The saga of health care reform continues with a hunt for votes. Next up to call the shots on health care, after Sen. Joe Lieberman, is Ben Nelson(D-AR). After rejecting an abortion compromise, word is that Ben Nelson may join a Republican filibuster. Steve Benen at Political Animal:
Remember, literally one month ago today, CNN reported that Nelson was satisfied with the compromise language from the Senate Finance Committee. Now he's decided the Finance Committee compromise not only isn't good enough, but he's also prepared to kill health care reform over it.
What's more, let's also not forget that while Nelson isn't making any real effort to seek common ground, he's also rejecting compromises of compromises -- Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.), another pro-life Dem, offered Nelson a new proposal with additional restrictions on federal financing of abortion. As of today, Nelson said the compromise on a compromise still isn't good enough, and he won't even let the Senate vote on the bill because of it.
And while we're at it, let's also not forget that just a few weeks ago, Nelson said he doesn't like the existing restrictions on abortion funding, but added, "If there's no public option, perhaps some of the [abortion] problem goes away." It suggested this wasn't the issue he was prepared to kill health care reform over. And now it is.
Indeed, as of today, Nelson sounded like he's giving up altogether. He said Democratic offers are "not enough," and suggested it might be time to go "back to the drawing board in some areas."
Amy Sullivan is not surprised, but adds an interesting bit at the end of her post at Swampland: "None of that mattered, though. One red flag should have been the fact that Nelson sent Casey's proposed language to anti-abortion groups in Nebraska for their review. There's nothing wrong with running legislative language by people who closely cover the issue--pro-choice politicians do the same thing all the time--but it does indicate that what's at stake here is not Nelson's personal comfort with the separation of government funds from abortion procedures so much as the comfort of interest groups with his pro-life credentials. And that makes compromise difficult--again, as it would if this was instead Barbara Boxer waiting for sign-off from abortion rights advocates. Interest groups exist to protect their line in the sand. There was virtually no scenario in which anti-abortion groups were going to say: "Looks good to us, Ben! Go ahead and vote yea!"
Speaking of which, Bob Casey (D-PA) is now the target of an anti-choice campaign as for attempting to strike a compromise: "With Sen. Bob Casey attempting to strike a compromise on abortion funding in the healthcare bill that will win support from pro-abortion rights Democrats and from antiabortion Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson, antiabortion groups are turning up the heat on the Pennsylvania Democrat. Those groups want Casey to jettison his compromise effort and vow opposition to the healthcare bill unless it includes the House bill's strict ban on abortion coverage in federally-subsidized health insurance plans." (Videos here and here.)
Having bent over backwards, Slate's Timothy Noah says Democrats may not have Lieberman's vote anyway.
Former president Bill Clinton issued a statement warning that abandoning health care reform now would be "a colossal blunder." "Take it from someone who knows," he says:
"America stands at a historic crossroads. At last, we are close to making real health insurance reform a reality. We face one critical, final choice, between action and inaction. We know where the path of inaction leads to: more uninsured Americans, more families struggling to keep up with skyrocketing premiums, higher federal budget deficits, and health costs so much higher than any other country's they will cripple us economically.
Our only responsible choice is the path of action. Does this bill read exactly how I would write it? No. Does it contain everything everyone wants? Of course not. But America can't afford to let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
And this is a good bill: it increases the security of those who already have insurance and gives every American access to affordable coverage; and contains comprehensive efforts to control costs and improve quality, with more information on best practices, and comparative costs and results. The bill will shift the power away from the insurance companies and into the hands of consumers.
Take it from someone who knows: these chances don't come around every day. Allowing this effort to fall short now would be a colossal blunder -- both politically for our party and, far more important, for the physical, fiscal, and economic health of our country."
(No word on whether he has any influence with his fellow Arkansan, Sen. Nelson.)
Krugman, too, says "Pass the bill.": A message to progressives: By all means, hang Senator Joe Lieberman in effigy. Declare that you're disappointed in and/or disgusted with President Obama. Demand a change in Senate rules that, combined with the Republican strategy of total obstructionism, are in the process of making America ungovernable. But meanwhile, pass the health care bill. ...But let's all take a deep breath, and consider just how much good this bill would do, if passed — and how much better it would be than anything that seemed possible just a few years ago. With all its flaws, the Senate health bill would be the biggest expansion of the social safety net since Medicare, greatly improving the lives of millions. Getting this bill would be much, much better than watching health care reform fail."
Getting buy-in from Democratic Senators isn't the only challenge to health care reform. Newsweek reports that even with an individual mandate, some people may choose paying a fine over paying for insurance:
It's those who fall just outside the subsidies, the individual earning $45,000, for example, or the family of three living on $80,000, who are most likely not to purchase insurance and pay the required fine. "The people who wouldn't buy would be those who have a higher income than the subsidy but low enough that the bite of the premium is still significant to them," says Michael Chernew, a professor at Harvard Medical School's Department of Health Care Policy. These are generally healthier individuals who are skeptical that health insurance will pay off for them. Amy Jo Garner falls right into this category. A 45-year-old freelance writer based in Minneapolis, she carried health insurance right after leaving her corporate job in 2001 but has since dropped it. "For me personally, I was paying money and not using it," she says. "To get a rate I could afford, an insurance plan wouldn't cover the things you need, like checking your cholesterol or prescriptions. It just makes more sense to save the money." Gardner would likely pay the fine to forgo insurance, but begrudgingly. "It frustrates me not as much on a personal level, because I can afford it, but on a philosophical level," she says. "I don't see a reason behind it. Rather than penalizing us for not having insurance, there should be encouragement to get insurance, like a tax break."
...How many Americans will decide to forgo health insurance under the federal plan? Health-policy experts say it's difficult to predict, although Massachusetts' experience indicates it will be a pretty low number, less than 1 percent of the population. The federal health-care-reform plan is relatively generous with its subsidies: Massachusetts subsidizes health care only for individuals who make up to $32,490, whereas the federal plans reach up to $43,320. Both versions of the bill also allow parents to keep their children on their insurance plan into their late-20s (26 in the Senate, 27 in the House), protecting another financially vulnerable population.
Speaking of cost controls, DailyKos' McJoan continues blogging the health care reform beat with a take-down of the Senate bill's "regulation" of insurance companies, specifically the prohibition on rescissions, and asks "Will Insurance Companies be team Players?" Based on what they're doing in California, McJoan thinks not.
Almost as if in answer to McJoan's concerns, the Washington Post's Ezra Klein points to five cost controls he sees in the Senate bill (including the excise tax, critiqued by RJ Eskow here), and why he things insurers will be team players under the Senate version of health care reform:
Health-care reform isn't creating a monopoly market. There are other industries where people need to patronize some for-profit company. Food, for instance. But if there are a variety of companies competing for customers, monopoly problems don't emerge.
Under health-care reform, there are at least three bulwarks against the monopoly-profits scenario: Inter-insurer competition, regulators, and the tax on excessive premiums. Two of these mechanisms don't exist in the current market. One -- the market itself -- is much weaker and more opaque, and individuals have a far harder time navigating it.
At this point, I should have a macro on my keyboard for this concluding line: Is it perfect? No. Is it good enough? Maybe not, even. Is it better than what we have?
Absolutely.
Robert Reich says passage of the Senate bill is a win for private insurance, and a loss for the public: "Real reform has moved from a Medicare-like public option open to all, to a public option open to 6 million without employer coverage (still in the House bill), to a public option open only to those same people in states that opt for it, or about 4 million (the original Harry Reid version of the Senate bill), to no public option but expanded Medicare (the Senate compromise) to no expanded Medicare at all (the deal with Joe "I love all the attention" Lieberman). In other words, the private insurers are winning and the public is losing.
Days after the Senate rejected a plan to import low-cost drugs, MapLight.Org reveals that Democrats voting no on drug imports received more money from Big Pharma.
Despite all this drama, Chris Bowers says Obama won't find a health care reform bill under the White House Tree in time for Christmas. And AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka says the Senate bill as is will die in the house.
Bernake, Greenspan and Jobs
Ben Bernanke may have gotten a step closer to being reappointed as chair of the Fed, but the vote portends more trouble when the full Senate votes: "On Thursday, the Senate Banking Committee voted 16 to 7 to approve Mr. Bernanke's nomination. While that vote moves the nomination to the full Senate, it also represents the most "no" votes a Fed chairman's nomination has received in at least three decades. If history is any guide, the vote in the full Senate will be even more contentious"
That's especially true if Bernanke keeps priotizing jobs downward, as Matt Yglesias notes:
Apparently David Vitter managed to find some time in his busy schedule of hooker-visiting to actually do something clever and round up a bunch of questions from economists for Ben Bernanke to answer. The best one is, I think, from Brad Delong:
Why haven't you adopted a 3% per year inflation target?
The public's understanding of the Federal Reserve's commitment to price stability helps to anchor inflation expectations and enhances the effectiveness of monetary policy, thereby contributing to stability in both prices and economic activity. Indeed, the longer-run inflation expectations of households and businesses have remained very stable over recent years. The Federal Reserve has not followed the suggestion of some that it pursue a monetary policy strategy aimed at pushing up longer-run inflation expectations. In theory, such an approach could reduce real interest rates and so stimulate spending and output. However, that theoretical argument ignores the risk that such a policy could cause the public to lose confidence in the central bank's willingness to resist further upward shifts in inflation, and so undermine the effectiveness of monetary policy going forward. The anchoring of inflation expectations is a hard-won success that has been achieved over the course of three decades, and this stability cannot be taken for granted. Therefore, the Federal Reserve's policy actions as well as its communications have been aimed at keeping inflation expectations firmly anchored.
This answer reminds us both of why people like Ben Bernanke—he's an intelligence and honest public servant—and also of why I've been complaining about Ben Bernanke.
Meanwhile jobless claims rose again for the second week in a row: "The number of people filing for state unemployment benefits rose for a second straight week, the Labor Department reported Thursday.The number of initial claims in the week ended Dec. 12 increased to 480,000, up 7,000 from the prior week. The consensus forecast of Wall Street economists was for claims to fall to 465,000."
Bernanke's predecessor, Alan Greenspan — the man who, along with Bernanke, managed not to see the economic disaster on the horizon, despite all manner of warnings — thinks the deficit commission is a dandy idea.
Hope Comes to Copenhagen?
Obama arrived in Copenhagen in time for the closing act, with the message that it's time to get the show on the road:
The question is whether we will move forward together, or split apart. This is not a perfect agreement, and no country would get everything that it wants. There are those developing countries that want aid with no strings attached, and who think that the most advanced nations should pay a higher price. And there are those advanced nations who think that developing countries cannot absorb this assistance, or that the world's fastest-growing emitters should bear a greater share of the burden.
We know the fault lines because we've been imprisoned by them for years. But here is the bottom line: we can embrace this accord, take a substantial step forward, and continue to refine it and build upon its foundation. We can do that, and everyone who is in this room will be a part of an historic endeavor—one that makes life better for our children and grandchildren.
Or we can again choose delay, falling back into the same divisions that have stood in the way of action for years. And we will be back having the same stale arguments month after month, year after year—all while the danger of climate change grows until it is irreversible.
There is no time to waste. America has made our choice. We have charted our course, we have made our commitments, and we will do what we say. Now, I believe that it's time for the nations and people of the world to come together behind a common purpose.
Grist's David Roberts thinks they might just pull it off: "This thing might just come together after all. I've said all along that the first week and half of these international climate talks will consist of posturing, ultimatum trading, threats to walk out, and other drama, each twist and turn amplified by a milling, ravenous press corps that's locked out of the rooms where the real action is happening. While the chaos rages outside, negotiators will be plugging away, feeling out the shape of an agreement, careful to concede nothing in public. In the last few days, as ministers and heads of delegations get more involved, there will be signs of movement. Then heads of state will arrive to hammer out final details and triumphantly sign a weak but better-than-nothing agreement."
Daily Kos' Meteor Blades just sees so much "magical thinking": With demonstrators being arrested every day and non-traditional media, plus some mainstream media, being kept out of discussions, the climate change talks in Copenhagen are teetering on the precipice of outright failure. While some progress has been made, even the arrival of the chiefs of more than 100 governments Friday, including President Barack Obama, seems unlikely to accomplish in less than 24 hours what hasn't been achieved in two weeks of talks or the months of preparation for them."
Home for the Holidays?
Perhaps not wanting to be cast in the role of Scrooge this season, Citibank along with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have announced a halt on foreclosures. Citibank is suspending foreclosures for 30 days, while Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are halting foreclosures for two weeks, both ensuring that homeowners won't be out in the cold. For now. There's a foreclosure backlog of about 1.7 million Americans on the verge of foreclosure. And unless something changes, most of them will be out of luck. McClatchy reports that homeowners are often rejected under Obama's mortgage prevention plan:
To date, more than 759,000 trial loan modifications have been started, but just 31,382 have been converted to permanent new loans. That's averages out to 4 percent, far below the 75 percent conversion rate President Barack Obama has said he seeks.
In the fine print of the form homeowners fill out to apply for Obama's program, which lowers monthly payments for three months while the lender decides whether to provide permanent relief, borrowers must waive important notification rights.
This clause allows banks to reject borrowers without any written notification and move straight to auctioning off their homes without any warning.
More Americans who still have their homes, for now, are getting getting help from the government to heat them. USA Today: "More Americans are getting help to pay home heating bills, and more are likely to need help as the economy continues to struggle, says the National Energy Assistance Directors' Association. Almost 8 million U.S. households received federal government help to heat homes in fiscal year 2009, up 33% from the prior year, the association says. Applications for assistance in the current fiscal year, which started Oct. 1, are running even higher as more people join the ranks of the long-term unemployed, the association says."
