Health Care

Dingell Dispatch

By Karen Tumulty | February 25, 2010 | +

No one in the room at the health care summit has worked longer on the issue than John Dingell, the senior member of the House. Indeed, for him, this cause has been a family legacy. I checked in with him at the lunch break by email, and here’s what he thought of the morning:

We had a very spirited discussion this morning. One thing has become abundantly clear: there is much agreement on what the problem is, and there is even agreement on how we address that problem. When you cut through the rhetoric, it is very clear that the President’s proposal includes 10 ideas my Republican colleagues raised.

I’m sorry to see the Republicans try to blur the issue when it comes to premiums, especially because the CBO made it quite clear that the bill would reduce premium costs.

I look forward to returning and to our discussion and, more importantly, acting on behalf of the American people to ensure we fix our broken health care system. I hope the second half of the discussion we can get down to the business of finding common ground.

Related Topics: john dingell jr., john dingell sr., Congress, Health Care

  • Latest on Swampland

    Pete Souza / The White House via Getty Images
    Closeup May 25, 2012

    Political Picures of the Week, May 18-25

    TIME’s photo editors bring you the best pictures of the past week from the Beltway and beyond.

    From our Partners

    Obama Administration Blocks Global Health Fund To Fight Disease In Developing NationsHuffPost Politics

    From left: AP; ABACAUSA
    2012 Election May 25, 2012

    The Phony War: Obama and Romney Are Debating Character, Not Policy

    More than five months from Election Day, the back-and-forth about Mitt Romney’s record at Bain already feels played out. Unfortunately, there’s good reason to expect the campaign continues in this vein indefinitely. Neither Barack Obama nor Mitt Romney are terribly interested in dwelling on policy platforms. Romney’s plan to slash spending and keep taxes low on the wealthy isn’t especially popular, at least not at any level of detail beyond a blithe promise to shrink the deficit. Meanwhile, Obama’s signature first-term achievements, like health care, the stimulus and Wall Street reform, are all unpopular or tricky to sell. (The Dodd-Frank bill is the most popular of these, but hyping it means offending wealthy donors.) So what we’re getting instead is a superficial duel about character–and, worse, one that’s based on the largely false premise that the better man can better “manage” the economy back to health.

  • pafro

    Republicans aren’t the only ones trying to “blur the issue” on what the CBO said about premium costs.
    Kate Pickert does it right here:
    http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/02/25/philosophical-differences-actually-do-exist/

  • shepherdwong

    When you cut through the rhetoric, it is very clear that the President’s proposal includes 10 ideas my Republican colleagues raised.

    .
    That’s got to be the main point of this Kabuki: the good Republican ideas are in the bill so it is, policy-wise, bi-partisan legislation. Here are all the Republican proposals we included in the legislation…
    .
    Totally undermines the “everyone hates it, it’s a liberal partisan bill that they’re cramming it down our throats” right-wing lie.

  • freeinpa

    Dingells eyes are failing or being dishonest since there is that tiny issue with paying taxes for certain plans. If you don’t include those taxes premiums go down. But so do services and what is paid for if you opt for the “cheaper premium” plans.

    But why tell the people the truth. And shouldn’t Dingell be horse whipping Toyota to benefit Government Motors?

  • stuartzechman

    The CBO made it quite clear that employer premiums might decrease by 0% to 3% in one year, the year 2016, but that’s it.
    .
    The CBO isn’t saying that the program will reduce premiums forever, or in significant amounts, they’re saying that there might be no decrease, but, if there is a decrease, it will be small and in one particular year measured.
    .
    To use “Reduce premium costs” as a description of what the legislation does, as if, after passage, the price of insurance will continue to descend lower until it is affordable for everyone, seems to be a just as a blurry bit of salesmanship.

  • jsfox

    You know when even the AP disagrees with the Republicans on this you have a problem.

    http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2010/02/fact_check_obama_has_edge_in_debate_over_premiums.php?ref=fpblg

  • freeinpa

    Seriously the AP? They are right as often as Olbermann

  • shepherdwong

    “To use “Reduce premium costs” as a description of what the legislation does, as if, after passage, the price of insurance will continue to descend lower until it is affordable for everyone, seems to be a just as a blurry bit of salesmanship.”
    .
    I guess it depends on what you presume. I presume that to “reduce premium costs” means in comparison to the status quo.

  • stuartzechman

    I presume that to “reduce premium costs” means in comparison to the status quo.
    .
    That’s what the language is meant for you to presume.
    .
    It’s not a forecast, it’s one year in the future chosen by the CBO merely because it’s the year that all parts of the program are in effect. It’s today’s circumstances mapped on that year, and that year alone.
    .
    It doesn’t mean that the CBO is wrong or unreliable, but it doesn’t mean that this is a prediction of a trend, either.

  • shepherdwong

    Either way, the phrase was used to counter the false claim by Alexander and other Republicans that it would increase premiums, not to make some deceitful claim about the positive effects legislation which, at this point, is anyone’s (educated) guess.

  • stuartzechman

    You’re right, it does counter false claims. Ezra Klein is doing a lot of that, these days.
    .
    It also amounts to a sales pitch that doesn’t increase consumers’ understanding of what the CBO score means, and therefore what health care reform might mean.
    .
    Either I’m (hopefully) wrong, and this thing keeps average group premiums at 2009 or less levels for the foreseeable future, and employees don’t have to keep getting a worse and worse deal every year on the policies to which they contribute more and more, or I’m right, and this legislation doesn’t address that problem beyond that year at all.
    .
    If I’m wrong, it means that supporters of this bill will look like heroes, if I’m right, they will look like villains.

  • shepherdwong

    …Either I’m (hopefully) wrong, and this thing keeps average group premiums at 2009 or less levels for the foreseeable future, and employees don’t have to keep getting a worse and worse deal every year on the policies to which they contribute more and more…
    .
    Let’s face it, no one can afford the cost inflation we’re seeing right now. So the worst thing would be for any enacted legislation to simply keep a lid on things. Regardless of the political fallout for Democrats or liberals, if the legislation fails to keep costs from rising, Congress will be right back where we are now, looking at the same realities, facing the same choices, with people having a much clear idea of the problem and without much more room to kick the can down the road again.

  • stuartzechman

    That’s an interesting way to look at it, especially coming from you (and I mean that respectfully).
    .
    You don’t think that 2016 will roll around, and the solution spectrum for continued premium hikes will be between Senator Jeb Bush’s insane tax cuts for insurers, and Representative Evan Bayh Jr.’s proposed slightly less insane tax cuts for insurers?

  • shepherdwong

    I think that the farther we go down the sh!tter, the more unavoidable the real solutions (probably universal Medicare) will become – though, as you suggest, the wheels may have come off the socio-political wagon at that point, though possibly much worse than you suggest. If you’ve ever had a near-death experience you know that it makes you very, very lucid.

blog comments powered by Disqus