#2 Senate Bill Represents A Step Backward and is Not Supportworthy

Submitted by ebgill on Sat, 12/19/2009 - 16:10.

I have examined the latest Senate amendment and find this bill to be unworthy of support. The bill contains additional restrictions on choice as required by Senator Ben Nelson for passage. The new anti-choice measure allows states to enact prohibitions of plans that may pay for abortions and repeal such provisions and reenact them over and over. This is going to make each state election a living nightmare. So, in addition to being terrible anti-choice policy, we are creating wedge issues for each and every state election. Further, this whittles away at the idea of Roe v. Wade, that the federal government can protect privacy over state law. Further the amendment funds more anti-choice propaganda given to women seeking family planning assistance. Further, no one's talking about this, but the gun lobby took their cut excluding the presence of a gun in the home as a criterion for premium setting. If you don't wear seatbelts or smoke, you could pay an additional premium. A gun in the home was also frequently used as a criterion on plan applications. Now, guns have been proclaimed safe and the rest of us pay higher premiums to cover the real gun violence statistics when premium levels are set. Further, the annual and lifetime limits proclusions have caveats that no one is talking about. For example, per beneficiary per coverage limits are still allowed. That's all not to mention that none of it starts until 2014. The medical loss ratios are being touted, but no one is focusing on the provision that allows the Secretary to waive the individual market 80% limit if it finds that the market would be "destabilized", not defining the term. Pre-existing conditions may not be excluded, but insurers are fully able to raise rates. People with pre-existing conditions will be in the bad position of being required to purchase expensive coverage.

Sanders was able to get an increase in funding of community health centers and there are some well meaning pilot programs to try to bring best practices such as those used at Mayo Clinic to other providers. However, those provisions could be enacted separate from the mandate/subsidy scheme now under discussion. So, there is no reason, from the progressive perspective, to pass this legislation. Those saying it will be fixed later have not realized that this is the deal struck between the Administration and the insurance lobby. Daily Kos is reporting that AHIP has stopped opposing the bill. They got everything they wanted. Also, Nelson has made it clear that he'll accept no changes. Some are arguing that this is not a done deal, but it is done and now we know it was decided a long time ago and there is little hope for change and no hope for significant change.

The worst of this situation is that it shows we are bereft of progressive leadership in the Administration and in Congress. It shows that we have our work cut out for us to find and elect progressive candidates.

• reply