Van Hollen: Democrats Win By Supporting The Democratic Agenda

Rep. Chris Van Hollen, who is the current chairman of the DCCC, told members in a closed-door meeting that Democrats win by supporting the core Democratic agenda.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who introduced Garamendi, told her rank-and-file that Republicans attacked New York Democrat Bill Owens on health care during his own victorious special election campaign, but Owens still won.

Maryland Rep. Chris Van Hollen, who chairs the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, backed up that assessment, telling his colleagues in the closed-door caucus meeting, "Our agenda was at play in those races, and they won."

Democrats in conservative districts need to understand that the vast bulk of the Democratic platform is very popular. The country supports guaranteeing that no one goes bankrupt because of health care costs. Stopping health insurance companies from denying people for pre-existing conditions is supported by nearly every American. The public option is extremely popular. The vast majority of American back repealing “don't ask, don't tell.” Very few regular Americans honestly thinks we don't need new regulations to rein in Wall Street. Reforming the student loan program so that the same amount of money can be more efficiently used to help millions of additional middle class students afford college is a sure winner with a preponderance of voters in this country. Even the Republican party is now claiming allegiance to the Democratic goal of reducing our dependency on foreign oil.

The fact that the Democratic agenda is popular is not some accident. It is very popular by design. Less popular ideas that used to be part of the Democratic agenda, like gun control, have either been dropped, scaled back, or pushed to the side. The Democrats have been out of power for so long that they are not pushing the truly controversial ideas championed by the country's left. They have plenty of very popular parts of their agenda that will consume their time for years to come.

No Democrats, regardless how liberal or conservative, should be expected to back every part of the agenda. But conservative Democrats need to at least support some of the most popular core planks of the party platform--for their own good. They need to explain why they are Democrats, and why their constituents should vote for a Democrat. If conservative Democrats try to run purely as Republican-lite next year, the voters are going to ask themselves why they shouldn't just support real thing.

House Health Care Bill Unveiled

Today, Nancy Pelosi unveiled the House's health care reform bill. The bill will cost $894 billion over the next ten years, but will be fully paid for. It will expand coverage to an additional 36 million Americans and eventually close the Medicare Part D doughnut hole.

Thanks to the successful efforts by the Blue Dog caucus, the bill will not contain the “robust” public option, one that pays Medicare rates plus 5%. The bill will still contain a national public option run by the HHS, but will pay rates negotiated by region instead. This move will increase the cost of the bill by roughly $85 billion.

To make up some of the reduced saving by going with the less robust public option, the bill will expand Medicaid to cover people making below 150% of the federal poverty level (FPL) instead of 133%. It is much cheaper to cover individuals with government insurance programs (Medicare or Medicaid) than through private insurance.

The bill will not contain the excise tax on employer provided health insurance found in the Senate Finance Committee bill. Most of the money to pay for the bill will come from savings from Medicare and Medicaid and a new “millionaire's tax.” It will be a surtax on individuals making over $500,000 and couples making over a million a year. This should create a real showdown during the conference committee. A large number of House Democrats are strongly against the tax on health insurance benefits while many senators are against the new “millionaire's tax.”

UPDATE: Full text of the bill now available (PDF).

Making Public Option Less Robust Is A Double Slap In The Face To Working Class Americans

Nancy Pelosi may not have enough votes for the "robust" public option tied to Medicare rates plus 5%. The Hill has published the official whip count of those House Democrats who oppose the robust public option.

As I've pointed out countless times before, a robust public option would have premiums roughly 10%-11% less (according to the CBO and CMS) than typical private insurance. That would be around a $1,400 reduction in premiums for the average family that could choose the robust public option. Forcing Americans to pay roughly $1,400 more a year on health insurance premiums, by denying them the choice of a robust public option, is the first slap in the face.

The second big slap in the face is that robust public option would save the government $85 billion more than a weaker public option (with negotiated rates instead of those based on Medicare). Since Obama set an absurd $900 billion ceiling on the cost of health care reform, most of that $85 billion will need to be made up by reducing affordability tax credits to low- and middle-income families. As Ryan Grim at Huffington Post reports:

The public option tied to Medicare rates saves $110 billion over ten years. Requiring it to negotiate rates only saves $25 billion.

If leadership goes with the negotiated-rate plan, that $85 billion difference will have to come from somewhere to meet President Obama's ten-year, $900 billion price ceiling. The fattest target is the subsidies to help people afford insurance.

Going with negotiated rates instead of a robust public option will deny American families a choice that would save them roughly $1,400 a year on their health care premiums. But making the public option less robust might also cause the government to reduce the amount of tax credits it can give to low-income and middle-income Americans to help them afford health insurance by roughly 20%. So, not only will American families be denied a much cheaper insurance option, but they will also be given less financial assistance to help them afford health insurance from a selection of more expensive options.

Making the public option less robust will end up costing working class families thousands more each year on health care. That is what the 47 Democrats who are "Nays" on the robust public option are desperately fighting for. They are fighting for a position that they know will make health care dramatically more expensive for millions of Americans.

Update - The Hill is reporting that Majority Whip James Clyburn is disputing the accuracy of the previous published whip count.

Which Democrats Want To Steal $1,400 From You?

There has been a variety of reporting about Nancy Pelosi's ongoing efforts to whip the necessary votes for a robust public option. She is close to securing 218 votes, but is not there yet. My question is who are the roughly 40-50 Democratic House members fighting to steal $1,400 every year from hard working American families?

The robust public option favored by Nancy Pelosi would pay Medicare rates plus 5%. The CBO said a public option with this reimbursement structure would have premiums roughly 10% lower than private insurance. The CMS concluded the robust public option's premiums would be roughly 11% cheaper than private insurance. For a family of four, that would equate to roughly $1,400 saving on health care premiums this year.

If a Democratic member of Congress is going to vote to force people to buy health insurance, but deny them a robust public option which could save them $1,400 a year, that is theft, pure and simple. It is using the government to take $1,400 each year directly from the pockets of working class Americans, and place it in the coffers of the private, for-profit health care sector.

If a Democrat wants to fight against helping working class American families save roughly $1,400 a year they should be forced to do so publicly. Hiding behind anonymous whip counts is unacceptable--the time for games and posturing is over. The American people deserve to know who is fighting on their behalf, and who is fighting for the health care industry. Constituents deserve to know which of their representatives are working hard to deny them more affordable health insurance.

Pelosi Believes She Has The Votes For Robust Public Option

The Hill is reporting that Pelosi now believes she has the vote for a modified version of the robust public option favored by progressives. Pelosi made two key concessions to garner sufficient votes.

Pelosi offered a key policy change to the “Medicare plus 5 percent” option being pushed by the Progressive Caucus and other liberal members.

Rural members have been irritated that the “plus 5 percent” went only to physicians, not hospitals. Hospitals under the “robust” option would be reimbursed at Medicare rates.

This concession reduces the cost saving potential of the public option by roughly $20 billion. It is hoped that this will help win over Democrats representing rural districts that complain Medicare reimbursement rates are too low in rural areas.

Perhaps the more important "concession" from Pelosi, however, was acknowledging that a robust public option might not make it out of conference:

She said that if House Democrats pass the public option liberals support, they could ultimately have the more centrist version of the provision when the final bill is hashed out in conference with senators, according to some of those in attendance.

By passing this more robust version of the public option in the House, it should increase the likelihood that a final compromise with the Senate would include the weaker (but still national and available on "day one") “level playing field” public option favored by some blue dogs. I suspect this acknowledgment was more critical than a modification to the payment rates for hospitals to winning over some conservative Democrats.

Pelosi Makes The Public Option Robust Once More

Back before the August recess a deal was struck with a group of Blue Dogs, lead by Rep. Mike Ross, in the House Energy and Commerce Committee. The agreement was to make the public option weaker by not allowing it to pay modified Medicare rates. This deal dramatically reduce the cost savings that would come as a result of including a public option as part of reform. Since then Mike Ross has backed out of the deal and now publicly saying that he will not support any public option.

The Hill is reporting that Speaker Pelosi does not intent to stick to the deal which has already been violate. She plans to bring to the House floor a bill with a robust public option similar to the own originally proposed in the House.

Nancy Pelosi is a Traitor to Progressives

Nancy Pelosi has said that she will likely not be able to pass a universal health bill this year. Her refusal to use this rare moment to move on one of the fundamental promises of the Democratic party is shocking. The Democrats control both houses of Congress by large margins and the White House. Barack Obama campaigned on a promise to provide universal health care. If they were able to find trillions to bailout the banks and a trillion on a questionable stimulus package it is unacceptable to claim there is no longer enough money or political will to pass health care reform.

46 million Americans don't have health insurance, and the number will likely grow by several million in the next year. The Democratic party won this election with the promise of health care and they were delivered the votes to make it happen. If the Democrats are unwilling to move NOW on health care reform, what is the point in ever electing a Democrat?

A Bit of Comedy – Possible VP Picks (Clinton edition)

Clinton/Gore

Hillary Clinton and Al Gore
Vote Nostalgia
(On the plus side, they finally have a use for that storage unit full of old Clinton/Gore '92 merchandise)

Clinton/Bloomberg

Hillary Clinton and NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg
I Heart NY ticket

Clinton/Pelosi

Hillary Clinton and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi
The Screw Everything Between San Francisco and NYC Ticket

Clinton/Byrd

Hillary Clinton and 90 year old West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd
A Century of Experience