Quackery in Obama's health care proposal

President Obama on Monday praised health care industry groups for coming together to try and cut $2 trillion in expenses over the next decade to slow the rising cost of medical care.

At a White House news conference flanked by industry officials, Obama called the meeting of officials "who often fought with each other" a "historic day, a watershed event in the long quest for health care reform."

Bullshit. $2 trillion can be "saved" in healthcare costs? What is being lost? Healthcare profits? Research?

"If these savings are truly achieved, this may be the most significant development on the path to health care reform," said Ron Pollack, executive director of Families USA, which advocates for expanded health care coverage. "It would cut health costs for families and businesses, and it would enable adequate subsidies to be offered so that everyone has access to quality affordable health care."

Six medical trade groups, including the American Medical Association and America's Health Insurance Plans, which represents health insurance companies, have agreed to the cost-cutting. Health care costs would continue to rise, just not as quickly.

That last sentence still isn't a satisfactory explanation. Jeffrey Young at The Atlantic shares my skepticism:

Organizations representing the biggest players in the health care market promised President Obama on Monday that they'd find ways to cut national health spending by an astonishing $2 trillion over the next 10 years. Later that day, executives from these industries told the press that their companies' bottom lines would not suffer as a result. Whatever happened to Alfred E. Neuman's Cosmic Health Care Equation?

Among other things, this seems to be the latest example of health care industry lobbyists and executives trying to reassure investors that the sweeping reform plan being assembled by the Obama administration and the Democratically controlled Congress isn't going to put them out of business.

I'm still a great deal less concerned about the impact of this on the companies' stock prices, but that's just me.

At a press briefing in Washington Monday, health care executives were asked to explain how, for example, physicians and hospitals could maintain their incomes if spending were $2 trillion less over 10 years.

"I do believe that these savings can be achieved without detrimental impact on all of the groups that you described," Thomas Priselac, the president and CEO of Cedars-Sinai Health System said. "It will be important as we go through this reform that the payments that are provided be adequate for people to do what it is we're talking about in a new and different system."

Here's what Jay Gellert, President and CEO of the insurance company Health Net said: "I think we believe that we can do it without undermining the viability" private health care companies, he said. "The unique opportunity that we have now is to provide care to 40 or 50 million people if we successfully do this."

"I think that overall, that the efficiencies we'll bring will more than make up for the cuts, for the savings that we gain," Gellert said.

There's that smell of feces again. Besides the two corporate titans listed above, the assembled participants included PhRMA President (and former Congressman) Billy Tauzin, the heads of Merck, Kaiser, and the AMA, and SEIU chief Andy Stern.

I'm almost as disappointed in Stern helping peddle this crock as I am Obama.

Gene Green: still scared of progressives

Every time I start to like ol' Gene, he screws it up:

Representatives from a number of Houston organizations held a press conference and rally near Congressman Gene Green's east Houston office, after being prevented from doing so on the property where his office is located.

The group at the press conference today included religious, community, educational, and labor leaders, teachers and students, environmentalists, scientists, health professionals, and small business owners. ...

Following the event, one of the attendees tried to deliver a letter to Rep. Green's office stating her concerns, but was prevented from even going up to the office by the building security guard.

The group had tried to meet with Green or his chief of staff on March 2, when Green was in town, but he told the group something had come up and he had to leave town the morning of the meeting, and a substitute meeting with his chief of staff was canceled because that person was not available either.

Before the press conference yesterday, Bill Crosier and Ron Hayden went up to Green's office on the 4th floor at 11811 East Freeway to let his staff know they were here and invite them to attend, but found the door locked. Rep. Green had been previously invited to join the group at the press conference. A note on the door said the office was closed today because the staff was at a senior activity.

Crosier and Hayden were met by a security guard who asked if they were there for the "protest". They replied they were there for a press conference, not a protest, and hoped representatives of Rep. Green's office would be in attendance because his constituents wanted him to know how they felt about impending climate change legislation. They asked if the press conference could be held in the atrium of the building and were told no. They then asked if it could be held outside the building on the east or west sides, and were told no. The guard said the building management had been contacted by Green's office and the management said they could not hold the press conference anywhere on the property, not even on the parking lot.

Once outside, the guard and Officer Joseph C. Cram, with the Criminal Intelligence Division of the Houston Police Department, both told the group that they could not hold the press conference or any event anywhere on the property. Other police also arrived, apparently concerned about the event as well.

The group then moved to the parking lot of an adjacent property.

Good ol' boy Gene is on the House Energy and Commerce committee (chaired by Henry Waxman of California). The committee is holding hearings regarding climate change legislation under consideration by Congress.

So you would think ol' Gene might be interested in some input from some of his constituents. Well, he is, it's just that he thinks his only constituents are five refineries and "more chemical plants than (he) can count":

"I’d like to vote for a bill,” Green said. “But I’m not going to vote for one unless I think it’s going to be good for the area I represent.”...

Green has told congressional leaders and President Barack Obama that some carbon dioxide emission allowances will have to be given for free to refiners in order to win his support.

Green has become the main lawmaker pushing for free allowances for refiners, as one of just four Democrats on the Energy and Commerce Committee representing states with big refining operations. The others are Rep. Charlie Melancon, D-La., Charlie Gonzalez, D-Texas, and Jim Matheson, D-Utah.

Maybe we should let ol' Gene know that there are some concerned citizens who have to breathe the air that comes out of his district.

Ol' Gene is just one of those old-timers who's a little bit scared of "libruls". It's a mild, moderate case of fear and loathing, the kind you see more often in acute and chronic conservatism.

Maybe a dose of contested primary could cure that.

Showdown looming on voter ID bill

The bill requiring personal identification at Texas polls in order to be able to cast a ballot was passed out of its legislative committee today with the Republican chairman predicting its defeat.

Capitol Annex reports that a Democrat -- Joe Heflin -- helped vote the bill onto the floor. But Todd Smith still doesn't think it will pass:

"I just don't think the votes are there."

"It's pretty clear you can pass a bill like the Senate passed out when you have a 19-12 majority. It's not clear that you can pass that or anything else on this subject with a 76-74 majority in which we have some very independently minded people who make up those marginal votes," said Smith.

So far, Smith's efforts to find a bipartisan compromise have failed.

"You have to have significant numbers of people on both sides of the aisle accept the notion that it's going to be something other than a partisan cram-down," Smith said.

Many Republicans have said they will support the bill only if it contains tough photo identification requirements, while Democrats have said they want additional voter identification documents as well as expanded voter registration efforts. The Democrats control the field because several moderate Republicans are likely to vote against the bill, giving the Democrats a majority to kill it.

"Unless we develop a more pragmatic approach member by member and a stronger desire to reach some bipartisan compromise, then my guess is it's somewhat less than 50 percent to pass a bill," Smith said. "It's clear some members are interested in making a statement. They're not interested in passing a bill."

Lots of others have covered this in the run-up to next week's showdown. See also Rep. Aaron Pena's blog, Elise Hu at Political Junkie, DMN's Trail Blazers, and Gardner Selby's Postcards from the Lege. Update: And Burnt Orange.

Update II: The TDP press release lines up both Smith and Speaker Joe Straus in its sights:

... Smith had stated that the Voter ID bill should expand access and not take effect immediately, while the Senate bill does nothing to expand access and would take effect immediately.

A look at Chairman Smith’s statements:

· "It is my intent to have a part of the legislation that is intended to assure that the net effect of the legislation is to expand access and not restrict it." [Fort Worth Star-Telegram, 4/22/09].

· "It's not something that's going to take effect immediately." [San Angelo Standard-Times, 3/29/09].

“Todd Smith may talk a good game, but when pressured by the right-wing of his party, he allowed a bill to move forward even though it failed the standards he set in committee hearings and public statements,” observed Texas Democratic Party Executive Director Ruben Hernandez. “Smith has punted his principles and soon Texans will see if Speaker Straus will fumble his opportunity to prove that he is a leader who will not allow the priorities of the Texas House to be dictated by a narrow partisan agenda.”

Update III: And Kuffner ...

The alleged "problem" that this bill is supposed to address is rarer than getting hit by lightning while being eaten by a shark, yet it's been deemed the single most important issue facing Texas today by those who fear for their electoral future if those damn voters can't be stopped. One certainly could have put forth a bill that would have genuinely addressed legitimate issues, ranging from verifiable audit trails to obstacles to getting registered to actual fraud involving absentee ballots, but Smith's Republican colleagues have never been interested in passing such a bill, as they have made perfectly clear. Given all this, the most sensible thing to do would have been to conclude that there are many more pressing issues that require the Lege's attention, but that wasn't gonna happen, either. So from the GOP's perspective, they either get a half a loaf, ot they get what they think will be a juicy campaign issue, or possibly both. You have to give them credit for keeping on with the wedge issues in the age of Obama, for however much longer that will work. I suppose if your piano only has one key, you play that note for all it's worth and hope nobody notices how monotonic you are.

Update IV: From Harvey Kronberg, on Heflin's aye ...

In the wake of today’s committee vote on Voter ID, some members of the Democratic caucus are expressing dismay with Joe Heflin’s vote to kick out the bill. One Democratic lawmaker, who asked that he not be named, said the caucus was unhappy with the Crosbyton Democrat for giving Republicans the opportunity to say that Voter ID had bipartisan support in committee.

Democrats acknowledge that Heflin could not have stopped the bill, because Rep. Dennis Bonnen (R-Angleton) presumably would have voted aye if he became the deciding vote. As it was, Heflin’s aye vote gave Bonnen the cover to vote against a bill that he considered not strong enough.

For his part, Heflin disagreed with his colleague’s assessment, saying that he made plain his disappointment with the bill when he voted today. He said that people in his district want a Voter ID bill so he was voting his district by supporting the Senate version of the Voter ID bill today.