Rep. Manzullo: Opposes Unions But Envies Union Health Benefits

Doesn't Don Manzullo have a 'Public Plan' health care? (0.00 / 0)

I feel sorry for him.  I wonder if he can 'port it' when he loses his job.

;-)

---

by: BobB @ Fri Jul 24, 2009 at 10:51:14 AM CDT

Manzullo has been in Congress long enough... (0.00 / 0)

...for his health care benefits to be vested for life.  The newspaper interview was just another case of a scumbag Republican lying as easily as he breathes!

---

by: Randall Sherman @ Fri Jul 24, 2009 at 11:52:44 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

It was hyperbole to make a point. eom (0.00 / 0)

---

by: BobB @ Fri Jul 24, 2009 at 16:03:43 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Public plan? (0.00 / 0)

The "public option" being discussed is one in which premiums are paid to, and benefits paid by, the federal government. AFAIK, federal employees such as Manzullo have a choice of private insurance plans but currently no public option. If there are any federal employees on the list, maybe they could clarify.

Bill Thomasson

Permission to reprint explicitly granted

---

by: wathomasson @ Sat Jul 25, 2009 at 06:20:19 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Rep. Manzullo has a taxpayer supported (paid-for by Govt.)... (0.00 / 0)

that seems to be OK for him, and yet, according to his quote, he wouldn't wish govt. supported Health Care on his worst enemies (hyperbole).

I'm only pointing out that the rhetoric on the other side is so easily knocked down, that I'm surprised that it is taking so long for us to do it.

---

by: BobB @ Sat Jul 25, 2009 at 09:11:37 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

i'm all for allowing members of congress to opt out... (0.00 / 0)

of their public plan.  hell, we ought to allow any republican to pay for their own private insurance, since that's what they want to impose on the rest of us...

"We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it." - President Obama, Sept 9, 2009

---

by: bored now @ Sat Jul 25, 2009 at 09:24:16 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Can we opt? :-) (0.00 / 0)

I think that's all we're asking for.

---

by: BobB @ Sat Jul 25, 2009 at 14:13:58 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Are you following Ian Welsh over at (0.00 / 0)

OpenLeft? He used to work in the Insurance Industry and approaches his concerns from an economic point of view. Look at this latest where he talks about how the original Public Option has been pared down to practically nothing.

http://www.openleft.com/diary/...

But also look at his whole series on Health Care reform. But even as he is strongly skeptical he is still supporting it. But it's getting harder and harder for him.

Jeff Wegerson

---

by: wegerje @ Sat Jul 25, 2009 at 22:11:56 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

hmmm.... (0.00 / 0)

i do math.  in math, assumptions are explicitly stated in what are called axioms.  in this case, i have no idea where welsh's assumptions come from.

i've never seen a proposal from the white house (or the candidate) that included the assumptions that he included in that diary.  so it's hard to understand how he could label it as diluted.  diluted from what?  where did his assumptions about the public option come from.

the president, as a candidate, was very clear about this on the campaign trail.  he talked about reforming health care, getting rid of the pre-existing conditions exclusion, making health care insurance available to all, etc -- and, to paraphrase from memory, if you couldn't get health care insurance in the marketplace, you ought to be able to buy into the same health care plan that he, as a senator, had.

some of what welsh was writing about is really a part of the regulatory stage, not the legislative stage.  and i can only assume that he's focused on the senate finance committee version of health care reform.  the senate is going to pass something, the house is going to pass something completely different (they stalled on taking a vote for their package because they didn't want to vote for a tax increase on the wealthy if the senate wasn't going to do likewise), and then they will go to conference.  there have been suggestions coming out of the white house that the conference committee is going to actually meet inside the white house.  lobbyists would, of course, have a fit.  regardless, what comes out of conference is going to be different than what comes out of the senate finance committee...

"We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it." - President Obama, Sept 9, 2009

---

by: bored now @ Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 06:49:16 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I can't seak for welsh (0.00 / 0)

But shouldn't the House purposely include taxing the wealthy whether the senate does or not so it has a chance to be in the reconciliation. I'm missing something in the calculus here.

I'm hearing stuff as well that suggests that the reconciliation process will tilt progressive or at least will make sure the important "progressive" basics are there. But I'll go to Missouri on that one, show me. Obama has the proven ability to frame things so you think you are in agreement with him, from both sides, and then when it's delivered one side finds that they were jumping to conclusions.

It's my impression that the goal was to simply get it out of the Senate finance committee, ie get a vote on it, because that was the power that Baucus had, that is the delay power. So Obama regime really didn't care so much about the contents of the FInance version more that it get moved along. Then when the finance version is merged with the HELP (or whatever the other senate committee is called) that that's when the important stuff was to be sure to be included.

Jeff Wegerson

---

by: wegerje @ Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 09:01:27 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

heh... (0.00 / 0)

i assume that the question of "should (or shouldn't) they" is a moral question (do the right thing or not).  that's completely different than "will they," which is a political question.  the political element includes things like, will this vote be counted in x, y or z group's tracking of key votes?

for example, one of the curious coalitions out there right now is "divided we fail," which includes aarp, seiu and nfib (the small business lobby -- the chamber is considered the "big business" lobby by nfib).  the nfib weighs members of congress by key votes, and could include a vote for higher taxes on people making more than $250,000 as a bad vote.  democrats might take that bullet, as long as the senate agrees (iow, senators face the same vote).  but if they don't, then some democrats (melissa bean comes to mind) may decide that their nfib rating is more important than a risky vote for something that won't pass congress.

iow, the difference between what they should do (the right thing) and what they will do is more calculated.  i don't find most of the politicians i've known to be great risk takers.  and with the finance committee in the senate doing its thing, you can hardly expect house members to cast a risky vote at this moment.

i'm in agreement (as i may have mentioned here -- i have elsewhere) in just getting this thing out of the individual chambers and into conference.  the white house will then have an all-or-nothing position because there won't be another committee weighing in.  i'll add a little of what i wrote this morning:

let's not get carried away and assume that the bill that comes out of ONE of the FOUR committees that is handling the bill will be the one that finally passes congress.  because of the vast differences between the bills -- specifically between what will pass the house and what will pass in the senate -- it will definitely go to conference.  and conference is where the final bill will be written.  iow, the conrad-grassley bill will never see the president's desk (the house won't vote for it).

it is also clear that in conference, the white house will play a major role.

i need not remind people that barack obama isn't george bush.  it's hard for me to imagine that barack obama would act like george bush and demand that "if you send me a bill without X, Y or Z i will veto it!" barack is not a bully.  he believes in the force of his leadership, not the need to throw his weight around (he's kinda skinny for that).

more important, i wouldn't get too invested emotionally in what comes out of the senate finance committee, even though it will have some influence on the final product.  what i care about is who is going to be appointed to the conference committee.  this is where the president's strategy becomes all the more apparent.

this president has made it very clear that he wants a bipartisan bill to come out of the senate.  you may not like it, i may not like it, but that's what the president wants.  what should be clear to everyone is that mitch mcconnell is not going to appoint republicans to conference who supported a bipartisan bill.  he will appoint republicans dedicated to killing reform.

president obama can claim the mantle of bipartisan support for health care reform by taking a bipartisan bill into the senate.  and then he can blame republicans for refusing to support bipartisan efforts that will most likely occur in conference -- where the real bill will be written.  it's almost like having your cake and eating it, too!

so if you really want to see a public option in the final product then you really should focus your energy on making sure that harry reid appoints democrats -- like durbin, leahy and schumer -- who support the public option.  you know nancy pelosi will.

finally, don't be so quick to dismiss the cooperatives that have risen in the plains states as vehicles for reducing costs and providing quality care.  or the concerns that people have about how much reform will cost or where the money is going to come from.  in this battle, we have lost sight of the themes that work (health care is a right, not a privilege) in order to draw lines in the sand.  personally, i have no problem with extending the health care cooperatives concept -- as long as the public option is preserved.  and we should consider additional revenue sources -- how about a 20% tax on insurance company profits?  or 40%?

"We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it." - President Obama, Sept 9, 2009

---

by: bored now @ Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 14:03:22 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

How will cooperatives work? (0.00 / 0)

You seem to understand healthcare cooperatives and how they will fit into the Finance Committee bill. I don't, so I hope you can explain a few things to me:

1. Will everyone be able to join a cooperative, regardless of where they live or other aspects of their personal situation?

2. As a practical matter, how different will cooperatives look from a government-run public option?

3. Why do (some) Republicans find cooperatives acceptable while a government-run public option is not? Aside from the naughty word "government," what difference(s) do they see?

Bill Thomasson

Permission to reprint explicitly granted

---

by: wathomasson @ Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 11:17:19 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

i don't know that i understand them... (0.00 / 0)

i've just heard that farm state senators are concerned that their rural coops will suffer as a result of this bill and are trying to substitute something they see as a success for the public option.  i can't answer you're first question.  the difference between coops and the public option seems to be who controls how the money gets spent.  all coops run on the same model, that is one of shared ownership.  functionally, the perception of control seems to me more true than actual control.

as for your last question, i understand that there is a feeling that the public option will drive rural doctors out.  i can't speak to why.  some of it is fear.  but what i am suggesting is that if we're not going to abandon the complexity in the health care payment system, there's no reason to put all our eggs in one basket.  one (admittedly republican) friend put it this way: "who pays for health care isn't really that important when you have to drive 180 miles to receive it."

what republicans don't see is that we don't have an efficient, nor effective, health care market (or health insurance market) in this country.  we have numerous examples of market failure.  50 years ago, there was an apparent consensus that if the market failed, we should compensate that market failure with government intervention.  now it's just every man for himself...

"We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it." - President Obama, Sept 9, 2009

---

by: bored now @ Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 13:15:46 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

So I gues (0.00 / 0)

If the Senate Finance Committee comes up with cooperatives instead of a public option, we'll just have to ask Baucus and Grassley what that means. It may be significant that they're both from farm states.

Bill Thomasson

Permission to reprint explicitly granted

---

by: wathomasson @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 09:41:34 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

My question (0.00 / 0)

Who is this "Hacker" that Welsh attributes the public optoin plan to? I've never heard the name and I've never heard of the plan Welsh describes. As far as I'm aware, the public option took the stage with the "Stand with Dr. Dean" campaign, which included very little of what Welsh describes. Although Dr. Dean understandably did not emphasize details, what looks like it's going to come out fits pretty well with his ideas.

If fact, reading Welsh, it appears that his major complaint is that the public option won't have huge competitive advantages. Which would be directly contrary to the public option meme.

Bill Thomasson

Permission to reprint explicitly granted

---

by: wathomasson @ Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 15:09:49 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Public option meme? (0.00 / 0)

You think there is a public option meme to not be too competitive with private insurance? Seems counter-productive to me. Did you switch the meme's around. I thought that it was the private option meme that the public one not be too competitive.

Jeff Wegerson

---

by: wegerje @ Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 09:05:08 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

"Option" means choice (0.00 / 0)

And to maintain choice over the long run, you need a level playing field. Welsh wants to so tilt the playing field that, in a very short time, choices will not be available.

Bill Thomasson

Permission to reprint explicitly granted

---

by: wathomasson @ Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 10:13:35 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

The choices that people want in this case (0.00 / 0)

are doctors and procedures not how it's being paid for. But in any case the goal is to increase the choices to the entire population not the number of choices to those that can afford to buy the options of choices. You are falling into the grocery store trap of choices. Brand x or brand y when both brands are the same product that the store sells as generic. So there is the appearance of three choices when really there is one.

Read Krugman on the inability of the private market to provide health care.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...

Don't get caught in an ideology trap. Markets are useful for some things but not others.

Jeff Wegerson

---

by: wegerje @ Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 15:17:27 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Jeff (0.00 / 0)

What do you think Krugman said? What he actually did say is that the market cannot provide a mechanism for choosing which procedure to have. It cannot provide a mechanism for choosing between coronary bypass and angioplasty. Because we will never be paying for the chosen procedure out of our own pockets. We need insurance. And ultimately it will be the doctor and the insurer, with their often conflicting financial incentives, who decide which procedure you should have. (And incidentally, I do not assume that what's good for the doctor's pocketbook is necessarily good for me.)

I hear some people saying they don't trust private insurers and want a policy written by the government. I hear other people saying they don't trust government and want a policy written by a private company. I believe -- strongly -- that both groups should be allowed to have the policy of their choice.


Bill Thomasson

Permission to reprint explicitly granted

---

by: wathomasson @ Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 11:08:56 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Employer (0.00 / 0)

Manzullo, like any clerk at the Driksen Federal Building, has private health insurance subsidized by his employer -- which in this case happens to be the federal government. Are you saying the identity of the epmployer makes a difference to Manzullo? To you? I'm not getting it.

Bill Thomasson

Permission to reprint explicitly granted

---

by: wathomasson @ Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 15:23:08 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The point I'm making is that Manzullo, and others, are bashing... (0.00 / 0)

healthcare based on funding sources (public) and direction (who makes the decisions), but, not acknowledging that possible outcomes, in real world terms, already work for them.

In my opinion, the arguments against 'public options' are straw dogs, and I'm trying to point that out, but, here, only to the 'converted'.

---

by: BobB @ Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 23:23:19 PM CDT

[ Parent ]