What’s really going on?

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

You are all probably aware by now that on Friday a bipartisan group of six senators sent a letter to the White House asking to slow down the process towards health care reform. This bipartisan group of senators consisted of Ben Nelson (D-NE), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Joe Lieberman (I-CT), Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Susan Collins (R-ME), and Ron Wyden (D-OR). Obama warns Congress not to 'slow down'

Ron Wyden? He's one of the white hat good guys in the Senate. Why would he add his name to a letter signed by the perpetual whiners of the Senate?

I reviewed the New York Times, Washington Post and Los Angeles Times for some clue. Thousands of words of analysis, but not one word of explanation for Ron Wyden. These highly paid Washington media villagers were all content to simply regurgitate the Frank Luntz GOP talking points the-language-of-healthcare-20091.pdf (pdf), and to frame their narrative in the context of Bill Clinton's failed 1994 health care reform effort. 1994 is irrelevant — this is 2009.

"Oh no! Six senators sent a letter to the White House. Oh no! Twenty-two Democratic freshman sent a letter to Nancy Pelosi. The health care reform bill is doomed — doomed I tell you! Obama is in trouble! Just like Bill Clinton in 1994."

This is the simplistic hyperbolic nonsense that has replaced solid reporting now days. Hey media villagers, stop spinning for your corporate sponsors a moment and pay attention! You just might actually learn something.

What's really going on? It took a numbers-cruncher blogger, Nate Silver at fivethirtyeight.com to explain why Sen. Ron Wyden signed the letter. On Health Care, Bipartisanship without Compromise?

What's interesting, though, is who exactly is in this "gang". Five of the six are whom you'd expect: three conservative Democrats (Liberman, Landireu and Ben Nelson) and two liberal Republicans (Collins, Snowe). But then there's Oregon's Ron Wyden, who is not particularly conservative and in fact is usually thought of as being rather liberal.

Wyden, as you may know, has his own version of health care reform, which is entitled the Healthy Americans Act (HAA). The HAA is, in some ways, a more radical restructuring of the health insurance system than any of the other plans currently being contemplated by the Congress. It would completely remove the benefits tax exemption, create a national health insurance exchange (which would be open to everyone including those who opted out of their employer-provided coverage), and set some rather explicit cost-containment targets. I'm on record as being a fan, as are a lot of health care policy wonks like Ezra Klein. The interesting thing about Wyden's bill is that it has co-sponsors from all over the political spectrum: not just centrists but also fairly liberal Democrats like Jeff Merkley, Ted Kaufman and Daniel Inouye, and rather conservative Republicans like Idaho's Mike Crapo and Utah's Dick Bennett.

* * *

But what's this have to do with the letter that Wyden and his colleagues sent today? It's not immediately clear. While three of the six "gang" members (Wyden, Lieberman, Landrieu) are sponsors of Wyden's bill, the other three (Snowe, Collins, and Ben Nelson) are not.

My guess, though, is that Wyden wouldn't have signed onto this letter unless he thought there was a real chance to marshal support for his bill. And my guess is that the other five signatories probably understood that.

It's actually not completely clear that the Senate can't find 60 votes for the HELP Committee's bill once push comes to shove (much less 50). But those votes certainly won't be had easily, and Wyden's bill arguably represents an easier path. It begins with five Republican co-sponsors (Bennett, Crapo, Judd Gregg, Lamar Alexander and Linsday Graham) and would probably have little difficulty getting Snowe's and Collins's votes as well. The downside is that there might be a dozen or so Democrats who are extremely reluctant to touch the benefits tax exemption, which some of the AFL-CIO unions like AFSCME are very protective of. So the White House would either have to make some phone calls or find a few more Republicans to support the Wyden bill.

Ultimately, though, this presents an opportunity to find a bipartisan solution that doesn't have to be a compromise solution — a lot of smart, progressive folks think Wyden's bill is better on its face than the "traditional" versions that have been drafted by the House and the Senate, much less what those versions will look like after they've been through the meat-grinder of the Senate floor. The White House doesn't need to take more time on health care: it may simply need more votes. Especially after this letter today, it ought to at least be actively considering whether Wyden's bill is the way to get them.

You haven't heard of the Healthy Americans Act? Blame the Washington media villagers. If you want to learn more about the Healthy Americans Act (which is a private insurer alternative to the public option), you need to turn to Sen. Ron Wyden's home state newspaper, The Oregonian. Here is a sampling of articles:

Sen. Ron Wyden's health care plan could save cash (May 2, 2008)

Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden's universal health care plan would break even during its first full year of operation and then create budget surpluses, according to a report released Thursday by nonpartisan government analysts.

Wyden touted the preliminary analysis, by the Congressional Budget Office and Joint Committee on Taxation, as demonstrating that it is possible to provide universal health care without large tax increases.

"They have told us that all Americans can have quality, affordable health care without breaking the bank," Wyden said after emerging from a closed briefing on the analysis with many of his 13 co-sponsors.

* * *

The report released today estimates that if Congress passed the proposal this year, it would take until 2014 to implement it fully. In 2014, the report estimates, the system would break even. In the years following, it would generate surpluses for the federal budget.

Ron Wyden's 'radical' health care plan (editorial)

Under the Healthy Americans Act, employees would be responsible for selecting the health insurance that best meets their needs. For example, older workers would not need a plan that provides obstetrical services and could buy a more tailored plan.

In return, employers would give workers raises equal to the cost of health insurance that was previously offered. Although the extra pay would be taxable, Wyden says new federal tax deductions would protect all but the most affluent from higher taxes.

The Congressional Budget Office has said Wyden's plan would rather quickly become revenue-neutral. In contrast, the latest plan being floated by Democratic congressional leaders would cost $1 trillion or more over 10 years.

Obama argues correctly that American workers would be highly nervous about moving too quickly from the employer-sponsored health coverage that exists today. Trouble is, that kind of coverage is rapidly diminishing as health care costs soar in America.

Happily, Obama said he agrees with 90 percent of Wyden's thinking, such as the idea that health insurance must be portable between jobs. That's good to hear, because no matter what you think of Wyden's plan, he at least understands that the real question isn't so much who pays for health coverage but how it's paid for.

Now, I am not endorsing Sen. Ron Wyden's Healthy Americans Act. I believe that the single payer system has proven itself to be most cost effective and efficient in every other industrialized country in the world, and this is the best option.

But there really ought to be some discussion in the media about the various proposals and alternatives being discussed so that the American people can make an informed decision — you know, like they are supposed to be able to do about their personal health care decisions.

It's time for the Washington media villagers to throw away their Frank Luntz GOP talking points, cast aside their outdated and irrelevant 1994 framing, and stop spinning for their corporate sponsors and to actually do their damn job — educate the American people on what their options are so they can make an informed decision, not one poisoned by media bias and corporate spin.