Equity market says US Health Bill is killed

[Francesca R]

I was trying to decide whether the Obama admin would get a bigger backlash by pushing the affordable health care bill through via other means, or by seeing it crater. Don't know really. I don't think this is working out very well for the US but others opinion might differ. (I confess I have a US healthcare index trade on since about 6 hours ago)

An index of health-care companies in the S&P 500 led the advance with a 2 percent rally. U.S. Democrats face the possibility of losing a Senate seat held by the late Edward Kennedy as voters in Massachusetts go to the polls. A loss could cost them a 60-vote supermajority needed to help pass a health- care overhaul.

Bloomberg news

 

[dudalb]

The Dems will water down the Health Bill even more to get it passed.

 

[DavidJames]

The Dems will water down the Health Bill even more to get it passed.

Probably and that would be a mistake.

I think they should step back, look at the best health care systems in place throughout the planet and try make it happen, screw the Republicans, it's time to do the right thing for the American people. Of course it will never fly, socialism, not invented here, xenophobia, etc. but at least they will fail doing the right thing and not some hodgepodge mess.

 

[Just thinking]

... screw the Republicans, ...

I think that's what helped get them where they are now.

 

[Brainster]

The Dems will water down the Health Bill even more to get it passed.

They can't if Brown is elected because then the Republicans will have enough votes to prevent cloture in the Senate. The only possibility is for the House to accept the Senate version of the bill, but that's going to run into stiff opposition from House "progressives". And I suspect that more of the blue dogs will defect on this bill if not entirely from the Democrats given the current mood of the electorate.

 

[Praktik]

I must admit I have always been skeptical of the connection between the vagaries of the market and short-term political developments. Is there an evidentiary basis for supposing the 2% rally was because of what was happening in Massachusetts?

I guess I am also somewhat ignorant of financial matters but from this layman's view, the complexity of markets make pointing to a single cause (disregarding outlier situations) as the reason for this or that increase/decrease makes these kinds of pronouncements kind of silly IMO...

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

The Dems will water down the Health Bill even more to get it passed.

I think you're right, and I'm torn on how I feel about it. The Democrats will certainly not have a better chance than this year to pass a healthcare reform bill of any type for a long long time.

Politics, the art of the possible.

If all that's possible is a bill that would allow some millions of people to have much greater access to healthcare and to remove the most deplorable insurance industry practices (rescission and post-claim underwriting, benefit caps and refusal to cover pre-existing conditions), I have to say it's probably worth doing. The worst cost, IMO, is that it means insurance will be even more deeply entrenched as the way we deliver healthcare.

 

[ZirconBlue]

They can't if Brown is elected because then the Republicans will have enough votes to prevent cloture in the Senate. The only possibility is for the House to accept the Senate version of the bill, but that's going to run into stiff opposition from House "progressives". And I suspect that more of the blue dogs will defect on this bill if not entirely from the Democrats given the current mood of the electorate.

On NPR this morning, they cited 4 ways the bill could be passed if Brown is elected:

1. Try to hurry the bill through to a vote before the Mass. vote is certified.
2. Try to negotiate changes to bring one Republican (read: Olympia Snow) on board. (Actually, they don't need a Republican vote for the bill, just one to not support a filibuster.)
3. Get the House to vote for the Senate Bill as-is.
4. Attach the legislation to a spending bill, which, by senate procedure doesn't require the 60 votes.

I think you're right, and I'm torn on how I feel about it. The Democrats will certainly not have a better chance than this year to pass a healthcare reform bill of any type for a long long time.

Politics, the art of the possible.

If all that's possible is a bill that would allow some millions of people to have much greater access to healthcare and to remove the most deplorable insurance industry practices (rescission and post-claim underwriting, benefit caps and refusal to cover pre-existing conditions), I have to say it's probably worth doing. The worst cost, IMO, is that it means insurance will be even more deeply entrenched as the way we deliver healthcare.

I agree. I'm hopeful that if a bill is passed, it can be improved in future years; but if it no bill is passed now, I fear it will be many years, if not decades, before we get another chance.

 

[Ziggurat]

the most deplorable insurance industry practices[snip] refusal to cover pre-existing conditions

Sorry, but that's not a deplorable practice. That's a rather necessary practice in order to even call what they provide insurance. Simply removing that practice would be an absolute disaster, because it's one of the prime reasons that healthy young people sign up for insurance right now. I hope I don't have to spell out the consequences of young healthy people dropping their insurance coverage. Now you might prefer to have a universal coverage system which avoids doing this, but given what we have now, that practice isn't deplorable, it's necessary.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Sorry, but that's not a deplorable practice. That's a rather necessary practice in order to even call what they provide insurance. Simply removing that practice would be an absolute disaster, because it's one of the prime reasons that healthy young people sign up for insurance right now. I hope I don't have to spell out the consequences of young healthy people dropping their insurance coverage. Now you might prefer to have a universal coverage system which avoids doing this, but given what we have now, that practice isn't deplorable, it's necessary.

It's certainly not necessary. Plenty of us make a living without doing anything like that. Plenty of other nations provide healthcare to a higher proportion of their people without doing anything like this.

And the argument that denying coverage is necessary to providing coverage doesn't make sense.

Here's some of the documents produced by the House Committee that investigated these practices:
http://energycommerce.house.gov/ind...tee-on-oversight-and-investigations&Itemid=73

I especially suggest this one: http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090616/rescission_supplemental.pdf

And even House Republicans agree that it's wrong:
http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/News/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=7099

 

[gnome]

I see Ziggurat's point though... if Pre-Existing conditions were always covered with no other requirements, people would only buy insurance when they were sick and cancel it when they were treated. The entire concept of insurance--healthy people paying for sick people--would collapse.

One solution being considered is to require insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions, but at the same time require healthy people to maintain coverage. It isn't ideal, perhaps, but it is arguably better than what we currently have.

 

[Ziggurat]

It's certainly not necessary. Plenty of us make a living without doing anything like that. Plenty of other nations provide healthcare to a higher proportion of their people without doing anything like this.

Because they have very different systems. If you simply remove that from the existing system in the US, it would be a disaster.

Here's some of the documents produced by the House Committee that investigated these practices

... "these practices" being rescission, which is not the same thing as denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions. Don't conflate them.

 

[The Painter]

The health care bill stinks. It stinks on ice. It is nothing that the Democrats wanted. The Republicans don't want it. Who is voting yes for this piece of crap?? Entrenched politicians who just do what they are told.

This bill is a big stinking turd. Which is the clean end? That's right, it doesn't have one. So how do you pick it up without getting dirty??

 

[Peephole]

Why does the health care bill stink, The Painter?

 

[theprestige]

screw the Republicans, it's time to do the right thing for the American people...

... many of whom are Republicans, and who do not agree with you about what is the right thing to do for them, and who probably do not have a lot of appreciation for social change based on the principle of "screw the Republicans". But hey, you're more than welcome to see how that strategy plays at the polls. Seems to me it's been failing miserably all year, but perhaps you're just the guy to show us all just how awsome "screw the Republicans" really is.

 

[a_unique_person]

Sorry, but that's not a deplorable practice. That's a rather necessary practice in order to even call what they provide insurance. Simply removing that practice would be an absolute disaster, because it's one of the prime reasons that healthy young people sign up for insurance right now. I hope I don't have to spell out the consequences of young healthy people dropping their insurance coverage. Now you might prefer to have a universal coverage system which avoids doing this, but given what we have now, that practice isn't deplorable, it's necessary.

Australia has it, and it's not a disaster. It's called community rating.

I saw and episode of an American TV show once with a scenario. Person changes jobs, goes for health check, feels fine. Health check reveals cancer, no insurance cover.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I must admit I have always been skeptical of the connection between the vagaries of the market and short-term political developments. Is there an evidentiary basis for supposing the 2% rally was because of what was happening in Massachusetts?

Is a 2% rally significant or is it within the bounds of a typical market fluctuation?

 

[Thunder]

Democrats will use the procedural nuclear-option to get this passed.

though they shouldn't have to, since it will not include a public-option.

but Republicans will sell their soul and their mother to the devil, in order to get an Obama defeat.

 

[Random]

Democrats will use the procedural nuclear-option to get this passed.

though they shouldn't have to, since it will not include a public-option.

but Republicans will sell their soul and their mother to the devil, in order to get an Obama defeat.

If the dems decide to use the Nuclear Option, could they please step back and make the bill actually usefull first? If there is no support from the right wing, why in Gods name would you keep consessions you made to them in the bill?

Frankly, they should just come up with a single payer bill that gets 51 votes in the Seante, and try to pass it. If the Republicans fillibuster, just bring in cots and sleeping bags into the Senate and do nothing until it passes.

 

[Peephole]

If the dems decide to use the Nuclear Option, could they please step back and make the bill actually usefull first?

This is bill is very useful. Far from perfect, but a lot better than the status quo.

Frankly, they should just come up with a single payer bill that gets 51 votes in the Seante, and try to pass it. If the Republicans fillibuster, just bring in cots and sleeping bags into the Senate and do nothing until it passes.

I doubt there are 50 votes for a single-payer plan in the Senate or the House.