The Wonk Room

What Does The Blue Dog Compromise On Health Care Say About The Blue Dogs?

bluedogsupersizeAfter arguing that the House health care bill did not do enough to lower long term health care spending, Blue Dog Democrats hijacked the House Energy and Commerce Committee and promised to vote down the bill unless Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) heeded their concerns.

Today, the Dogs and the Dems reached a compromise:

- Reimbursement rates for public plan should be no higher than market rates: Rather than reimbursing at five percent above Medicare rates, the new public option will now directly negotiate rates with providers.

- States can offer an insurance co-op alongside public plan: Presumably this state-based cooperative would act like any other not-for-profit insurer and will lack the market clout to drive bargains and lower costs.

- Premium cap goes from 11% of income to 12%: Loosening the affordability measures is certainly one way to bring down the cost of health reform, but it does little to help families purchase coverage.

- States must pay 7% of cost of additional Medicaid enrollments: States are already worried that the plan to expand Medicaid would leave them on the hook for financing the expansion after the five year grace period (for the first five years, the federal government funds the expansion, after that, the states would gradually assume half the cost.) This will likely stoke their concerns.

- Small business exemption for payroll up to $500,000; phases out at $750,000: The original language exempt businesses with a payroll of less than $250,000 and charged a penalty on a sliding scale.

- Cost of bill must come in at under $1 trillion: Most health reform advocates believe that is nearly impossible to provide everyone with affordable health care coverage under $1 trillion.

On the whole, these tweaks are rather minor. Most observers interpreted the hoopla surrounding the negotiations as a sign of serious trouble. If the outline above is correct, then the dogs came back with their tail somewhat between their legs.

Secondly, the agreement only reinforces the notion that Blue Dogs are more interested in ideological politics than lowering long-term health care spending. After all, if they really wanted to lower costs, they would support reform that includes a robust public option and generous affordability measures so that every American is part of the health care system and has access to needed care. After all, if the public plan pays bloated market rates (as this agreement states) it will fail to offer lower premiums within the Exchange, and would cause the government to spend more money on subsidies. Unfortunately, the Blue Dogs are trying to lower the costs by making insurance less affordable and undercutting a meaningful public option.






One Response to “What Does The Blue Dog Compromise On Health Care Say About The Blue Dogs?”

  1. Philip Clock Says:

    I think the Blue Dogs ARE interested in lowering long-term health care spending, just not the “reform that includes a robust public option and generous affordability measures”. Devil is always in the details, I had access to government health care as a government dependent and active duty Naval Reservist, I had no choice but wait in line for what was offered to me. Clearly a “robust public option” IMHO places the government monopoly as provider, which results in the same low care, uncompetitive rationing and big-time money losers offered by any other government agency (post office, FEMA -ie, Katrina response team -, public schools, National Park Service), just like any monopoly. No thank you, please give me my own medical savings account that I can spend on any doctor or hospital that I choose, not directed to me by a government bureaucrat or, for that matter, an insurance company. Hey, I don’t mind a law requiring disclosure of doctor and hospital performance records; just keep the government out of running things.

    And let doctors and hospitals run themselves, set their own prices for the public and contribute to a pool or coop for people that cannot afford care, just like auto insurance.

    I want freedom of choice, and I want direct negotiation with my doctor or hospital.

    But I think your preference is for the government monopoly to mandate and make health care decisions for me. No thanks.



Jump to Top

About Wonk Room | Contact Us | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy (off-site) | RSS | Donate
© 2005-2008 Center for American Progress Action Fund
image Register imageimageRSSimageimage imageimage
image
Issues


Wonk Room Tweets

wonkroom: @CarlyforCA has trouble justifying supporting tax cuts for the rich, opposing them for small business http://bit.ly/d9JWur
6 minutes ago from TweetDeck
wonkroom: @rubberstamprosk We jumped the gun, study was still embargoed.
2 hours ago from TweetDeck
wonkroom: Pawlenty Likens Federal Gov To A Drug Dealer, Implies Minnesota Towns, Businesses Are Addicts: http://bit.ly/cj6qEl
2 hours ago from TweetDeck
wonkroom: WATCH: Carly Fiorina Cites Obama’s Position On Same-Sex Marriage To Explain Her Own Opposition -- http://bit.ly/9v3xwB #gay #lgbt #prop8
14 hours ago from TweetDeck
wonkroom: On Hardball, LCR head R. Clarke Cooper asked where Obama was on marriage. HRC's Solomonese said nothing, Matthews replied, "not w/ us"
19 hours ago from TweetDeck
Advertisement

Visit Our Affiliated Sites

image image
Featured

image
Subscribe to the Progress Report




imageTopic Cloud


imageArchives


imageBlog Roll


imageAbout Wonk RoomimageimageContact UsimageimageDonateimage