Biting The Good Poll Numbers That Feed Them

To follow up on Tom Daschle's big fold on the public option, which is setting minds in Washington as we speak, the timing is truly impeccable. Not only did the WSJ and NBC come out with a poll finding 75% support for a public option in any reform, but an additional poll - put together by foes of health care reform - found even more support.

The poll — which was just released by the Employee Benefit Research Institute, a D.C. policy think tank — finds that a majority (53%) strongly back the availability of a public plan, while another 30% “somewhat” support it. That’s a total of 83% in favor of a public plan — a staggeringly large majority.

Even more interesting, guess who paid for the poll? From the release:

This survey was made possible with support from AARP, American Express, Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, Buck Consultants, Chevron, Deere & Company, IBM, Mercer, National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, Principal Financial Group, Schering-Plough Corp., Shell Oil Company, The Commonwealth Fund, and Towers Perrin.

Not exactly a band of raging lefties. The American Association of Retired Persons and Blue Cross Blue Shield were among the opponents of HillaryCare in the 1990s.

Meanwhile, instead of looking at those numbers and seeing that the public option must be preserved, Daschle and the Village thinks these guys must be preserved at all costs:

A Texas nurse said she lost her coverage, after she was diagnosed with aggressive breast cancer, for failing to disclose a visit to a dermatologist for acne.

The sister of an Illinois man who died of lymphoma said his policy was rescinded for the failure to report a possible aneurysm and gallstones that his physician noted in his chart but did not discuss with him.

....Late in the hearing, [Bart] Stupak, the committee chairman, put the executives on the spot. Stupak asked each of them whether he would at least commit his company to immediately stop rescissions except where they could show "intentional fraud."

The answer from all three executives: "No."

Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.) said that a public insurance plan should be a part of any overhaul because it would force private companies to treat consumers fairly or risk losing them. "This is precisely why we need a public option," Dingell said.

Rescission is a serious problem. Here in California, Blue Cross and its parent company HealthNet have settled to the tune of about $37 million dollars in a variety of rescission lawsuits.

But no, private insurance must be preserved because it's so efficient. After all, that's why we pay twice as much for health care with worse outcomes than most of the industrialized world! (P.S. I know that doctors ordering up unnecessary treatments and tests contribute to this as well - our system's lack of integration provides perverse spending incentives.) And by the way, all of this is happening despite the fact that the Progressive Caucus has vowed to vote against any health care reform that does not have a robust public option. It's just assumed that they can be steamrolled.

Instead, we have this spectacle of so-called "centrists," supposedly concerned with fiscal responsibility, fighting against reform tooth and nail, even though that would be the only way to reduce cost.

The House's two most conservative caucuses, the Blue Dogs and New Democrats, are banding together to come up with shared principles on healthcare and counter a process many see skewing to the left.

The two groups, which combined have 131 members — more than half the House Democratic Caucus — have been holding meetings to see where they can agree on a healthcare plan [...]

There is concern among centrists in the caucus that the draft bill, to be released Friday, will reflect some of the more liberal ideas in the caucus, although leadership has already rejected the idea of a single-payer system. It is being put together by the House Education and Labor, Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means committees.

"You have a bunch of crazy liberal chairs and their crazy liberal staffers, and they want to lay down a marker," said a senior Democratic aide.

Crazy liberals, wanting to replicate the rest of the industrialized world's policy of less spending and greater effectiveness in health care!

It's really sad to see the Washington consensus just run like a truck over meaningful health care reform. Especially because the public won't buy anything without a public option as real reform, period.

UPDATE: Russ Feingold on the Senate floor:

Frankly, I am disappointed that this has become the topic of so much controversy, because it is such a fundamental part of making sure we provide the reform that my constituents, and all Americans, deserve.  Some have even suggested scrapping a public option in the interest of passing a bill with bipartisan support.  I want to pass health care reform and I hope very much we can do so with bipartisan support.  But I am not interested in passing health care reform in name only.  I am not interested in a bill that allows us to somehow tell our constituents we have done something but doesn’t really address their concerns.  We need real reform, and real reform means a strong public option.

And Americans want a public health insurance option.  According to a recent poll by NBC and the Wall Street Journal, over three fourths of those polled said they would like the ability to choose between public and private health insurance plans.  Providing a public health insurance option that does not discriminate against those with pre-existing conditions and illnesses will significantly improve the ability of people to access health care.

Don't Make Me Save The Planet!

So those centrist House Democrats have bought into the myth that government can do too much, asking Nancy Pelosi to set aside their climate change bill in favor of health care - even though the Senate has managed the health care bill and the House the climate change bill, an appropriate division of labor. Pardon me for suggesting another reason - these centrists want to protect the polluting industries in their districts.

Democratic centrists are pressing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to set aside a flagging climate change bill to focus on what they think is a more achievable goal: overhauling the nation’s healthcare system.

But those close to Pelosi (D-Calif.) say she is charging forward on cap-and-trade legislation, despite the potential defections of Democrats who represent states with industries that would be adversely affected by the bill [...]

Democratic aides say the sentiment for putting healthcare first is felt most strongly among New Democrats.

“A lot of our members feel that healthcare has a higher likelihood, so getting that done first and then doing energy makes sense,” said an aide to a New Democratic leader.

“New Dems are in a tough spot,” said one Blue Dog member, explaining that New Democrats are more likely to have an environmental constituency at odds with their business constituency. Blue Dogs, by comparison, have more freedom simply to vote no on climate change legislation.

Whew, I wouldn't want those Blue Dogs to feel conflicted about voting against doing something about a boiling planet! Thank Jeebus they have some "freedom."

We hear plenty about the costs of action. Artur Davis (D-AL) says in this article, "in the throes of a recession, more of a burden on industry is not a good idea.” But inaction has a cost, too. Bills that quantify a certain change in policy must be scored and the costs must be announced. The cost of doing nothing can more easily be ignored. That would be a grave mistake.

The real cost of carbon emissions is far from zero. Each new scientific report brings proof of a changing climate that promises to disrupt agricultural patterns, set off a scramble for dwindling resources, raise sea levels, propel population shifts and require massive emergency spending as we try to react to the growing crises. These are the costs of inaction.

A smart climate policy can create a mechanism to put the right price on carbon, and rapid economic change will follow that firm price signal, along with reduced climate risks. Our work with more than 100 economists nationwide and at RealClimateEconomics.org demonstrates the weight of economic analysis supporting this point.

The whole point of climate legislation is to price externalities that we already spend. When children acquire asthma from pollution, when naval ships ensure safe passage for petroleum from the Middle East, when droughts affect farm crops, when houses flood and rivers pour over their banks, those costs come, at least in part, from burning carbon. We have several options for pricing those carbon emissions, but the most important thing we can do is employ a cap, to bend the curve of the increased costs from climate change in exactly the same way that we must bend the curve of increased health care costs by eliminating the hidden costs of the uninsured. The problems are exactly the same.

If we fail to cap carbon because some coal-state lawmakers refuse to take a tough vote, then in 5 or 10 years, we'll return to Congress, talking about capping carbon after spending hundreds of billions as a result of making parts of the planet uninhabitable. The political system doesn't deal with the future very well, sadly.

Ellen Tauscher's Insatiable Appetite For More Homeless People

Late last week, Democrats temporarily shelved a bill that would allow bankruptcy judges to modify the terms of mortgages on primary residences (also known as "cram-down"). Moderates who put the hold on this legislation, particularly former Wall Street investor Ellen Tauscher, crowed about it to the media.

This hardly amounts to a breakthrough win for party moderates — or a major concession by the speaker. But it was a consequential moment in the minds of moderate leaders who often find themselves marginalized in a caucus dominated by liberals.

“It shows we have bench strength, and it shows we can flex,” said California Rep. Ellen O. Tauscher, who chairs the New Democrat Coalition and played a central role in negotiations over the bankruptcy bill [...]

Moderates worry Pelosi is routinely staking very liberal positions to push House versions of big bills as far to the left as possible to enhance their standing in negotiations with the historically centrist Senate. This might be a smart tactic, but it often hurts Democrats who rely on Republican votes to win reelection. Put bluntly, it makes them look too liberal [...]

That prompted lawmakers, like Tauscher, to limit the scope of the bankruptcy bill as much as possible, even though this measure is only loosely related to the president’s broader proposal.

Tauscher’s New Democrat Coalition teamed with their natural allies in the Blue Dog Coalition to impose 10 significant changes, including requirements that bankruptcy judges use federal guidelines to determine the fair market value of a home and that modified loans must be “unaffordable and not just underwater” to prevent wealthy homeowners from taking advantage of the process, according to a widely distributed e-mail from Adam Pase, executive director of the New Democrat Coalition.

This, of course, angered some liberals. “The New Dems’ position is the banks’ position,” a senior Democratic aide involved in the bankruptcy negotiations complained on Friday. “New Democrats are shills for the banks.”

It's confounding that any New Democrat thinks their constituents give a ring-a-ding about banking industry concerns, and are not in fact the very people struggling to keep their homes that this legislation would help.

When Chris Bowers used Tauscher as the face of the moderate backlash against working people facing foreclosure, her office responded by saying they supported the rule on the bill (HR 1106), and that their changes would "strengthen" the bill, and that they didn't meet with anyone in the financial services industry about it. But David Waldman explains why that, simply put, is a crock - she voted for the rule because it incorporated the changes she wanted to make. And if that was the only hurdle, why didn't the legislation get a vote last week?

Now, that amendment was approved by the Rules Committee last Wednesday night, the 25th of February, and the rule was adopted on Thursday morning, the 26th. That locked in place that the voting on the bill would include a vote on an amendment incorporating Tauscher's list of changes.

So why, if she supports the bill, would work on it be suspended on the afternoon of Thursday, the 26th? She "supports the bill," and voted for the rule that locked in a shot at making the changes she proposed to the Judiciary Committee, and yet here we are, waiting over the weekend for... what, exactly?

Ellen Tauscher supported the rule because it made an amendment in order that would incorporate her list of demands. That's all. But she must clearly want more changes, because even after winning these concessions, the bill is still stalled, and the news reports on the stall have Tauscher's name all over them.

Jane Hamsher has a lot more on Tauscher, who is clearly putting banking industry interests ahead of her constituents'. She doesn't have to necessarily talk to anyone in the financial services industry personally, because Adam Pase, the chairman of the New Dmocrats, works out of her office:

Pase is is a former lobbyist for the Twenty First Century Group, whose client, the Coalition for Fair & Affordable Lending, is an astroturf group, financed by the banking industry, that lobbied on behalf of. . . you guessed it. . . sub-prime lenders. Contrary to what you might hear on Morning Joe, it was national civil rights leaders who joined together to fight the Coalition's predatory lenders as they tried to pass the Ney-Kanjorski bill, which would have enabled banks to get around predatory lending laws and make more bad loans. This they justified based on the oh-so-high-minded need to provide loans to low income and minority borrowers. It was true scumbaggery.

Pase was also the senior policy adviser for Dennis Moore when Moore organized Blue Dogs to oppose mortgage write-downs on behalf of the banking industry in 2007, and he is evidently the one driving policy on this one for the New Dems. But one has to wonder -- what is Tauscher thinking? Her district is one of the hardest hit by the mortgage crisis, as you can see from the map. Why is she trying to limit mortgage write-downs to subprime loans only, on behalf of banks, when every foreclosure brings down the value of all houses in a neighborhood? Her claim to care so very much about people still struggling to pay their mortgages rings hollow.

Shaun Donovan, the HUD Secretary, is headed to the House today to whip support for the bill. This legislation would save perhaps 800,000 families from foreclosure without one penny of cost to the taxpayer. All the bill would do is give leverage to homeowners who have been screwed by their lenders at practically every step of this process.



Homeowners burned by Blue Dogs and New Dems like Tauscher are not likely to forget the treachery. Firedoglake has some action items.

We're asking you to do two things:

Write a letter to the editor of your local papers (just enter your zip code) saying you expect your Member of Congress to represent you, not the banks, and you'll be watching to see if they oppose Tauscher and her bank lobbyist cronies.

Sign a petition to Nancy Pelosi telling her not to "buckle" to pressure from bank lobbyists working through greedy corporatist Members of Congress, and to act swiftly to give judges the authority they need to write down mortgages. The banks must take responsibility for their own bad judgment; taxpayers shouldn't be expected to pick up the tab.

These same people killed efforts in 2007 to allow bankruptcy judges to write down mortgages at that time, which could have helped us from ever getting to this place. It's time they stop pretending that they care about their constituents when they're only being tools of the banking lobby.

I think it's more about telling Pelosi we'll have her back if she stands up to these cretins. You know what to do.