Olympia Snowe Strikes Again
Olympia Snowe looks set to reprise her roll in hobbling the stimulus bill in exchange for providing the key pivotal vote for it by killing John Kerry’s amendment, “Empowering State Exchanges to be Prudent Purchasers.” Jon Cohn explains:
In the bills that passed three House committees and the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee, the exchange would be a “prudent purchaser.” In other words, it would have a staff that bargained with insurers to bring down premiums — and that made sure all plans lived up to strict guidelines for coverage and customer service. In effect, any insurer that wants to offer coverage through the exchanges has to get the equivalent of a “Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval” from the administrators. This is precisely how it works in Massachusetts.
By contrast, the Senate Finance bill envisions much weaker exchanges. Instead of choosing which plans to make available, the exchange administrators would, by law, have to accept any plan that meets a relatively minimal set of standards.
There are several problems with this. One is that it’s going to be a mess for consumers. Another is that it threatens to turn the exchanges into playgrounds of implicit risk-shifting efforts wherein companies try to design policies specifically around dissuading high-need people from signing up. Thus ever-more burden is going to be placed on the untested risk-adjustment machinery that’s supposed to even this all out. Ezra Klein observes that Jon Kingsdale is basically the only person in America’s who’s run anything like the exchanges envisioned in all the different bills—he does the job in Massachusetts—and he views the prudent purchaser rule as absolutely essential. Against that Snowe is pitting, I guess, her intuition that this is too much government involvement.
26 Responses to “Olympia Snowe Strikes Again”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
October 5th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
Maybe if we’d put a tenth of the effort we’ve put into whining about the Public Option into defending the Wyden amendment, we’d have an exchange worth talking about.
October 5th, 2009 at 3:34 pm
If only there were 60 Democratic senators, or a Democratic president to pressure Congress!
October 5th, 2009 at 3:53 pm
This is getting absolutely ridiculous, at what point do progressives say enough is enough…
October 5th, 2009 at 4:08 pm
You guys are missing the point. It really doesn’t matter what’s in the Finance bill. Like, at all. Especially not stuff like this. All that matters is that something, anything gets passed, because what passes doesn’t have to have any relevance to what shows up on the Senate floor. Kerry and Wyden withdrew their amendments because they knew the proper place to get them in the bill was with Reid. Which is unfortunate, but it’s the situation.
October 5th, 2009 at 4:09 pm
I’m not much in favor of any healthcare reform other than breaking down state-by-state barriers, so this may come across as concern-trolling. But I don’t mean it that way, I’m just curious as to the thinking of my intellectual opponents.
At what point does a progressive look at the twisted, stunted monstrosity wending it’s way through the halls of congress and say “This isn’t worth passing”?
October 5th, 2009 at 4:10 pm
ack: “its”
October 5th, 2009 at 4:18 pm
@heedless: For me, it really depends on what comes out of the conference committee between Senate and House. If it’s anything resembling what’s going to come out of the Senate Finance committee, count me out and don’t expect my vote come 2010.
October 5th, 2009 at 4:29 pm
Yet another reductio of the Senate. Gong it.
October 5th, 2009 at 5:01 pm
Olympia Snowe is going to vote for whatever is in the House bill or she’s just as bad as Jim DeMint. Don’t underestimate how little she wants the stench of the rest of her caucus attached to her good name in Maine. Democrats should play more chicken with Sen. Snowe and be less chicken themselves. Snowe doesn’t need her ass kissed to do the right thing, she needs her ass kicked.
October 5th, 2009 at 5:02 pm
heedless, the sausage making is always terrifying, and it almost never gets this level of attention. Can you name a single bill which has gotten this kind of coverage in its formation, movement through committees, etc? I can’t think of one.
My guess is that any bill that got this level of attention would seem like a twisted, stunted monstrosity to a lot of people. I’m with PhillyGuy here. I’ll reserve final judgement for the actual final bill, which is what we usually do.
October 5th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
Also, it’s important to remember that we don’t needs Snowe’s vote at all. Screw her. Why should anyone care what she thinks?
October 5th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
A personal mandate without enough subsidy would be poison both politically and policywise. It wouldn’t just be “not good enough”. It would be bad.
Either Baucus doesn’t understand this or he’s planning on ending his career with a bang and getting a big payoff. I have no idea what Obama is thinking.
October 5th, 2009 at 6:11 pm
Rob,
I actually agree somewhat. Frankly, the patriot act and the stimulus bill could both have benefited from a little more deliberation and a little less “ram the damn thing through.”
As someone who invariably looks at the latest government initiative and thinks “Bad, bad idea”, it’s interesting to me to see at what point people who initially supported the initiative come around to my way of thinking. (You see why I’m worried this looks like concern trolling.)
I’d support a bill with quite a bit of progressive friendly meddling in the health-care sector in return for ending the ridiculous state-by-state restrictions on insurance coverage. Doesn’t look like that’s going to happen though.
October 5th, 2009 at 8:12 pm
@heedless: I think the Finance bill allows for national insurance plans that bypass the individual state regulations.
October 5th, 2009 at 8:30 pm
What Adam said @ #4.
October 5th, 2009 at 11:56 pm
Oh my god, can we please go the 51 vote route? PLEASE! These people think they can just tinker around and make it work?
With all due respect, Ms. Snowe, YOU’RE NOT HELPNIG!
October 6th, 2009 at 12:48 am
“Against that Snowe is pitting, I guess, her intuition that this is too much government involvement.” And a truckload of health-biz cash, and her status within the Senate GOP caucus, which unlike *some* party organizations, actually gives a flying fuck about minding the gap between what the party *believes* in and what the party members *actually* convey an interest in delivering, and *therefore* has instituted actual rules that spawn actual outcomes in line with the party’s agenda.
To say the Democrats have a similar and effective mechanism… (insert your own Will Rogers joke here).
Let’s try that again: to say that the Democrats have a similar and effective mechanism would imply that the party is *trying* to solicit volunteers to stab the party’s plan in the back, make the president a liar, and help Republicans sabotage health care reform.
Or, hell, if it’s good enough for Rahm Emanuel, maybe it *is* the plan.
October 6th, 2009 at 5:55 am
Yes dump on Snowe over the stimulus not Conrad (see my comment on “accepting the loss” below). I’m glad that you responded quickly to my criticism. Uh actually faster than instantly, since you posted this post before I criticized that one.
October 6th, 2009 at 8:52 am
Hey! Let’s try a crazy experiment! We are psychos! It is, after all, what sets us apart as a Nation, what makes us unique -we Americans! It’s how we conquered the West! Fearlessly setting out into the void, with nothing but a Winchester, a Conestoga wagon, and a bright idea. It is an American compulsion. Try something new -even if it gits you n all yer women folk killed.
October 6th, 2009 at 10:01 am
[...] Olympia has decided that the very thing that would make insurance exchanges work is the thing that has to go. And you know when the queen speaks, the Senate listens! (Do you ever get the impression that the [...]
October 6th, 2009 at 10:22 am
Snowe really is just a compromise fetishist. She’s decided that she’ll try to moderate whatever is put forward, and so if you want X, you should put forward X+2 or 3, and then Snowe will moderate it to what you actually want.
October 6th, 2009 at 12:03 pm
“At what point does a progressive look at the twisted, stunted monstrosity wending it’s way through the halls of congress and say “This isn’t worth passing”?”
Well heedless some of us are looking at the relatively tight bills passed out of four committees over a period of two to three weeks in July and not Baucus’s apparent deliberate attempt to slow-walk a bill until it is too late for reconciliation (original deadline Oct 15th).
For some reason the Conservadems have decided to prove that government can’t work by producing a horribly twisted product at the slowest possible pace. We have an excellent bill at hand, it is called HR3200 and there is nothing that would prevent Harry Reid from invoking Senate Rule XIV and bypassing Senate Finance altogether. Max Baucus is not working in good faith and it is time to tell him that he is no longer in charge of this process.
Because if he can run out the clock on reconciliation suddenly the Conservadems are back in the driver’s seat and to hell with majority rule. Baucus is now talking about a Committee vote on October 13, giving Reid two days to merge the bills, allow debate on Amendments, overcome at least one filibuster (with an automatic day of debate) and then conform with reconciliation rules. I don’t see that it can be done at all. Reid needs to move TODAY and Fauc Bauc.
October 6th, 2009 at 12:15 pm
Oops my bad. October 15th is indeed a key date, I just got it backwards. Instead of being the date that reconciliation is no longer possible, it is the first date under which the bill can be passed using reconciliation. A trigger if you will.
October 8th, 2009 at 10:58 am
It seems that the neo-liberals here feel that it is a great idea to dictate to everyone else how they should spend their money and take away choice in healthcare. You are all pro-choice, but only when it comes to abortion. Taxation is great as long as it is not you paying the taxes.
There is no constitutional authortity for the federal mandates in the bill, and yes, that includes the interstate commerce clause and the enumerated powers. No senator has been able to give a single csnstitutional authority citation and I have asked a large number of them about this. One staffer literally used as authority this comment “well we can co it because the constitution does not say we cannot”. Yes, it was Baucus’ aide with that brilliant insight into constitutional law.
So liberals please stay out of my life. If you want to help the poor that really need the help, then do it personally like I do. But in reality, that is not what you want. You only want to control the lives of others. Unfortunately for you, we are not going to take it any more.
October 8th, 2009 at 10:59 am
It seems that the neo-liberals here feel that it is a great idea to dictate to everyone else how they should spend their money and take away choice in healthcare. You are all pro-choice, but only when it comes to abortion. Taxation is great as long as it is not you paying the taxes.
So liberals please stay out of my life. If you want to help the poor that really need the help, then do it personally like I do. But in reality, that is not what you want. You only want to control the lives of others. Unfortunately for you, we are not going to take it any more.
October 8th, 2009 at 11:00 am
There is no constitutional authortity for the federal mandates in the bill, and yes, that includes the interstate commerce clause and the enumerated powers. No senator has been able to give a single csnstitutional authority citation and I have asked a large number of them about this. One staffer literally used as authority this comment “well we can co it because the constitution does not say we cannot”. Yes, it was Baucus’ aide with that brilliant insight into constitutional law.