View Full Version : Open letter to Spineless Harry Reid
Friday, November 13, 2009
An Open Letter to Harry Reid on Controlling Health Care Costs
Dear Senator,
I know you're in a tough spot. It would be bad enough if you only had to get Ben Nelson, Evan Bayh, Mary Landrieu, and Blanche Lincoln on board, but anyone who has to kiss Joe Lieberman's derriere deserves a congressional medal of honor.
But Harry, you really need to take on future health-care costs. The House bill fails to do this. The public option in the House bill is open only to people without employer-provided health insurance. That will be too small a number to have bargaining clout to get good deals from drug companies and medical providers. And it will mainly attract people who have more expensive medical needs, which is why the Congressional Budget Office decided it would cost more than it would save.
You also know a public insurance option that's open to everyone would cut future health costs dramatically by imposing real competition on private for-profit insurance plans. That's why the private insurers hate the idea. Even if states were allowed to opt out of this robust public option, the big states would almost certainly opt in, giving it the scale needed to negotiate great deals from drug companies and medical providers. This would put pressure on any state that opted out because their citizens would soon discover they're paying far more.
In addition to the House's weak public option, the deals the White House and Max Baucus made with the drug companies and the AMA will force Americans to pay even more. If, on the other hand, Medicare were allowed to negotiate lower drug prices, biotech drugs weren't granted a twelve-years monopoly, and doctors had to accept Medicare reimbursements in line with legislation enacted years ago, Americans would save billions.
You know all this but you're also trying to get 60 votes in order get any bill to the floor. You have my sympathies, but unless you get these reforms into the final Senate bill you're not really helping most Americans afford future health care.
So what do you do?
First, try for the "reconciliation" process, which requires only 51 votes. Every one of the reforms I mention above would fit under the Byrd rule.
If that doesn't work, wrap these reforms together -- a public option open to everyone (allow states to opt out of this if they dare), Medicare-negotiated drug benefits, no 12-year monopoly for new drugs, and a major squeeze on Medicare reimbursements for doctors -- and have CBO score the savings. I guarantee you, the number will be large. Then you should dare anyone, Democrat or Republican, to vote against saving Americans so much money in years ahead. How is Ben Nelson going to face voters in Nebraska who would have to pay, say, 20 percent more for health care in the future if Nelson refuses to go along?
If neither of these tactics work, then take whatever bill you must to the Senate floor. But then introduce this reform package as the very first amendment to the bill. Call it the "Ted Kennedy Amendment for Helping Middle Class Families Afford Health Care," and whip the hell out of the Democrats. Get the President to help you. Surely Joe Biden will. If you can't get 51 votes out of Dems for this, publish the list of Dems who vote against it, strip them of their committee chairs or sub-chairs, and make sure the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee gives them zilch when they're up for re-election.
Nobody promised you this would be easy, Harry. But, hell, why are you there, anyway? Your responsibility isn't just to pass whatever will muster 60 votes and that the President and Dems can later call "health care reform." It's to do the right thing by the American people and bring down future health-care costs. Don't cave in to Lieberman or Nelson or the drug companies or the private insurers or the AMA or anyone else. Lead the charge.
All best.
posted by Robert Reich | 6:16 AM
Robert Reich's Blog: An Open Letter to Harry Reid on Controlling Health Care Costs (http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2009/11/open-letter-to-harry-reid.html)
ELVIS
11-14-2009, 05:20 PM
Mary Landrieu ??
LMAO!!!
:elvis:
You should like your Senator.... she votes like a Republican nearly every time. :(
And I agree with every word of what Reich says here. And still think it's a damn crime that he isn't running the economic team right now, instead of Timmy the Keebler Elf and his pal Goldmine Sucks Summers.
ELVIS
11-14-2009, 05:51 PM
Everything he said is a pipe dream...
The federal government is dead set on controlling our lives, period!
We're headed for nanny-state, welfare status and thats what the Government wants...
They are killing the free market, and people like you are blindly supporting such BS...
Good luck eating your cake...
:elvis:
The "free market" died the minute the BCE started mass deregulation in the 80s, and continued through the 1990's and Chimpy's illegitimate reign of terror.
Actually what Reich is suggesting here, similar to what Howard Dean has said on the subject, is that a true public option is needed to HAVE a free market. To force the insurance companies to compete for a customer base.
Of course what's really behind the insurance companies' fear is the aging post WWII "baby boomer" generation. If you accept the arbitrary start date of the baby boom as 1946 then of course that means you have a huge generation that is about to go from the private insurance market into Medicare, as they turn 65. That's why they want the mandatory bullshit, because 40 million reluctant new "customers" can take the place of all those aging hippies.
It's like the tobacco companies recruiting kids to replace the customers they kill.... except even those kids have the choice to be stupid and take up an addicitve form of slow motion suicide.
ELVIS
11-14-2009, 08:23 PM
At least you seem to agree with me, in a sense, and not that i'm right...
And BTW, The baby Boomer generation is going to have a huge impact due to the fact that a huge number of our doctors, nurses and other healthcare professionals fall into that category and are retiring...
:elvis:
hideyoursheep
11-14-2009, 08:25 PM
Everything he said is a pipe dream...
The federal government is dead set on controlling our lives, period!
We're headed for nanny-state, welfare status and thats what the Government wants...
They are killing the free market, and people like you are blindly supporting such BS...
Good luck eating your cake...
:elvis:
The "free market" committed suicide. Why do you think the government WANTS to control our lives, ELVIS? I don't get that one at all. Your Precious Bush Admin. did more to cut personal freedoms than any administration in modern times. They loved censorship, they created a climate in which anyone with a thought in their brain who questioned any moves they made were "anti-American", and they did nothing for the country and everything they could for corporate America. Look where THAT got us.
hideyoursheep
11-14-2009, 08:28 PM
Do you know why Obama was elected?
It wasn't his charisma.
It wasn't because he was black.
It was because we as Americans decided to step up and save conservatives from themselves. You guys make shitty decisions.
Big Train
11-14-2009, 08:29 PM
Actually what Reich is suggesting here, similar to what Howard Dean has said on the subject, is that a true public option is needed to HAVE a free market. To force the insurance companies to compete for a customer base.
By this pretzel logic, should we not then , as the USA, start up competition in EVERY industry, so as to create a true "free market" across the board and be a happy and free nation once again? Goverment appliances, Government electronics, Government gas?
ELVIS
11-14-2009, 08:31 PM
I'm not blaming any particular administration...
The unemployment rate is the direct result of Government intervention, and it's not going to change any time soon...
hideyoursheep
11-14-2009, 08:55 PM
I'm not blaming any particular administration...
The unemployment rate is the direct result of Government intervention, and it's not going to change any time soon...
Really?
I thought it was more of a direct result of Govt. deregulation.
Start a company.
Build it up.
Gain customers.
Move the entire operation overseas to circumvent decent wages for your employees, saftey and enviornmental laws, and put more money in your shareholders' pockets.
Give your managers and CEO's a 300% pay raise over the next 20 years.
Lose customers due to bad quality and lack of buyers for your product-they're unemployed or underemployed now.
File for bankruptcy or ask the Govt. for a bailout.
:umm:
Whose fault is it again?
ELVIS
11-14-2009, 09:01 PM
What did you say about governmental laws ??
hideyoursheep
11-14-2009, 09:03 PM
:lol:
What laws?
ELVIS
11-14-2009, 09:09 PM
I'm sorry...
Enviornmental laws = Governmental laws...
hideyoursheep
11-14-2009, 09:18 PM
Oh yeah...those.
God forbid we keep our communities from looking like Lake Erie in 1970. :rolleyes:
Great place to raise a family, huh?
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/_R-FZsysQNw&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/_R-FZsysQNw&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
By this pretzel logic, should we not then , as the USA, start up competition in EVERY industry, so as to create a true "free market" across the board and be a happy and free nation once again? Goverment appliances, Government electronics, Government gas?
No, no, and yes.
Manufacturing should remain solely a private sector thing. Energy should be completely nationalized, because the profit motives of energy countries have caused more death and destruction (economically and otherwise) than even the health insurance bastards.
Energy, banking, health care, infrastructure, and defense should all be nationalized.
Why? Because ENRON, Goldman Sachs, United Health Care, Comcast, and Halliburton (and all companies like them) are fucking the citzens of this country over and over again, and this is why we are so far behind other "civilized" countries in these areas.
I believe it was right for the government to save GM, because it is one of the few manufacturing businesses left in this country. But I do not believe the government should own a permanent interest in that company, or any other country that actually produces something.
With the exception of the "defense" industry, because it is a self-perpetuating system of warmongering fascists which should have been dismantled almost 50 years ago when Eisenhower first warned us about it.
Nitro Express
11-14-2009, 09:37 PM
Oh yeah...those.
God forbid we keep our communities from looking like Lake Erie in 1970. :rolleyes:
Great place to raise a family, huh?
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/_R-FZsysQNw&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/_R-FZsysQNw&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
We cleaned up the US by exporting our industry to China. Now our water is cleaner than it has been in decades, the air is cleaner. China is polluted as hell. Now they have the production and we don't. All we can do is borrow money because we don't produce anything to export other than bailed cardboard, Peavey musical gear, and movies (I think they still make the porno ones here).
Nitro Express
11-14-2009, 09:42 PM
Actually the banks are broke, the government are broke, and they know it. We are running on illusion and not substance. So the plan the politicians and bankers have is to create laws that make the citizens slaves. Hey. As long as you have slaves you retain your power even if the money hyperinflates away. That gets rid of the debt we owe foreigners and they have us to exploit. So where we have to be careful is that we don't let them cut the Constitution up and throw it to the wind or just flank it. You always can rebuilt an economy but if you lose your rights those are gone because the system that will clamp down will make sure you never get those back.
hideyoursheep
11-14-2009, 09:43 PM
Oh God..here you go with the China shit again.
You posted before that you go to China for "business"....so fuck you. You're part of the problem too.
Enjoy having a hand in fucking up their enviornment and our economy, then coming back here to bitch about how bad things are in America.
Idiot.
The "free market" died the minute the BCE started mass deregulation in the 80s, and continued through the 1990's and Chimpy's illegitimate reign of terror.
So why don't those Dumboldcraps repeal said legislature?
ELVIS
11-14-2009, 11:30 PM
Government has no hand in the exploration of energy. The companies that do this spend nearly all of their profits looking for new sources of oil and natural gas. They get taxed and we also get taxed for purchasing the energy. Is that fair ??
Why should the Government own it, and how would that be fair ??
What would be the incentive for further exploration if there were no profit involved ??
:elvis:
So why don't those Dumboldcraps repeal said legislature?
Good question. Why don't you call up $enator Fein$tein and ask her?
standin
11-15-2009, 12:00 AM
Government has no hand in the exploration of energy. The companies that do this spend nearly all of their profits looking for new sources of oil and natural gas. They get taxed and we also get taxed for purchasing the energy. Is that fair ??
Why should the Government own it, and how would that be fair ??
What would be the incentive for further exploration if there were no profit involved ??
:elvis:
do you really think the persons that profits personally goes out and knock on rocks looking for oil?
Government has no hand in the exploration of energy. The companies that do this spend nearly all of their profits looking for new sources of oil and natural gas. They get taxed and we also get taxed for purchasing the energy. Is that fair ??
Why should the Government own it, and how would that be fair ??
What would be the incentive for further exploration if there were no profit involved ??
:elvis:
The incentive would be to get the fuck away from fossil fuels and move in to the 21st fucking century, using energy sources like wind, solar, and geothermal energy, which NOBODY can "own" or invade a fucking country and kill people for.
ELVIS
11-15-2009, 12:13 AM
You're an idiot!
How do you think a big company like Gulf operates ??
ELVIS
11-15-2009, 12:14 AM
The incentive would be to get the fuck away from fossil fuels and move in to the 21st fucking century, using energy sources like wind, solar, and geothermal energy, which NOBODY can "own" or invade a fucking country and kill people for.
Oh, i'm quite sure the governments could find a way...
Dr. Love
11-15-2009, 01:40 AM
The "free market" died the minute the BCE started mass deregulation in the 80s, and continued through the 1990's and Chimpy's illegitimate reign of terror.
You mean reign of "terra"
YOU'RE SLIPPING FORD
ELVIS
11-15-2009, 01:22 PM
The incentive would be to get the fuck away from fossil fuels and move in to the 21st fucking century, using energy sources like wind, solar, and geothermal energy, which NOBODY can "own" or invade a fucking country and kill people for.
You can't just dream up or speak a replacement for oil into existence...
Somebody (from the free market) had to come up with a pretty good automobile that people wanted before the general public were willing to give up their horse and buggies...
There is nothing to replace oil, yet...
Big Train
11-15-2009, 10:57 PM
No, no, and yes.
Manufacturing should remain solely a private sector thing. Energy should be completely nationalized, because the profit motives of energy countries have caused more death and destruction (economically and otherwise) than even the health insurance bastards.
That's not a good enough reason. Especially with the non-oil companies coming online en masse in the next twenty years, you would be setting up a needless governmental control.
Energy, banking, health care, infrastructure, and defense should all be nationalized.
Why? Because ENRON, Goldman Sachs, United Health Care, Comcast, and Halliburton (and all companies like them) are fucking the citzens of this country over and over again, and this is why we are so far behind other "civilized" countries in these areas.
Comcast is the reason we are behind other countries? REALLY? So to fully understand, your saying if we took away these companies ability to profit, went communist-in these SPECIFIC industries (energy, finance, health care, CABLE and defense), we would somehow come out ahead?
I believe it was right for the government to save GM, because it is one of the few manufacturing businesses left in this country. But I do not believe the government should own a permanent interest in that company, or any other country that actually produces something.
That was an incorrect decision ultimately. The money would have been better utilized letting GM go and investing in a new US-based automaker.
With the exception of the "defense" industry, because it is a self-perpetuating system of warmongering fascists which should have been dismantled almost 50 years ago when Eisenhower first warned us about it.
The defense industry is only slightly more efficient when private, I can't imagine the cost overruns developing an F-22 on the government's dime. I don't care if they are considered warmongering to you, I just want my tax money used to it's maximum potential. Something I don't think the Air Force has the capability to do (or should do) is build weapon systems.
hideyoursheep
11-16-2009, 02:29 AM
What is NASA?
Why isn't that little chunk of change spent on private companies rather than another costly government operation with costly overruns?
Could it be a saftey and quality issue?
Could it be, trusting your life to the lowest bidder isn't a very attractive idea?
Big Train
11-16-2009, 10:36 AM
NASA isn't exactly the best example. Their "flight safety" record has taken quite a few hits in the last couple of decades. With the literal slogan "Faster, Better, Cheaper", they are the Southwest Airlines of Space Travel.
If I were an astronaut, I'd wait for Richard Branson's operation to get going.
You can't just dream up or speak a replacement for oil into existence...
Somebody (from the free market) had to come up with a pretty good automobile that people wanted before the general public were willing to give up their horse and buggies...
There is nothing to replace oil, yet...
Actually, yes there is. Or rather there could be, if we got rid of a useless law.....
http://www.sustainabilityninja.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/industrial-hemp.jpg
ELVIS
11-16-2009, 12:28 PM
That's still dreaming it up...
Even if someone came up with an awesome efficient hydrogen powered car, the Government would shut it down...
The Government has no desire to get off oil. They just want to use it as another way to control our lives...
That's still dreaming it up...
Even if someone came up with an awesome efficient hydrogen powered car, the Government would shut it down...
The Government has no desire to get off oil. They just want to use it as another way to control our lives...
So as long as you're going to have internal combustion engines, why not run them off a renewable resource like Hemp, rather than a soon to be extinct source like rotted dinosaur corpses buried under foreign sand.
And the "government" consists of whomever we say it does, right?
Or at least that's the theory. We need to get rid of the electro-fraud machines and the corporate funding of elections to make it a reality again.
ELVIS
11-16-2009, 12:39 PM
I agree!
Where do you suggest we start ??
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.