7/2: Is HELP On The Way?

Liberal bloggers are praising the revised health care plan released by the Senate HELP Committee, which includes a public option and carries a price tag of roughly $600B over 10 years (which is significantly cheaper than the estimated $1T cost of the initial version of the plan). Jane Hamsher declares: "So, with a public plan added, health care is actually LESS expensive." Jed Lewison also loves the bill: "Politically, this puts Republicans and Democratic opponents of the public option in a terrible position. They can't argue that the public option is too expensive. And they can't argue that it won't lower costs and expand coverage." That said, some bloggers think the bill will end up costing more than $600B, since it doesn't include the likely cost effects of the Medicaid expansion (which is under the jurisdiction of the Finance Committee).

In other health care reform news, prominent liberal bloggers are declaring that they will not accept a bill that does not include a public option. Moreover, they're asking progressive Dems in Congress to promise to kill any such bill. Markos Moulitsas writes:

"There can be no health care reform without the public option. Any such attempt should be DOA, as they are nothing short of industry giveaways. If the Senate balks, pass legislation under reconciliation. If the Senate still balks, House progressives should make sure to kill any such effort."

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Conservative bloggers (Geraghty, Morrissey, Erickson, Malkin) are pointing to the latest unemployment numbers as evidence that Pres. Obama's stimulus bill has failed. Liberal blogger Matthew Yglesias thinks job losses are accelerating because the stimulus bill was too small.
• Conservative bloggers (Malkin, Liebau, Goldberg, Schiffren) were disgusted by SC Gov. Mark Sanford's (R) recent AP interview and are urging him to resign.
• Liberal bloggers (Bowers, Sudbay) are pleased that Reps. Joe Sestak (D-PA) and Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) have announced primary challenges to Sens. Arlen Specter (D-PA) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), respectively.
• Conservative bloggers (Erickson, Hinderaker) love TX Gov. Rick Perry (R), as evidenced by their positive reaction to Glenn Reynolds' recent interview with him.

HEALTH CARE REFORM: HELP! I Need Somebody

Liberal bloggers are praising the revised health care plan released by the Senate HELP Committee:

• Firedoglake's Hamsher: "The first draft, which the CBO scored without a public plan included, came in at over $1 trillion over 10 years. It had holes in it for a public plan, though. Now that the holes have been filled in, the CBO has scored the whole thing cheaper, at $600 billion over ten years (small potatoes next to the $750 billion in TARP money in less than one year). So, with a public plan added, health care is actually LESS expensive."
• Daily Kos' Lewison: "The key thing to remember is that last time around, we were looking at a $1 trillion price tag over 10 years -- and millions without coverage. This time we're looking at $600 billion over 10 years and 97% coverage. What changed? Two things. First, now the plan includes a public option, which is a far more cost effective way of expanding coverage than only subsidizing private insurance. Second, it contains a funding mechanism requiring employers who do not provide health insurance to pay an annual fee for each uncovered employee. Small businesses would be exempt from this fee. Politically, this puts Republicans and Democratic opponents of the public option in a terrible position. They can't argue that the public option is too expensive. And they can't argue that it won't lower costs and expand coverage. The only argument they have left is that private insurers won't be happy with the public option. To the extent that argument sways opinion, it will sway opinion in our direction."
• Open Left's Chris Bowers: "The most noteworthy part of this is that a 10-year price tag of slightly over $600 billion is slightly less than the $634 billion President Obama set aside for health care spending in the budget. [...] The Senate has already passed the budget with the health care spending intact. [...] Add it all up, and the Senate has already passed a budget that can pay for the public option. While a few details need to be clarified, the overall structure is now in place. At this point, the only way that a public plan does not pass into law is if right-wing Democratic ideologues like [CT Sen.] Joe Lieberman overwhelm The Progressive Bloc(k)."

On the other hand, some bloggers think the HELP bill will end up costing more than $600B if one factors in the likely cost effects of the Medicaid expansion. Ezra Klein explains:

"CBO estimates that by 2019 the bill will cover 21 million people at a cost of $597 billion. But -- and this is important -- the HELP Committee's bill doesn't include the Medicaid expansion, because Medicaid is under the sole jurisdiction of the Finance Committee. But if Medicaid is expanded to 150 percent, it will cover an additional 20 million at a cost of about $1 trillion. Add in the savings that Finance is expected to get from reforming Medicare and you're looking at a bill that will cost $1 trillion to $1.3 trillion and cover 42 million people (which would mean 97 percent of the legal population in 2019 would have health insurance) by 2019."

HEALTH CARE REFORM II: Drawing A Line In The Sand

Liberal bloggers are not willing to accept a health care reform bill that does not include a public option, and they are asking progressive Dems in Congress to promise to kill any such bill:

• Daily Kos' Moulitsas: "There can be no health care reform without the public option. Any such attempt should be DOA, as they are nothing short of industry giveaways. If the Senate balks, pass legislation under reconciliation. If the Senate still balks, House progressives should make sure to kill any such effort."
• Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher: "[W]ith minor exception[s], members who have floated all kinds of lofty rhetoric about their support for a public plan don't want to say they won't vote for a bill that doesn't have one. They want to 'leave themselves open.' Meanwhile, President Lieberman and President Nelson and President Landrieu have absolutely no trouble whatsoever saying they won't vote for a bill that HAS a public plan. Saying what you won't vote for seems to be easy, as long as it's pro-insurance industry and regressive. I think it's pretty clear where we're headed on this. It's 'public plan' kabuki. The progressives are putting on a nice show but in the end, they're fully prepared to sell the public plan -- and women -- down the river. If you want a decent health care bill, you're going to have to get on the phone and tell people you're pissed and that you're not going to settle for kabuki. If Joe Lieberman can say where he draws the line, so can they."

Other liberal bloggers (Yglesias, Drum, Cohn) are warning congressional Dems that they'll be making a huge political mistake if they compromise too much on health care reform.

Meanwhile, many lefty bloggers (Moulitsas, Hamsher, Llorens, Kurtz) are blasting Lieberman for announcing his opposition to a public health care plan after expressing support for such a plan during his '06 re-election campaign.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: A Tragic Love Story? Give Me A Break

The New Republic's Michelle Cottle has little sympathy for Sanford:

"...It's not simply that he couldn't choose between Jenny [Sanford] and Maria [Belén Chapur]. We're talking about a guy who repeatedly asked his wife's permission to run off for a quick visit with her competition. Sanford not only wanted to have his cake and eat it too -- he wanted his legally wed cake to tell him that it's ok to keep dipping his fork into his extramarital cake -- excuse me, extramarital Soul Cake. In theory, of course, he was struggling to gently disentangle everyone from the ridiculous web he had woven. But he didn't disentangle. He just kept tangling and tangling and tangling. Until he tangled so completely that the entire world found out about his situation -- which, in turn, only prompted him to spin more stories on national TV about himself as the tragic slave to love. And then a few days later -- even more stories, with more talk about his commitment to his family even as his poor heart is shattered. Oh, boo hoo hoo. Say what you will about [Newt] Gingrich, at least he never asked any of his wives to become an accessory to his betrayal of her and to his public deception -- pardon me, his grand and glorious love story.

Now, of course, Sanford wants to be cheered, or at least pitied, for buckling down and committing to 'falling back in love with' his wife -- despite having announced to the entire globe that Maria is his true love. What nobility. What self-sacrifice. What moral fortitude. What utter nonsense. What now happens within the Sanford family should be an entirely private matter (as, indeed, this entire Love Story should have remained, if only the governor could have handled it less absurdly -- and without taxpayer funding.) But however it ends, let's not kid ourselves: Mark Sanford isn't remotely special. He isn't even particularly tragic, at least not in the romantic sense. The man isn't a fool for love so much as he's just a fool. And his political future now largely depends on how gladly the voters of South Carolina will suffer having a fool as their leader."

LEST WE FORGET: Iran Or Star Wars?

McSweeney's contributor M. Lindsay Moore:

1. Supreme Chancellor
2. The Special Clerical Court
3. Assembly of Experts
4. Third Senate
5. Guardian Council
6. Imperial Ruling Council
7. Supreme Leader
8. Army of the Guardians
9. General Ministry
10. Galactic Senate

Iran -- 2, 3, 5, 7, 8

Star Wars -- 1, 4, 6, 9, 10

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 01:26 PM