability of private insurers. Research shows an employer mandate alone could cost 1.6 million jobs with more than 1 million of those jobs lost in the small business sector. The House bill simply will not work for small businesses. If the president and Congress insist on going down this road, they will actually make things worse for small business — leading to increased unemployment, decreased wages and, ultimately, higher health insurance costs.” The NFIB describes (http://www.nfib.com/tabid/565/Default.aspx?cmsid=49542&v=1) the employee mandate as one which “devastates the economy” and where “more than 1 million of those jobs [will be] lost in the small business sector.”


SOURCE:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/health-care/1549

[Bucjason]

Blue dogs??? haha. They don't really exist.

The only purpose of this is to make it sound like a compromise with "conservatives" was struck (no Democrat is really conservative) . That way, anyone else opposing the bill, can be painted as either a Partisan or an extremist.

This" Blue Dog" thing is a Dog and Pony Show.

[tangent4ronpaul]

41% more expensive than planned
brunt of costs land on those making less than 25 Thousand a year
several hospitals looking at closing - can't afford to stay in business
longest wait time to see a doctor in the country despite highest per-capita population of doctors in the country
LEGAL (not illegal, but LEGAL) immigrants being considered to get kicked out of coverage as a cost cutting measure. The state can't afford to cover them.
more cost effective for employers to not provide health care insurance and pay fines.
it's basically bankrupting the state.



=====
Mass. Treasurer Rips Mandated Health Insurance

In 2006, the state of Massachusetts required every single one of its residents to get health insurance, and every single one of its businesses to provide it. Otherwise, residents and employers would be fined.

Some have asked, as national healthcare reform works its way through Congress, is there anything we can learn from the Massachusetts experiment?

Yes, according to the state's treasurer, interviewed today on CNBC: Whatever you do, don't do what we did.

In a blisteringly frank interview, treasurer Tim Cahill laid out some jaw-dropping stats, which eviscerated the plan and excited every conservative's worst fears about government getting further into the health insurance business:

-- The program has so far cost 30 percent more than anticipated.
-- It already has a $9 billion shortfall projected over the next two years.
-- Costs have risen 41 percent since the program's inception, well outpacing the rise in healthcare costs nationwide, which stands at 18 percent.
-- We thought this program would mean fewer people would go to hospitals, which is the highest cost any insurance plan has to pay. In fact, fewer people are not going to hospitals.
-- A Harvard study shows 60 percent of state residents are unhappy with the plan. The most unhappy? Those whom it should be helping the most -- those making $25,000 to $50,000 per year.
-- To cut costs, the program is now having to kick out legal immigrants.

Cahill summed up: "This is not a miracle by any stretch of the imagination."

Now, you should know this: Cahill is considering a run for governor as an independent, and would likely face Gov. Deval Patrick, who has touted the state's health insurance plan. It was, interestingly, signed into law by a Republican -- former Gov. Mitt Romney.

But numbers are numbers. And in this case, they tell a clear story that could be a warning for Congress.

sounds like a politician we should support!

-t

[jmdrake]

Blue dogs vs Obama = "good" cop vs "bad" cop.