Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Legal Commentary Blogs -> TalkLeft

Legal Commentary

: TalkLeft

The Policy Argument For A Health Insurance Assistance Bill

By Big Tent Democrat

Joining fellow Village blogger Matt Yglesias, the disingenuous Ezra Klein also throws bouquets to Chris Bowers for his public capitulation on the public option.

There are two aspects to Chris' position which are indefensible. First, Chris was one of the foremost proponents of arguing for the public option as the vehicle for establishing progressive influence in the legislative sausage making. Day after day he urged the Progressive block to hold the line and criticized those who showed signs of breaking ranks. His about face NOW is simply inexcusable. If a progressive ACTIVIST cannot hold the line, how in blazes can that same progressive activist ask pols to do it?

Second, Chris has now adopted the Village Blog style of pretending that it is the "reform" in the health bill that provides insurance coverage for 30 million uninsured Americans. That is a bald faced lie. It is indeed the favorite lie of the Village Bloggers. The provision of insurance assistance has nothing to do with the Exchanges and the individual mandates, the provisions considered sacrosanct by the Village Bloggers (now joined by new Village Blogger Bowers.) It is the expansion of Medicaid eligibility and federal subsidies to the less well off for the purchase of insurance. Has it not occurred to Bowers that he can support health insurance assistance without supporting the individual mandate, the Exchange and the regressive excise tax? More . . .

There is no evidence that supports the idea that a robust Exchange, much less the puny exchange now in the Senate bill, will control health insurance costs.

There is no evidence that supports the idea that an excise tax on "Cadillac" plans for union workers will lead to a transfer of compensation in the form of wages from reduced health care benefits. Of course companies will reduce the health benefits they will offer to avoid the tax. What they will not do is transfer significant savings to workers.

There is no sound PROGRESSIVE policy argument for supporting the "reform" parts of the proposed Senate health bill, other than the public option.

On the other hand, there are profound progressive policy arguments for strongly supporting a health insurance assistance bill that taxes the well off in order to pay for insurance for the less well off. And Village Bloggers, including new Village Blogger Bowers, are leveraging the natural progressive support for a policy that will tax the rich in order to provide a benefit for the less well off in order to round up progressive support for the noxious and unacceptable "reform" package that is in the Senate bill (save for the public option.)

I support the health insurance assistance components of the proposed health bills unconditionally. Put that portion solely to a vote and let's whip for the votes of all Democrats.

I support the public option contained in the "reform" portions of the health bills.

I can accept mandates in the "reform" portions of the bill with a public option. Without a public option, I can not.

I have no objection to the "regulatory reforms" that are envisioned though I am confident that they will be ineffective.

I can accept the Exchange if a public option is included and the Stupak Amendment is defeated. If there is no public option, there is absolutely no reason to risk a Stupak Amendment for the Exchange.

Chris Bowers has demonstrated no thinking, no principles and no commitment to the political objectives he championed all year long. His position is indefensible and wrong.

Speaking for me only

Full post as published by TalkLeft on December 03, 2009 (boomark / email).