Right after the vote on the health insurance reform bill, Senator Ben Nelson said that he'd like to be a part of the conference process in order to ensure that his restrictive Stupak-like amendment remains unchanged:
Immediately after leaving the Senate floor, Nelson continued to express his reservations about the legislative process moving forward, which led to a reporter's question over whether he felt good about his vote.
"Sure I feel good, but I think I'll feel better when I know what the conference report says and we have the finality of that. So right now I feel good yes," Nelson said.
Nelson—who became the Senate's most significant advocate for antiabortion concerns leading up to Thursday's vote—said he looks to be a part of the conference process, though to what extent he is not yet sure.
....
On the abortion issue, however, Nelson said he has been assured by leadership that the language he bargained for will be protected.
And Senator Nelson re-iterated that the bill's price tag of $871 billion couldn't change during the conference process. It means that the House side would have to accept most of the Senate's version without increasing the price tag on more progressive reforms they want in the bill, like say, the national exchange (which would be far more preferable than the state-based exchanges), and higher subsidies for the middle class.
Senator Lieberman also talked with Senator Nelson and said that the work wasn't over yet on the health insurance reform bill.
Minutes after the Senate vote, senators talked of the challenges of the coming conference committee where the Senate and House will have to iron out their differences.
"Our work is not over," Independent Sen. Joe Lieberman said to Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson in the hallway outside the chamber. Both men were instrumental in moving the bill to the right, and further away from the bill the House passed.
"Splitting the difference here could well break the 60 vote consensus," Lieberman said to reporters.
House progressives are also pushing to make insurance more affordable – probably by increasing subsidies for coverage. But Nelson reiterated his position Thursday that he doesn't want to see the bill’s price tag go much above the Senate’s number of $871 billion.
How nice to know that these Senators have our best interests at heart when thinking about their corporate benefactorers. In any case, here's a new report about the OPM multi-state private insurance plans that shows they wouldn't have any effect on private insurance premiums:
Their substitute plan would require OPM to solicit bids for multi-state insurance packages, in the hope that the bidding process would prove competitive enough to lower healthcare costs across the country.
Initially, key centrist and liberal party members believed that a national healthcare market managed in part by the same agency that oversees federal employees' benefits could be successful at securing the best plans for the lowest prices. The Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) has long been the standard bearer in the healthcare debate, as lawmakers have constantly emphasized voters should be eligible for the same care as their elected officials.
However, the CBO discovered last week that OPM's new mandate is unlikely to have its desired effect on Americans' healthcare costs. According to their initial estimate, the national plans might not posses enough power to encourage other insurance providers on the proposed national insurance exchange to lower their monthly rates.
Interestingly enough, the CBO predicted a similar fate for the Senate's public plan proposal, which would have allowed states to "opt out" of the system. That condition would have made the pool smaller, diminishing its power to act as a competitive force in the insurance marketplace, analysts found.
It always has been about being able to lower private insurance premiums and making health care truly affordable for Americans. Since the Democratic Party won't consider stronger regulations with strong enforcement, and the public option which had widespread appeal (not just limited to us DFHs), there will be no real cost controls on the price of private insurance premiums which would increase rapidly, along with the subsidies we give to them. This equals a massive transfer of cash to a corporate industry that allows them to stay entrenched in the system and further empowers corporatism in the Democratic Party.
If this Democratic Party had passed Social Security today, it likely would've been privatized, with about 10% of our incomes being mandated to go to Wall Street, with the IRS as a collection agency. If this Democratic Party had passed Medicare today, it would likely be a collection of high-risk pools for elderly people with subsidies from us to private insurers. If this Democratic Party had passed the VA health care system today, it likely would have been privatized and outsourced to private insurers as well.
The Senate Democrats like to talk about how this is another major piece of legislation like Social Security and Medicare. I'd like to point out that these were public programs started as a social safety contract between the people and their government. They are good public programs that function with our best interests in mind, not corporate profits. This 'new entitlement' is not a social contract between the government and us people, but rather a business contract between us and private insurers enforced by the government via the individual mandate. Ironically, it's single-payer for private insurance companies, only that they're guaranteed to have a bloc of captive customers and subsidies from the government to further enrich their wallets on Wall Street.
I was going to post a picture of Senator Lieberman and Senator Nelson, but I'll just post a picture of my Christmas tree instead.