I read the latest update on the HCR talks. Based on the president’s latest push and congressional responses, I’m now in the cautiously optimistic category that HCR will pass but that’s not the only news that caught my eye. It seems that Dem leadership is trying to put a major part of Student Loan reform in the reconciliation package as well.

Click here to read the whole update on HCR talks.

Pelosi and other House Democrats want to include Obama’s proposed overhaul of the nation’s student loan programs in the second, fix-it health care bill. The measure would require the Education Department to originate all student assistance loans, effectively eliminating a role for banks and private lenders.

That idea has run into opposition from several Senate Democrats, and while officials said the controversy was debated at length in a closed-door meeting Tuesday night, no decision was made.

Like usual the conservadems are trying to block progress and I know loans would be underwritten by private banks but this move would reverse some of the changes Republicans made to the Student Loan system in the past couple of decades.

OK I refuse to watch Beck but from what I heard about Massa’s interview with him it was just strange in some ways. I know very little about Massa and he’s innocent until anything is proven but wow one of his answers sounded just like the excuses men who harass women in the work place make all the time.

Click here to read whole article.

In a one-hour interview with Beck that had much of the journalism world gawking and twittering in amazement, Massa offered a series of bizarre, even inexplicable explanations for his abrupt departure from office. Coming just hours after news broke that the he was under investigation for groping multiple male staffers, Massa insisted that the interactions were playful in nature, though inappropriate in retrospect.

“Not only did I grope him, I tickled him until he couldn’t breathe,” he said. “I should have never allowed myself to be as familiar with my staff as I was… I own this misbehavior.”

If that wasn’t enough of a head-scratcher, Massa grew even more cryptic and bizarre when the topic turned to his insistence that Democratic forces had forced him out of office — because they were so worried that he would derail health care reform. He did say that the decision “not to run again” was his and his alone — but he still pegged his immediate resignation to White House brow-beating.

And yet, the only evidence he could summon was basic and formulaic types of political pressure.

“It literally keeps me awake at night,” he said. “Glenn, I have had people come to me, union leaders — and I’m a union guy and I know you’re not — who look at me and said, ‘If you don’t support this health care bill, I will not contribute to your campaign’. Glenn that’s a bribe.”

Even Beck wasn’t buying it, pointing out that what Massa was talking about was, in fact, just lobbying.

His last comment sounds equally as strange. If labour unions can’t lobby to fight corporations than we are surely finished. ChoiceLady may have some insight into lobbying by left leaning and truly non-partisan organizations.

So it’s come to this on the eve of a possible passage of healthcare reform, arguably the most important and far-reaching legislation to be passed by Congress since Civil Rights and Medicare came into being in the mid-1960s.

The passage of the Senate Bill in the House hangs by the thread of Denis Kucinich’s vote, whilst celebrity blogger, Jane Hamsher, weighs in with a clarion call for the resignation of Lynne Woolsey, co-chair of the Progressive Caucus in the House and one of the most liberal members in that body.

Kucinich, who voted against the House bill, itself, siding with the Republicans, in early November, is holding out and tilting at windmills for nothing less than a single-payer program to be implemented. Hamsher’s demand for Woolsey’s resignation is a result of Woolsey, another Representative who voted with the Opposition in November, having held her nose and indicated that she would pass the Senate bill on the understanding that a possible public option might be considered on reconciliation.

She compromised, which is what a great deal of our politics – indeed, most politics in the civilised world – is all about: debate, discuss and compromise. She recognised the importance of not wimping out on the one-yard line. She accepted the fact that most pieces of important legislation begin life as a base on which better legislation can be built.

But that’s not enough for Hamsher, who’s not averse to crawling into political bed with the likes of Grover Norquist, spiritual father-confessor of the Teabagging Movement, in an attempt to kill the healthcare bill. In doing this, Hamsher naively thinks that the whole of the Congress, with the President dancing attendance, will sit down again and consider that single-payer is the only route to healthcare the country can afford to take.

Maybe it is. Maybe it’s not. I’ve lived with a single-payer system in the UK  for almost 29 years. I’ve seen it at its best, and I’ve seen it at its worst. Is the quality of care comparable to anything we have in the US? Quite honestly, I have to say no – considering the private health insurance that I carried when I taught school in the States, no. Sometimes, you luck out here and get good nurses, doctors who’ll spend time with you and answer your questions and efficient bureaucracy.  Sometimes shit happens.

At the moment, corporate influence is worming its way into the system in the shape and form of the genial figure of Richard Branson. Gordon Brown has allowed him to buy into however many medical practices that he can afford – and being Richard Branson, that will be a lot – becoming, effectively, a sleeping partner and investing in the running costs and salaries of officials associated with those medical practices. These will be renamed, collectively, Virgin Health (along with Virgin Travel, Virgin Money, Virgin Communications, Virgin Television and Virgin Broadband). I suspect this means that other tycoons will take over other medical practices and before you can sneeze, we’ll be paying handsomely (and privately) to see our GP, to have various and sundry tests run, which - under the old National Health – would have all been free at source.

It’s a sneaky way to cut services offered, whilst increasing the extra tax charged here to fund healthcare, the National Insurance. Everyone pays proportionate to their income. At least, Maggie Thatcher was honest enough to say outright that she was cutting dentistry and optical care out of the package.

I’m also still American enough to know that a single-payer system - indeed, any universal healthcare system – will, inevitably, mean an increase in taxes, overall – something that sticks in the craw of most Americans of any political persuasion.

Suffice it to say that single-payer is a non-starter; but that doesn’t necessarily mean that it won’t happen, for better or for worse.

Hamsher made waves a few months ago, when the Senate was preparing to pass its healthcare bill when she infamously joined forces Norquist in an effort to kill the Healthcare bill. This was grandstanding at its worst and, also, incredibly naive; for Hamsher thought that, almost immediately, this would force Congress to sit down at a table and start again from scratch with healthcare reform, effectively hammering through a single-player plan.

As if.

The last time healthcare got bitch-slapped into submission (and by a Democratic Congress) was when Bill Clinton despatched Hillary to the Hill with a fully formulated healthcare plan to place before their hallowed portals.

She got pretty short shrift, and that was almost 17 years ago.

Within the political system, itself, we now hear that Nancy Pelosi is redoubling all efforts, with the help of the President, in trying to convince a recalcitrant Denis Kucinich to support passage of this bill.

I’m not the biggest fan of Kucinich, but I admire him as a man of principle. He seems to be one of the few serving politicos who’s remained true to his core beliefs. However, this is a seminal moment in United States political history.

We are about to be presented with an actual healthcare program, which would ensure coverage of an additional 30,000,000 people, making this almost universal in concept. Is it a great piece of legislation? No. It’s not perfect, but – as everyone’s said endlessly – neither was Social Security in its original form. But it gives us a platform, a foundation upon which to build – and legislation, in the form of an amendment tacked onto an existing law, is something that only requires 51 Senate votes in order to bring it into being.

That Kucinich has now become the Lieberman of the House, holding out on a hiding to nothing in a quixotic attempt to force single-payer into the equation – single-payer not the ubiquitous public option – ceases to be harmless windmill tilting and becomes, in its stead, the proverbial straw that’s going to break the camel’s back of healthcare reform in the United States.

This begs the question, cynic that I am, of when, exactly, one’s ego overrides one’s principles, at the expense of one’s constituents? Because politicos of all persuasion, to have even arrived at the door of the national legislative body, need an ego of considerable dimensions. A situation like this would put the most milquetoast of men in a position to wield enormous power with equally enormous demands, should he choose. We all remember Joe Lieberman’s and Ben Nelson’s antics.

It’s moments like these when I think that the US Congress – and, in particular, this fractured Democratic Party – would benefit from a stronger ‘whip’ system, which is used in the British House of Commons. The political whips actually do figuratively whip their party members into a situation where they are compelled to vote the party line. To refuse to do so, for whatever principle, results in what is known as a withdrawal of the whip. Put bluntly, the recalcitrant member is unceremoniously kicked out of his respective party. He can still serve as an elected member, but the next time there’s a general election, he has to find a new group of playmates or beg forgiveness of his party leaders. It happened to George Galloway. It happened to Clare Short. No one is too big for the party.

I’ve no doubt that Kucinich is devoted to the principle of seeing single-payer firmly ensconced as a Third Rail in the American healthcare system. Bernie Sanders is also, but Sanders, a real Independent, knows that sometimes it’s mete to swallow hard and be pragmatic – one of the rules of political life you’d think a seasoned campaigner like Kucinich would know. Yet I also can’t help wonder how much this incident is Kucinich’s big moment in the spotlight, his chance to be Napoleon for the day, and which might turn into his jump-the-shark moment.

On a Napoleonic scale, he’d do well to remember that Jim DeMint, NOPer extraordinaire, has sworn to make healthcare reform Obama’s Waterloo. The House bill which passed in November did so on the strength of 5 votes, and one of those didn’t belong to Kucinich. Since that time, the lone Republican who voted for the bill has been bullied into seeing sense by his political ‘betters.’ Jack Murtha has died. Another Congressman switched parties and a fourth resigned. If the one vote that’s the difference between healthcare and health hell is Denis Kucinich, imagine the irony of this Democratic Napoleon effecting his own party’s Waterloo.

From that moment onward, Obama would become a lame duck President, and the Democratic Party would be seen to be shallow, divided and incapable (as well as unworthy) of governing.

Jane Hamsher is a private citizen. As such, she – like any other private citizen – is entitled to call for the resignation of any public official. That’s her right, just as it’s the official’s right to ignore the demand. But the demand got her the attention (and her blogsite, the clicks) she sought. With that in mind, I’d like to call for the resignation of the 5 conservative members of the Supreme Court, who have played god to create corporate personhood, my Congressman, Frank Wolf, for spending most of his spare time on his knees in the C Street cathouse, and Eric Cantor, because I don’t like the smirk on his face, as well as his politics.

But it ain’t gonna happen, is it?

It’s unfortunate that the single-payer option was never in the running to be adopted as the universal healthcare system in the US, but if the entire healthcare reform process is derailed because of the stubborn pride masqueraded and paraded as an unbending principle of a United States Congressman, then that’s more than unfortunate. It’s a totally unmitigated tragedy.

The pride of a high-profiled Leftie like Hamsher and a Democratic Congressman of Kucinich’s ilk goeth mightily before a fall of a political party, which might find itself in the wilderness of opposition for the far and foreseeable future.

At the end of the day, I hope both Kucinich and Hamsher won’t miss the noses they’ve cut off their faces much. At least, they’ll be spared the stench that comes with a Republican administration – or the smell of mooseburgers roasting on the White House barbecue.

If you wish, sign the White House commitment to give Healthcare Reform a chance to pass with an up or down vote through budget reconciliation.

Last Thursday’s first-of-its-kind summit capped off a debate that has lasted nearly a year. Every idea has now been put on the table. Every argument has been made. Both parties agree that the status quo is unacceptable and gets more dire each day. Today, I want to state as clearly and forcefully as I know how: Now is the time to make a decision about the future of health care in America.

The final proposal I’ve put forward draws on the best ideas from all sides, including several put forward by Republicans at last week’s summit. It will put Americans in charge of their own health care, ensuring that neither government nor insurance company bureaucrats can ration, deny, or put out of financial reach the care our families need and deserve.

I strongly believe that Congress now owes the American people a final vote on health care reform. Reform has already passed the House with bipartisan support and the Senate with a super-majority of sixty votes. Now it deserves the same kind of up-or-down vote that has been routinely used and has passed such landmark measures as welfare reform and both Bush tax cuts.

Earlier today, I asked leaders in both houses of Congress to finish their work and schedule a vote in the next few weeks. From now until then, I will do everything in my power to make the case for reform. And now, I’m asking you, the members of the Organizing for America community, to raise your voice and do the same.

The final march for reform has begun, and your participation is crucial. Please commit to join with me to take reform across the finish line.

Essentially, my proposal would change three things about the current health care system:

First, it would protect all Americans from the worst practices of insurance companies. Never again will the mother with breast cancer have her coverage revoked, see her premiums arbitrarily raised, or be forced to live in fear that a pre-existing condition will bar her from future coverage.

Second, my proposal would give individuals and small businesses the same choice of private health insurance that members of Congress get for themselves. And my proposal says that if you still can’t afford the insurance in this new marketplace, we will offer you tax credits based on your income — tax credits that add up to the largest middle class tax cut for health care in history.

Finally, my proposal would bring down the cost of health care for everyone — families, businesses, and the federal government — and bring down our deficit by as much as $1 trillion over the next two decades. These savings mean businesses small and large will finally be freed up to create jobs and increase wages. With costs currently skyrocketing, reform is vital to remaining economically strong in the years and decades to come.

In the few crucial weeks ahead, you can help make sure this proposal becomes law. Please sign up to join the Organizing for America campaign in the final march for reform:

http://my.barackobama.com/commit

When I talked about change on the campaign, this is what I was talking about: coming together to solve a huge problem that has been troubling America for 100 years and standing up to the special interests to deliver a brighter, smarter future for generations to come.

I look forward to signing this historic reform into law. And when I do, it will be because your organizing played an essential role in making change possible.

Thank you,

President Barack Obama

I will put up video of President Obama’s last healthcare reform speech when it’s available.

Watch live and join the live commenting on The Health Care Summit:

MoveOn’s Virtual March on Washington for health care reform and the Public Option is in full swing today, already over 811,000 people participating and climbing!

If you’re interested in adding your voice, here’s a link:  http://pol.moveon.org/virtualmarch10/action.html?rc=homepage

By adding your name, MoveOn will send a fax to Congress in your name and instantly provides a pop up of your Senators’ names and phone numbers so you can call their offices to further make a strong impression on them on how important it is to you to pass HCR and fight as hard as possible for a true Public Option.

I recently read a  remarkable article that answered one of my burning questions:

Why Are Americans Passive as Millions Lose Their Homes, Jobs, Families and the American Dream?

I want to discuss it here but it’s tricky—these are not my original ideas and the author, Harriet Fraad, deserves full credit.  It made me think and it made me realize how my own life experiences validate her theory.  I couldn’t help but to try to summarize it and share it with you.

In her cover article in Tikkun Magazine, Harriet Fraad states that an economic and psychological disaster has struck America. “Five contributors, each interacting with and shaping the others, have devastated the American moral, economic, psychological, and social landscape. Each is fed by related streams, but each contributes its own force to the disaster. The American dream in which each generation surpassed the previous generation in real wages has all but disappeared, along with dreams of an intact family, a steady job, a home, and an honest supportive community,” she writes.

We  on PlanetPOV and at other blogs have discussed the fact that Americans seem so apathetic, so docile. I know I have for a long time been lamenting the Left’s lack of a leader who could mobilize us. We have discussed the contrast between the American public and our European counterparts, who we see taking to the streets in protest, carrying out national strikes that temporarily paralyze their countries and getting serious attention. There are historical and social circumstances which explain the differences between us and the Europeans, but still—why are we so passive?

“What happened is a result of at least five major, interrelated forces. One is a transformation of American morality, and with it the loss of belief that the social and political realms could be shaped by morality, ethics, and secular spirituality. Another is an economic depression. A third is a transformation of the family, which has been the foundation of American emotional life. A fourth is the decimation of Americans’ social participation in all areas, from bridge clubs and PTAs to political parties. A fifth is the tranquilizing and numbing of the American population with psychotropic medications.”

I will do my best to summarize her, to my mind, brilliant ideas.

1. The Crisis in Morality and Social Ethics

In the 1960s it was common to believe that morality and spirituality included a concern for all human beings, rich and poor alike. The Age of Aquarius. Last Friday night here on the Planet, we played the music from those halcyon (and hallucinogenic) 60’s. I remember that time through a daze of youth and exuberance, and I remember that despite all the innocence was a realization that the world was cruel and that the government wasn’t listening to us; that it was “the Man.” And man, did we protest: Civil Rights, Viet Nam, the sit-ins, the teach-ins, the Marches on Washington!

By the 70’s we settled down to careers and work and starting families, and we quieted down too. Then came Reagan’s presidency in 1981, and with that the conservative push- back against those social ethics we thought we had re-energized.  It got worse in Reagan’s second term and was reinforced by each president until the nadir presidency of George W. Bush.

Reagan’s ideology was that people are poor because they lack incentives. He claimed that poor people’s noble drive to get rich is eroded by social programs that permit them to survive or, in his term, “freeload.”  Black welfare queens—and the government which created them –were the problem. The problem wasn’t poverty in America, it was the Americans who were poor! Just, WOW.  In Reagan’s venal mind, income tax cuts increased the incentive to work and get rich, so we would all benefit from them. In 1980 the highest incomes were taxed at 73 percent; in  2009 those same high incomes were taxed at half that rate, 35 percent.

Reagan cut social programs while increasing military spending and claiming that government was too big. That pattern has been repeated ever since, which is how, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the United States went from being the most egalitarian western industrialized society in 1970 to the least egalitarian in 2009. We regressed into an Old World class-based society. Remember Nancy, with her expensive new White House china, her socialite friends like Alfred and Betsy Bloomingdale, her Oscar de le Renta gowns? Ah, the opulence! “Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous” became a popular TV show too.

In addition, the Soviet model of socialism failed. It did not provide the kind and ethical societies that are part of a socialist vision, and in fact, was not authentic communism. This only made capitalism seem like it was decidedly superior. And the more unbridled, the better.

While the Moral Majority rose, our county’s morality and ethics declined. We were, in reality, never the moral beacon we said we were, but at least we aspired to be that. Where our morality once required the United States to embody our ethics in the world and empower all citizens, it  shifted so that our morality now consists of requiring conservative personal and sexual behavior. Fraad says, “Within that morality Clinton committed an impeachable crime by lying about having sex with an intern, while Bush and Cheney did not commit impeachable crimes by lying about the threat from Iraq and thus causing the deaths of over four thousand U.S. soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians, or by torturing prisoners.” It is not considered immoral to spend between six billion and twelve billion dollars a week on the war in Iraq while cutting school and social programs for needy families because “there is not enough money.” The secular morality that made America a proudly democratic and egalitarian nation has deteriorated. I agree the author when she avers that we are experiencing a national moral, ethical, and spiritual crisis.

2. The Dying of the Economic Dream

A second contributor to American passivity is the economic crisis we are suffering. For 150 years, from 1820-1970, U.S. salaries rose as did worker productivity. For 150 years, each generation was able to afford a better standard of living than the generation that preceded it. That was the American dream. It was a phenomenon and it became expected, as a given.

American labor fought for an increasing amount of income that would permit workers to consume more goods and services, a system in which each generation could climb the corporate ladder. Blue-collar workers’ children could become white-collar, and white-collar children could become professionals in the next generation. U.S. growth permitted ever-increasing real wages and possibilities for consumption. Even in the Great Depression from 1929-1939, real wages, the amount that one could buy with one’s wages, were able to rise because prices fell even faster than wages.

That all stopped in 1970. Computers, better telecommunications and other efficiencies enabled jobs to be outsourced to lower-paid workers overseas. Competing factories in Europe and Japan, which had been decimated by World War II, were now vying for U.S. markets. When I was a kid in the 1950’s, products from Japan were considered inferior. The label “Made in Japan” was hidden; some Japanese manufacturers went so far as to invent a fictional city called Usa, so that they could honestly label their products as “MADE IN USA.” That all changed fairly quickly and Japanese products became prestigious. Our first really good stereo system had the now-proud name AIWA. Then China emerged as a manufacturing giant.

The outsourcing of American jobs to cheaper labor markets was not stopped by the weakened unions. Unlike our European counterparts, we did not enjoy working-class solidarity with other workers. Europeans organized their working unions along political lines. They fought for better conditions as part of the ideology of long-term communist and socialist struggles for ownership and control of their workplaces. Americans have been taught to reject—indeed, to fear—those ideologies. And St. Ronnie– “Daddy”– was the President that busted the unions. Our closest friend in those days was in the PATCO union and overnight went from being an air traffic controller to operating a forklift in a factory. At the time, Reagan told the media that the air traffic controllers were greedy and were striking for higher salaries, when their true bottom line issue was air traffic safety. How hypocritical is that—that the spokesman for Greed-is-Good busted a “greedy” union?

Fraad states, “Americans’ sense of self worth was in large part dependent on their net worth. They became increasingly depressed. Their sense of personal value was cut with their salaries. This happened as the advertising industry burgeoned. Advertising continuously and relentlessly sells consumption as the path to happiness. Consumption was undermined and with it stability, prosperity, and a sense of personal success.”

3. The Crisis in Personal and Family Life

Before the 1970s, most white American women worked only when they were single, divorced or needed to work for a variety of reasons. In 1970, 40 percent of U.S. women were in the labor force, mostly part time. By the year 2008, 75 percent of U.S. women were in the labor force, mostly full time. Many women  (myself included) enjoyed the greater autonomy, variation, and creativity that jobs could provide, but there was little governmental assistence for day care, after-school programs, or elder care. Nor any corporate supports. Americans love to claim their devotion to “family values” while doing very little to actually help families.

Women’s work outside of the home helped to improve the standard of living for most families, but it did not compensate families for lost white male wages. Women’s wage work (which is still unequal) imposes not only the obvious expenses of additional clothing and transportation, but also the costs of purchasing some of the goods and services that women previously produced at home, such as cooking, mending, cleaning, shopping, and child care. When I was married in 1974, it was taken for granted that I would work, even though my husband was a decently paid white-collar worker. I cannot imagine being a stay-at-home mom, but during that period I often felt I was working just to pay for child care and the occasional cleaning service. Working is expensive. The latest figures from Salary.com indicate that if a stay-at-home mother in the United States were replaced by paid domestic products and services, the cost would be $122,732 a year. Even with women flooding into the labor force, families are still financially hurting. More money has been accumulating at the top while the mass of Americans suffer from frozen wages.

The corporate class then vigorously “promoted the credit card to lend to Americans the money that they formerly would have earned in growing wages. Families became dependent on credit card debt. Since the interest rate on credit cards ranges from 15 percent to 25 percent, Americans descended into debt at record-breaking levels,” writes Fraad.

The living standard of Americans deteriorated psychologically as well. Say what you will, but when I was a young wife and mother in the 80’s, women were usually the ones who arranged the kids’ social lives and activities, from play dates to dental appointments. Women were (and still are?) usually the directors of adult social life as well. In American culture, women provide most of the emotional effort to make home a warm and comfortable place for men and children. Maybe this is a generational attitude on my part, but I believe it to be mostly true. Says Fraad, “The more women work outside of the home without social support in the form of child care programs and domestic help, the more stressed, overworked, and emotionally unavailable they become. Overwhelmed women have less energy for the roles of social director and organizer, as well as emotional and physical caregiver.” Households are hurting emotionally. When Bush took office in 2000, he cut many of the already hobbled social programs that allowed families to survive. Families are in trouble.

Women are really not able—or willing– to work outside of the home, do the lion’s share of the domestic work, and simultaneously take care of their children’s and husbands’ physical and emotional needs largely unaided either by their husbands or by social programs.  For the first time in American history, the majority of women are abandoning marriage. Women now initiate two-thirds of divorces. Half of first marriages and 60 percent of second marriages end in legal separation or divorce.

These changes in households and family life are a third tributary to America’s deluge of disaster. Americans have lost both the dream of ever-increasing prosperity and the dream of a stable and connected family life. I would add to that the pressures of the sandwich generation, where not only most people work and raise children, but must often care for elderly parents as well. People are stretched to breaking—or to shutting down.

4. Americans’ Increasing Isolation from One Another

A fourth disaster is closely related. “Beginning once again in the 1970s,”  writes Fraad, “ nearly all social connections between Americans declined. The decay in U.S. social life was an almost total phenomenon. It extended from inviting friends to dinner, to joining bridge clubs or bowling leagues, to volunteering for noncontroversial activities such as the PTA or Red Cross blood drives, to participating in more controversial activities such as working for a cause or a political candidate.”

There are a few theories as to why Americans have dropped out of U.S. social life and civic life.The most obvious reason would seem that we are just too busy, but seriously, hasn’t every generation been just as busy in their own ways?  Again, when I was in my twenties and thirties, working and married and raising our son, I was busy. Yet I was active in my community, joined professional associations and we had an active social life.

Plus, the average American watches four hours of television a day, which would be difficult to manage with an intensely busy schedule. Extensive television viewing may be a culprit since more people relate to their television sets than to each other, and the heaviest viewing correlates to the least social participation. Television is intensely PASSIVE though. This feels more like a symptom than a cause of the problems that isolate Americans. People say it as an addiction that compels without satisfying. Like any addiction, people use television for the purpose of distraction or entertainment, as an escape.

Perhaps the greatest reason we are isolated is that Americans are psychologically and physically exhausted. We have fewer vacations and longer workweeks than any of our Western European counterparts. Activity in society, including political activism, has become a luxury good for those fortunate few who have extra time and energy. “The Left’s natural constituency, the mass of Americans, is exhausted, disillusioned, and in despair. To add to their despair, the tremendous wealth at the top of society has been used to fund right-wing media outlets like Fox News, to name just one example. At the same time, the skewed distribution of wealth allows vast sums to be given to politicians who advance the fortunes of those who pay their way. Immense wealth is invested in weakening the regulations against enormous giving at the top. These developments increase the conviction that ordinary people make no difference in politics. They have no voice. The force of the Left is further weakened.” I can’t argue with that.

There is, however, a surprising (to me) growth in four social groups: Evangelical religious groups; GLBT groups; internet groups; and self-help groups. More about that in a minute.

5. The Drugging of America

The fifth tributary that helped to create our deluge of disaster is another cause and effect of America’s social breakdown. This is the numbing of Americans with psychotropic drugs. In 2006, Americans consumed 66 percent of the world’s supply of antidepressants. In 2002, more than 13 percent of Americans were taking Prozac alone. Prozac is one of thirty available antidepressants. Anti-anxiety drugs, such as Zoloft, are so widely prescribed that in the year 2005, the $3.1 billion sales of Zoloft exceeded the sales for Tide detergent. Brain-washing exceeds clothes washing!

Many of these drugs are diagnosed for loneliness, sadness, life transitions, or to help us concentrate. Antidepressants have become acceptable through extensive direct-to-consumer advertising and marketing to doctors. The United States is the only Western nation that permits direct-to-consumer drug advertising. We are also the only nation without price controls on drugs. Psychiatric drugs have helped make the pharmaceutical industry the most profitable industry in America, and antidepressants are their most profitable products. Soma of “Brave New World” anyone?

What Can We Do?

The current disaster did not just happen with the recent burst of the stock market and housing bubbles. Even before the economic collapse, we have known on some level that we could not pay our credit card bills or our mortgages. We responded with denial, withdrawal, depression, and dissociation accomplished with the aid of extensive “reality” television viewing and preoccupation with scandals and celebrities.

Each of the five tributaries flowed together to drown the mass of Americans in debt, family dissolution, isolation, and drug-induced apathy. Americans – or at least 57% or more of us—are now be looking for change. We elected a president who promised change. That change has not yet happened, and it might not happen. Where else can we look?

Capitalism needs and breeds consumerism. We are surrounded by advertisements for products. And it has a toxic side effect. Capitalist consumerism coveys the message that relationships happen through products.  Scenes of connection with a group of friends include Budweiser beer. The devoted mother uses Swiffer (an ecological nightmare, BTW) and kills every last germ along with any healthy microbe with anti-bacterial solutions. The sexy woman, whom men want and women want to be, seems to come with new cars. Ads appear whenever we turn on our computers, read newspapers or magazines, watch TV and see a movie. Our streets and transit and stadiums and even out national parks are littered with advertising directed to all ages. Go to Europe and while there is advertising, it is nowhere near as ubiquitous, and Europeans neither have nor seem to need as much stuff. Harriet Fraad writes, “We need more images of people who enjoy their connection and work through the difficult times involved in creating close, mutual, nurturing relationships. How do we manage to effect change within this environment? Where are the contradictions that create openings?”

A Time When Noncommercial Values Are Attractive

“One opportunity for change has emerged due to the recent capitalist collapse, which has intensified American suffering. People can no longer afford the brand-name products seen on TV. Their economic woes reveal the relentless hustling of now unaffordable consumer products. They try generics, unknown brands, and less consumption, and often find them just as good. This presents us with an opening to question. New, noncommercial values can form,” claims the author.

Since Americans are hooked on the mass media, and the media loves anything new, the Left can create media-attracting new actions. The anarchist group that formed around a book called The Coming Insurrection got the media’s attention when a well-publicized group jumped on stage at Barnes & Noble in New York for a spontaneous reading that began, “Everyone agrees it’s about to explode.” The action was widely covered for its novelty. As we here on PlanetPOV have discussed, Javaz’s political action proposal could provide us with the opportunity to create something like this.

Self-Help Groups

The largest self-help groups are Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous. Alcohol and drugs have proved to be a personal and social disaster for millions of Americans. In the face of that disaster, millions join together in small groups where they share their pain and suffering within a supportive, nonjudgmental collective that operates without salaries, advertisements, or financial charges. “These twelve-step groups give the Left a window of possibility,” Fraad says. “We can add a thirteenth step to their twelve-step programs. We can add a step to organize against big pharmaceutical and liquor advertising, which profits on false promises. The Left desperately needs to address people’s despair and give them support. We can learn to incorporate nonjudgmental personal and political support, as well as psychological and political dimensions, to Left groups where both nonjudgmental attitudes and psychological support have been sadly lacking. The Left has tried too hard to focus on being correct and not enough effort on reaching people where they are hurting. We need to listen to people without judgment as they do in twelve-step programs.”

The GLBT Movement

We can also study the contradictions that helped to produce GLBT organizations. Advertising creates images of happiness achieved though products that make us sexually attractive. The sexy woman rides in the man’s sleek new car. The virile man drives a big truck and drinks Absolut. Multibillion-dollar industries such as the diet, cosmetic, and fashion industries promote products to enhance sexual attractiveness. Popular culture celebrates heterosexual coupling and family as ultimate happiness while avoiding mention of collective joys or homosexuality.

“The GLBT movement works to include those in their identity group who are excluded from the grand celebration of personal couple happiness built around sexual pairing. The very pressure to channel complex desires into heterosexual coupling helped lead GLBT people to, as a group, articulate collective visions of resistance and envision new possibilities.”

Since most families and relationships are breaking down, people desperately need connection. Organizing creates connection. Collective dreams have a chance to replace the individualistic desires cultivated in capitalist America.

What We Can Learn From Evangelicals’ Failures … and Successes

Conservative evangelical groups create a collective vision and connection while celebrating capitalist success as God’s blessing. They provide some of what people desperately need and the Left ignores, such as communal support for important work in the home. Conservative evangelicals  manage to accomplish this while sex- role stereotyping, as well as opposing every form of non-church-based support that actually allows families to stay afloat. They oppose single-payer health plans, Head Start for all, sex education (unless abstinence-based), family planning, maternity and paternity benefits, minimum wage hikes, etc. In the end they cannot deliver the support that families need. The savior they pray to has not saved them from financial and personal desperation and divorce.

The evangelical groups can, however show us part of what we are missing. There is now an opportunity for the wider community, with Left-leaning evangelicals connected to Sojourners, who see political activity as an expression of morality taken into the world. The failure of evangelical morality, which excludes social, economic, and political morality, may create an opening for a much-needed Left-wing program of social, political, economic, and personal ethics for which many hunger. I have to say, although it has been several years since I was involved, my greatest sense of connectedness was found when I was a member of a religious-based community. While I know this is not for everybody, I feel so strongly that belonging to some group or other is vital to our well-being. We are really, truly all connected, and we can’t see that when we are on a mountaintop or in our homes. Our personal work, as well as our societal work, is most effectively done in community. We are social beings.

Internet Organizing

There are explicitly political possibilities made possible by the net. MoveOn.org and other political groups organize and mobilize through the Web. In Iran, members of the opposition evaded censors, communicated with each other, and aroused national and international support through Twitter and Facebook. The Facebook account of Neda Soltani’s murder focused Iran and the world on the violent repression of Mousavi’s supporters. That possibility exists here—and I mean HERE, on the Planet.

The four social growth groups springing up in America’s desert of political opposition point out possible avenues for a Left that desperately needs direction. Let’s return to the original question:

Why are Americans passive as millions lose their homes, their jobs, their families, and the American dream?

Why do Americans remain at home, disorganized, while their European counterparts flood into the streets in militant, organized protests? How did this happen? What forces are responsible? We can see that the cycles of capitalism with its relentless need for consumer spending and capital accumulation at the top have devastated America. We can also see that unbridled capitalism has created mass suffering and then turned the rage of those who suffer against all who need governmental assistance and against additional scapegoats such as homosexuals, feminists, liberals, socialists, minorities and immigrants. Asks Fraad, “We can create new roads to reclaim this nation by organizing and activating the mass of Americans who know that the ostensible “recovery” will never return what they have lost. We dared to elect a president who championed change verbally, who campaigned on unity and respect for all, and who preserves the structures that destroyed our lives. En masse, we have turned to self-help groups, evangelists, psycho-pharmaceutical drugs, and sexual identity politics, which do not solve the multifaceted crisis in which we are drowning. America needs another way. Perhaps we can provide it?”

And I say: Yes we can! And you know what? We have begun to do that right here, on PlanetPOV. While the internet can isolate us, it can also bring us together. We have created a small virtual community here and I think it will grow. We care about each other here; we get involved in political and social action here; we support each other and learn from each other here. And we do all that on a non-commercial site. If we are going to overcome the passivity and depression that America has enabled, we need to use whatever tools we have to shake ourselves out of our torpor. “Walk it off,” as my dad used to tell us, and we can virtually do that.

Here’s the audio for the trailer of the new horror movie (for the GOP), “Night of the Living Reform”

NARRATOR: It was hacked into pieces! It was smothered alive! It was buried and left for dead! Now…it’s b-a-a-ack!!!

HOWARD DEAN: “When ya kill a bill, ya better make sure it’s dead!”

LINDSAY GRAHAM: “No! No! Don’t shove it down my throat! Yes! I mean no!”

MITCH MCCONNELL: “What he said!”

(GROWLING SOUNDS OF A BEAST)

RUSH LIMBAUGH: “Get out of here! Get away! I’ll sit on you! I’ll eat you! Get away!!! YOU’RE SUPPOSED TO BE DEAD! NOOO!!!

(SOUNDS OF PRESIDENTIAL HOPES CRUMBLING)

SARAH PALIN: “But…I killed you…you can’t be alive…I stabbed a death panel right through your heart! You can’t…Y-A-A-AH!!!

(SOUNDS OF A TAN TURNING WHITE)

JOHN BOEHNER: “This isn’t happening! This can’t be happening! I know how to stop you! ‘NO’! ‘NO’! It’s not working! Then eat filibuster!

(SOUNDS OF A FILIBUSTER GOING LIMP)

JOHN BOEHNER: “NOOO!!! Stop! For corporation’s sake, stop! You can’t roll over me! I’m TAN!!! ARGH!!!

NARRATOR:  Sometimes killing what a majority of Americans want…isn’t enough! HCR is back from the dead…and this time, it’s reconciled to kill the opposition! Night of the Living Reform! Coming soon!

Yes, momentum and possibly even reason has returned to the minds of Democrats in Congress. Their brilliant minds seem to have recovered from the Scott Brown election mentality of “Only 59 seats now! We’re helpless!” to “Hey…if we can’t do anything with 59 seats, how can I win re-election by saying keep us in the majority?”

So, a growing number of Dems in the House and most importantly, in The Senate are championing bringing back real HCR including a public option and using reconciliation to get through the changes to the Senate bill that couldn’t pass a filibuster. Just as many of us have been hammering them to do for a long time.

The House is 100% right not to sign the Senate bill until its horrible provisions have been overridden by the reconciliation bill…which needs to include a Public Option. If that is done, public opinion on all of this will turn around.

The main reason most opposed the bill was because the public option was killed and there would be mandatory purchase of policies from insurance companies who can, as Anthem tried, raise premiums 39% at a time and bankrupt citizens who would be breaking the law and penalized for not allowing themselves to be bankrupted.

This two step approach is so simple and reasoned. Pass the aspects that all can agree on then pass the aspects that favor Americans over corporations by 51 Dem votes.

Aside from reforming the filibuster, reconciliation is the only path for the Dems and Obama to turn around the perception of a gridlocked and helpless government. It is an absolute.  And they must not stop here, just as the GOP is using the filibuster to block everything, the Dems must use reconciliation to pass everything they possibly can through that method.

That means a jobs bill, bank and Wall Street reform, energy and carbon emissions bills, etc. Of course, there must be a budgetary element to any bill to qualify for reconciliation but how difficult would that be to have financial elements involved in each of these bills?

To me, it’s very simple. If the GOP is going to pull the emergency cord on every bill, the Dems should be prepared to pull their emergency cord in response. They are in the better position and could even use that as leverage to make agreements that if the GOP won’t filibuster, they won’t go around them with reconciliation and let them be part of the process.

I doubt this would work for a while but do they want to go 8 years without having any influence on any legislation? If public opinion turns around to support the progress occurring under Obama and Dems in Congress, what will they have to campaign on? Not one vote for anything?

I am FINALLY encouraged again that momentum is on our side but we need to keep it up and keep hammering any of our Senators and Congresspeople who are not already on board.

BTW, MoveOn.org is collaborating with DailyKos and a number of other sites and groups on Feb 24th to organize a 1 million message protest which I recommend to all members here to join. Here is a link to their site, click the article to sign up if you wish: http://moveon.org/

This can really happen if we fight hard enough against the GOP and corporations and for real health care reform, for all Americans, current and future!

According to the Whispering Reid, The Reid that blows in the wind…or the Reid that just simply blows, Sen. Reid will block the efforts by Dem Senators to reform the filibuster.

You see, this human tribute to invertebrates everywhere wants to make sure that the tyranny of democracy will never reek its destructive power in the Senate.

Yes, this walking Senatorial reminder to neuter your dogs wants to protect America from a Senate that could actually pass the agenda they’ve been mandated by the majority of Americans to pass.

This Prince of Procrastination, this Disciple of Dithering, this Fakir of Futility has decided that he likes the way everything’s gone over the last year and wants the next three years to be just like it. He supports the public’s growing distrust of government to get anything done. He is giving notice to the nation that The Senate is no place for such unAmerican concepts as majority rule, progress and obeying the will of the people.

It’s so unfair that he will likely be voted out in November…I’ve lost the receipt for this barrel of tar and sack of feathers and I just know I’ll never get around to selling them on eBay.

Wellpoint, LLC, parent of Anthem/Blue Cross which announced a record single increase of customer’s premiums by up to 39%, just delivered a letter to The White House to explain the necessary marketplace reasons for their outrageous increase. They sent it by email along with the following music video which they claimed should answer everyone’s questions:

Of course they cooked figures and reasons for it but as Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said in response:

“It remains difficult to understand how a company that made $2.7 billion in the last quarter of 2009 alone can justify massive increases that will leave consumers with nothing but bad options. “High healthcare costs alone cannot account for a premium increase that is 10 times higher than national health spending growth.”

That’s right. $2.7 billion in revenue in ONE QUARTER! And the respose to that is…raise premiums 39%.

I certainly hope Obama and Dems use this to hammer the GOP who want this rape of Americans to continue unabated. I hope they use it as ammunition with Dems in Congress to pass a public option via reconciliation.

Otherwise, if Americans vote Republican in November and 2012, they’re voluntarily cutting their own throats and getting treatment for that will not be pre-approved.

Tonight, Bill Moyers had a marvelous episode which I can’t recommend enough.

The first segment was about the SCOTUS decision and the impact on our democracy.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/02052010/watch.html

With pro and con voices.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/02052010/watch2.html

The second segment I found the most intriguing, with a doctor who had been working for single payer with Congress…and was ultimately shut down and out by the White House.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/02052010/watch3.html

And a final piece on which corporations finance these Republican and Democrat retreats.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/02052010/watch4.html

I highly recommend watching these segments and the rest of this remarkable episode.

The long debate over health care reform has now reached the end game, but there are still some obstacles to overcome before they can get a bill to President Obama’s desk. The question now becomes how the two houses of Congress can reconcile their differences.

The House and Senate versions of reform have many things in common, most important that both are projected to result in more than 30 million more Americans getting some kind of health coverage. The Senate and House bills both set up exchanges in which individuals without employer-sponsored health insurance and small businesses can shop for coverage. Both bills also include major reforms for the insurance industry that would prohibit insurers from excluding people from coverage for pre-existing conditions. Insurers also no longer would be able to base premiums on gender or occupation.

However, there are still some major areas of differences that both chambers must resolve. Here are the most important differences:

1. PUBLIC OPTION (and the health insurance exchange)

2. METHODS OF PAYING

• Taxes
• Coverage Mandates
• Employer Mandates

3. ABORTION

4. MEDICARE

5. MEDICAID

1. THE PUBLIC OPTION

“I would let this bill go to conference committee and see if we can fix this bill more … Let’s see what they add to this bill and make it work. If they can make it work without a public option, I’m all ears.” -Dr. Howard Dean

Senate

No public option. In order to get the filibuster-proof 60 votes for the bill, Majority Leader Harry Reid scrapped the creation of a new government-run health insurance plan. It had been so weakened by the time it made it into Reid’s bill that it was expected to enroll only several million people, but it was still a deal breaker for conservatives like Democrat Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Independent Joe Lieberman of Connecticut.

House

Contains a public option. The House bill would create a new government health insurance plan to compete with private insurers.  But even though they kept a public option in its bill, it would be financed solely by premiums without any government subsidization and is a far cry from the versions that liberals had pushed, which would have pegged reimbursements to lower Medicare rates. This “public option” would have to meet the same coverage requirements as private insurers.

The Negotiations

Although some House members have signaled that they may be willing to drop the public option in order to get a final bill that could get 60 votes in the Senate, they will insist on getting something in return. Probably from the insurance exchange, a web-accessible, marketplace for insurance. The likeliest concession from the Senate would be more generous federal subsidies for individuals and small groups shopping in the exchange, along with possible changes to the scope of the exchange itself.

The Senate bill calls for state-based exchanges, which would have less bargaining power with providers and insurers, but which appeal to moderates in the Senate afraid of big government. The exchange would be national under the House bill. This means that those shopping in the exchange – including many of the currently uninsured – would be bundled together in large pools. If House Dems give up the public option, they may insist that the exchange be national.

The Senate bill does have two other mechanisms for providing insurance outside the standard coverage options. Like the House bill, it would allow for and initially fund creation of non-profit consumer-owned health insurance cooperatives, though most economists say such coops would not have a major impact on the insurance market. The Senate bill would also allow the federal Office of Personnel and Management to contract with private insurers to offer at least two multi-state plans in each state exchange. These OPM negotiated plans could be less expensive than standard state-based insurance offerings, but their overall impact would be far less significant than a public option

The Senate bill would direct the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, which oversees health policies for 8 million federal workers and their families, to contract with private insurance companies to offer policies on the exchanges.

2. METHODS OF PAYING

• Taxes
• Coverage Mandates
• Employer Mandates

“I believe that the bill we passed in the House, though not perfect, would have been a major step forward in providing all Americans with quality, affordable health care that guarantees choice, and competition through a public option. Unless the final bill looks more like what we passed in the House, and less what we saw emerge from the Senate, I will not support it.” -Representative Anthony Weiner (D-NY)

Both the Senate and House bills would reduce the deficit by more than $100 billion over ten years, but they get there in very different ways. Both the House and Senate bills raise revenue by penalizing Americans who don’t buy health care coverage (mandates). Both bills would reduce Medicare spending, largely from cuts in the Medicare Advantage program. Both bills would also tax medical device makers, with the Senate bill also calling for massive fees on the pharmaceutical and health insurance industries. The Senate bill includes special fees on insurers, drug companies and medical device makers and would impose a 10-percent tax on indoor tanning.

Senate

• Taxes: The Senate bill would increase the Medicare payroll tax for families earning over $250,000 and individuals earning over $200,000, but would also tax health insurance itself, applying a 40% excise tax on health plans valued above $8,500 for individuals and $23,000 for families. (Only the amount exceeding these thresholds would be taxed.) This new tax on so-called “Cadillac plans” would raise $149 billion over 10 years. Exceptions would be made for Americans over 55, those working in high-risk jobs and (initially) those living in states where health care costs are highest. But the excise tax on Cadillac plans has another purpose – by discouraging high-value insurance plans, health care economists expect overall medical spending to decrease. And, by taxing the fast-growing cost of insurance itself, the Senate plan may have a better chance of keeping up with medical costs, something a high-income tax like the House’s would not accomplish. Research also indicates that when workers get lower cost health insurance plans through their employers, wages increase.
• Coverage mandate: The Senate mandate would phase in a $750-per-person annual penalty up to $2,250 per family or a penalty of 2 percent of taxable income, whichever is greater. The full penalty would take effect in 2016.
• Employer Mandates: The Senate bill has no employer mandate–per se. But large firms with more than 50 workers would have to pay a fine of $750 annually per worker if any of their employees obtain federally subsidized coverage on the exchange.

House

• Taxes: The House plan is to tax high income earners and it generates far more revenue and doesn’t affect the middle class like the tax on health insurance plans likely would. (Municipal employees and manufacturing union members are among those with high value high plans that could exceed the excise tax threshold). The House bill mandate would impose a 2.5-percent penalty tax on income up to the average cost of an insurance policy.
• Coverage Mandates: The House bill would impose a 2.5-percent penalty tax on income up to the average cost of an insurance policy.
• The Employer Mandates:  House bill would require employers with payrolls above $750,000 to provide health insurance to workers. Those who do not provide insurance would face a penalty of 8 percent of payroll. Employers with a payroll between $500,000 would pay fines on a sliding scale of 2 percent, 4 percent and 6 percent of payroll. Workers with employer-sponsored plans with costs deemed unaffordable — exceeding 9.8 percent of salary — may drop that coverage and purchase federally subsidized insurance on the exchange. In those cases, the employer would pay a fine up to $3,000 per worker receiving the insurance subsidy.

The Negotiations

Unions have been pushing Democrats hard to eliminate the tax on Cadillac plans or at least raise the threshold for which plans would be taxed, which could bring House Democrats on board without alienating Senate supporters of the excise tax. To make up for the lost revenue, Senate Majority Leader Reid could agree to a Medicare payroll tax higher than what’s called for in the current Senate bill.

3. ABORTION

“I will not vote for the Senate bill regardless of the abortion language,” Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI)

Both sides in the debate generally agree on two things when it comes to health reform: federal funds should not be used to pay for abortions, and women should not lose their access to abortion services. The trick is how to keep public and private funds for abortion separate, and how far restrictions on abortion coverage can go before they effectively limit access.

Senate

The Senate bill, which was amended at the last minute to win the vote of Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson, would let states opt out of including plans with abortion coverage on the exchanges and would require anyone with abortion coverage to write two separate premium checks — one for the abortion coverage and one for the rest.

House

Also singles out abortion coverage as something patients must separately pay for, but by purchasing a rider. The House bill contains tougher language and it places stricter limits on abortion, prohibiting any insurance plans that cover abortion from participating in the public exchange and receiving subsidies.

The Negotiations

Reconciliation of the two versions is a numbers game for the Democratic leadership. Pro-choice politicians in both chambers are reluctantly willing to accept the abortion language in the Senate bill, but they have vowed to oppose health reform if the more restrictive House version wins out. At the same time, anti-abortion Democratic Congressman Bart Stupak, who authored the abortion restrictions in the House bill, is warning that he’ll bolt if the Senate version emerges from conference committee.

But the Senate version is strong enough for many of those anti-abortion Democrats, who are not insisting that Stupak’s language go untouched. And other changes in the Senate bill — including cost-saving measures, the elimination of the public option and certain family-planning measures such as increased adoption tax credits that anti-abortion Senator Bob Casey got put in — could pick up some additional Democratic votes even without Stupak’s support.

4. MEDICARE

“To those on the left, who are disappointed in what the bill does not do — and in some cases are even calling for its demise — I implore you to reconsider, to be a part of this solution even as we keep working on others, which I promise you I will do.”—Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV)

Much of the cost containment in both bills centers on Medicare– for two reasons. First, because the Medicare is such a big component of the federal budget, and second because it drives much of what happens in the private health insurance market as well— spending more than $450 billion a year. Both bills reduce the reimbursements that Medicare pays health care providers and Medicare Advantage plans.

Senate

The Senate bill contains an element that President Obama, and many economists, consider to be a potential game changer on health care costs. That is a 15-member independent commission, known as the Independent Payment Advisory Board. The board would have the power to bring down Medicare spending when it exceeds a certain measure of inflation. There would be limits to what the board could do though. It would not be allowed to recommend anything that would ration care or change benefits for current Medicare recipients. Congress could block the commission’s recommendations, but only if it turns them all down at once rather than picking and choosing.

House

The House bill does not contain such a commission, mostly because lawmakers wanted to retain the ability to set Medicare payments (which can be channeled to hospitals in members’ own districts), and partly because the proposal has come up against opposition by senior citizens groups.

The Negotiations

President Obama has stated that he wants the Independent Payment Advisory Board in the final bill, so some version of it probably will be. What remains to be seen is whether there will be an effort to weaken the commission’s authority, and as a result, its ability to impact health costs.

There are also a number of other differences in the two bills with regard to Medicare. The House measure, for instance, would require that the HHS Secretary negotiate pharmaceutical prices directly with the drug companies — something that the Senate is not likely to go along with. And both bills would establish a number of pilot programs to test innovative methods of coordinating medical care among providers; one major question is how much power the HHS Secretary will have to implement those programs on her own, rather than having to seek Congress’ permission to do so.

5. MEDICAID

“We need strong leadership so close to the finish line, not efforts to water down a bill to the breaking point.” – Rep. Raul M. Grijalva (D-Ariz)

The Medicaid program is jointly administered (and paid for) by the state and federal governments. Both bills would transform and vastly expand its mission. Currently, depending on each state, it is generally available to low-income people only if they are also elderly, disabled or pregnant. Both bills would make qualifying for Medicaid available on the basis of low income alone. Many health-care experts have said this is the most efficient and cost-effective way of expanding coverage to those of limited means. However, there are differences in how the two bills would expand Medicaid.

Senate

The Senate bill would put fewer people into Medicaid and set the upper limit at 133% of poverty (or $29,300 a year for a family of four).

House

The House would put more people into the program. Under this bill, those earning up to 150% (or $33,000 for a family of four) of poverty would qualify. The bill is also more generous in helping states pay for their share of the newly eligible Medicaid recipients.

The Negotiations

State governments have a huge stake in this and will watch the negotiations. States’ budgets are already nearly broke, and they say that they cannot afford the additional burden. That is one reason Ben Nelson negotiated a special deal in which the government would pay the whole tab for the expansion. There are likely to be other lawmakers clamoring for similar arrangements. Additionally, some governors have warned that their states do not have enough providers willing to accept patients under Medicaid, which in many states pays very low reimbursement. The poverty level in 2009 for an individual was $10,830 and for a family of four $22,050. Many states have eligibility requirements below that level.

HOW WILL THE BILLS BE MERGED?

Leaders of the two chambers are still working out how they will go about doing this—and momentum is important. One option may be to forego the conference committee, which would have to bring more negotiators — including Republicans — into the room, and instead have the leaders and their key committee chairmen try to hammer out an agreement that would then be submitted to the House and Senate for a final vote.

Senate and House Democratic leaders, the chairmen of the five congressional committees that wrote the legislation and top White House officials will negotiate the final bill. Most of the discussions are likely to be held behind closed doors. Republicans obstructionism makes them irrelevant, so the talks will be on settling differences among liberal and conservative Democrats to win the needed 60 votes in the Senate and at least 218 in the House.

HOW QUICKLY CAN IT BE DONE?

Since the two chambers are working with similar bills, the final negotiations likely will weeks rather than months. Democrats would like to have a final bill by the time Obama delivers his annual State of the Union address to Congress. Presidents usually give the annual address in late January, but Obama could deliver it in early February, giving more time to congressional Democrats to secure a final deal. One factor that could delay things is that they need cost estimates from the Congressional Budget Office to make sure that the price tag for the final bill remains below $900 billion over the next decade — an amount that Obama has insisted upon as the upper limit.

CAN ANYONE KILL THE BILL?

It would be hard for opponents to kill it. The bill is the top legislative priority for Obama. His fellow Democrats are motivated to give him a major victory at the start of his second year in office. Most analysts say the final healthcare bill will be signed into law within the next several weeks despite Republican opposition and efforts to slow it down.

WHAT HAPPENS AFTER THE HOUSE AND SENATE REACH AGREEMENT?

Both the House and Senate must pass the final version of the bill before it is sent to Obama for his signature.

Once it is enacted into law, some provisions would go into effect immediately, such as barring insurers from excluding coverage for children due to pre-existing conditions.

Democrats will emphasize the measure’s benefits as they try to protect their House and Senate majorities in November congressional elections. Republicans, who stand a good chance of taking some Democratic seats, are expected to stress Medicare spending cuts and tax increases in the bill.

Federal agencies will start writing regulations to implement the overhaul. A provision requiring everyone to purchase healthcare insurance might face a court challenge from people who believe the Constitution does not give Congress authority to require everyone to purchase a product from private companies.

“Nowhere has there been a bigger gap between the perceptions of compromise and the realities of compromise than in the health care bill. Every single criteria for reform I put forward is in this bill.” -President Barack Obama

It has been widely reported today that Congressional leaders plan to bypass conference committees to merge the healthcare bills in the House and the Senate to prevent further GOP obstructionism.

Now that both the House and Senate have passed health care reform bills, all Democrats have to do is work out a compromise between the two versions. And it appears they’re not about to let the Republicans gum up the works again.

According to a pair of senior Capitol Hill staffers, one from each chamber, House and Senate Democrats are “almost certain” to negotiate informally rather than convene a formal conference committee. Doing so would allow Democrats to avoid a series of procedural steps–not least among them, a series of special motions in the Senate, each requiring a vote with full debate–that Republicans could use to stall deliberations, just as they did in November and December.

“There will almost certainly be full negotiations but no formal conference,” the House staffer says. “There are too many procedural hurdles to go the formal conference route in the Senate.”

I have some mixed feelings about this move because it is a strong arm tactic but for the most part I think it’s a wise political move. Republicans simply do not want to cooperate on healthcare so for practical reasons they have nothing new to offer to the process. Who knows we could even be pleasantly surprised and more progressive elements of the House bill will be easier to add to the final bill now, though I would still not count on the PO being in the final bill. Again my greatest hope for the bill is that it adopts the House’s more generous subsidies, the Senates more common sense approach to covering abortions and a Federal Employees style nation wide non-profit “self pay” insurance program which is very close tot he PO anyway. However I do hope actions like this are the exception rather than the rule.

I regret I forgot which Planeteer gave me this link but click here for a link that will roughly calculate the subsidies you may be eligible for based on the language in the House and Senate bills.