home

Dems Do Not Know How To Bargain: Example XXX

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 02:23:21 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Matt Yglesiasdemonstrates again that Democrats do not know how to bargain. In this case, he points to the fact that insurance companies are running ads against the health bill. Yglesias states that:

The fact of the matter is that even though the new mandate/subsidy structure will give at least some insurers a bunch of new customers, the medium-run trajectory of reform is bad for private insurers.

Let's suppose it is. That has little to do with the health insurance industry's strategy here. They are bargaining STILL. Let's accept that the status quo is their preferred result. That does not mean that they will not try and shape the bill to be more to their liking. Indeed, that is what they have done and will continue to do. More . . .

Yglesias adds:

[I]t’s also worth saying that though we’ve mostly heard about opposition to the tax on “Cadillac” health plans from unions, this policy will be very bad for insurers. The non-taxability of compensation received in the form of health insurance constitutes a gigantic and totally undeserved subsidy for the insurance industry.

It is more worthy of note to understand that the proposal most feared and loathed by the insurance industry was a public insurance option. And that is out. Sure the insurance industry opposes the excise tax. And it hurts them. But it also hurts middle class workers.

Conversely, the higher the subsidies for purchasing private insurance, something we all support, will HELP insurance companies. (That's probably why it may happen.)

The public option was the main proposal that had no losers but the insurance industry. And yet, it is out of the bill.

Having pocketed that win, the insurance industry is out for more. That's what good bargainers do. Bad bargainers celebrate the fact that good bargainers are still bargaining. You can look it up - it has a picture of a Donkey.

Speaking for me only

< When Benefits Equal Income | The NFL Antitrust Case SCOTUS Argument Transcript >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Dems Do Not Know How To Bargain: Example XXX | 23 comments (23 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Well, I would first like to know where (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by Anne on Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 03:33:51 PM EST
    Matt Yglesias gets his "fact of the matter," and then I would like to know how many equal a "bunch."  Then, he could explain the basis for his claim that the tax will result in more compensation being paid in cold, hard cash - that's the Gruber position, and I think there's some evidence to suggest that the reasoning there is faulty.

    If, as has been suggested, the tax will be passed down the line, rather than absorbed by the insurance companies, and the result of that will be employers and individuals opting for less expensive plans that offer less coverage, I fail to see how this tax will be bad for the insurance companies.

    It certainly will be bad for individuals, who, regardless of whether they are in employer-sponsored plans or individual plans, will be faced with lower quality coverage and higher co-pays, deductibles and out-of-pocket expenses.

    We will not be reducing the cost of care as much as we will be greatly increasing the individual's share of that cost.  That, in turn, leads not to better care, or better outcomes, but to underuse of care.

    No matter how I look at this thing, I see that the insurance companies have so far managed to protect their income stream and have positioned themselves to receive higher subsidies because the geniuses in Washington would rather just make the insurance companies "whole" than to question the pricing structure and require justification for it.

    As long as the industry keeps hammering at this, the Democrats will keep conceding - a little here, and a little there - to the detriment of the poor saps who will be saddled with crappy insurance that won't improve their access to or affordability of actual health care.  

    Democrats are most definitely bad bargainers; perhaps their bargaining position would improve if they would stop relying on the health policy stylings of people like Yglesias, Klein and Gruber.  Just a thought.

    What stuns me is how much of this is coming from (none / 0) (#10)
    by Ellie on Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 03:51:03 PM EST
    ... "numbers" people, who seem oddly detached from the simple concept that people are GD strapped now from devastating economic factors.

    Graphs schmaphs, these are as unlikely to turn on a dime as ravening bottom-line profit-barons are to suddenly become benevolent.

    I like my guarantees explicit and my contracts front-loaded.

    Parent

    Anne, the insurance companies continue (none / 0) (#14)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 05:17:17 PM EST
    to be a problem, difficult to work with, demanding...and it is all your fault.  They are now running ads against the POS legislation we came up trying to silence their protests, and that's because of you.  You want all this coverage and you want it for an affordable price, you write horrible things on the internet that have been very unsupportive of the president having anything that could be spun as cool to burn in the SOTU bonfire.  I've really had it with you.  This is all your fault and if you were a better person, you would have had the good fortune of being born Canadian.

    Parent
    This bunch carries Obama's water (none / 0) (#21)
    by norris morris on Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 05:47:41 PM EST
    Yglesias,Klein,Gruber [paid over $700,000 sub rosa} are all Obamabots and will rationalize and justify Obama's position no matter what.

    For all we know like Gruber, they're paid shills.

    Parent

    Perhaps we've just misunderstood the (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Radix on Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 03:57:36 PM EST
    meaning of "Insurance Reform". If we look at whats being contemplated, it's hard to see how the current legislative proposal reforms insurance companies. However; looking at it from the perspective of reforming consumers, from not purchasing a particular product, it's wonderful reform.

    The insurance companies have (none / 0) (#1)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 02:35:29 PM EST
    engaged in War on all fronts and Matt has I don't know...what?  Napped a lot, had snacks

    AmericaBlog reporting that (none / 0) (#2)
    by magster on Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 02:43:01 PM EST
    Obama cancelled trip to Maryland to continue "marathon" negotiation with congressional Dems on health care.  

    Sounds like the House Dems don't like being forced to cave, and as FDL pointed out this morning, Wexler's retirement and weakening the Stupak amendment makes the House's margin of error as slight as the Senate's.

    Is it too late for reconciliation?

    He's cancelling a trip (5.00 / 0) (#3)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 02:51:57 PM EST
    in order to negotiate what?  Why is this beginning to feel and sound like this is all going to end up being a bad thing to have happened to me?  I'm starting to feel the bile rise, because the only time Obama ever stands his ground it is so he can roger me better.

    Parent
    I'm with you, MT (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Zorba on Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 03:07:12 PM EST
    Obama only finds his cojones when he wants to "stand up" to the Left/progressives/the middle-class working person.  If it's the Right, the corporations, the wealthy, Wall Street, the neo-cons, the Blue Dogs.....not so much.  In fact, not at all.  Which can only lead to the obvious conclusion:  he's one of "them," not one of us.  Talk is cheap.  He used that to con a lot of people.  Many of those people are waking up.  Good luck in 2012, Barack.

    Parent
    The biggest disappointment so far from the (none / 0) (#9)
    by Buckeye on Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 03:46:52 PM EST
    left has to be Bernie Sanders.  When the bill first hit the senate, both "independents" wanted something.  Lieberman got everything he asked for, Sanders got none of what he asked for.  Nelson also had demands and got everything he asked for.  Sanders got squat.

    Sanders signed the bill, got nothing in return, and he had as much pull as Nelson or Leiberman.

    Sanders voted for a bill that taxed the working class, cut benefits for the elderly and middle class families, restrict abortion more than is restricted now, has a taxing structure that makes is going to make it difficult (if not impossible) for private sector unions to survive, allows undocumented laborers to work their butts off in America for American companies without being able to get health insurance, mandates that Americans buy a product from the most hated and greediest industry in the country without reforming that product and will use taxpayer dollars, punitive fines, and the justice department to execute it, etc. etc. etc.

    And that is what America calls a socialist.  Sanders could not get elected in Denmark, he would be too radically right wing.

    Parent

    All too true (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Zorba on Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 03:53:48 PM EST
    What is called "the left of the left" here would barely be centrist, if not outright conservative, in much of Western Europe. I just hope the House Dems who are opposed to the Senate bill can hold their ground.  (And this is the very, very bare minimum.  I would actually prefer single payer, which we aren't going to get, but lacking that, at least a robust public option.  Sigh.  We're certainly not getting much, even if the House Dems do prevail over the Senate version.)

    Parent
    Health Clinics (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by waldenpond on Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 05:34:41 PM EST
    Sanders got buckets of dough for national health clinics which is a major focus for him.

    Parent
    Unless the rules are revamped at the clinic (none / 0) (#22)
    by cawaltz on Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 05:52:49 PM EST
    The free health clinic we have in Christiansburg will be useless. The only people who qualify are those without insurance(which would no longer be allowed). Even with junk insurance with a huge deductible you aren't eligible.

    Parent
    Sanders got some money for clinics (none / 0) (#23)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 11:19:06 PM EST
    Even with Sanders effort, the Senate bill still has $4 billion less for clinics than the House bill.

    Parent
    Reconcilliation? (none / 0) (#13)
    by norris morris on Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 05:12:21 PM EST
    From a parlimentary point of view I would think this is out. The Senate has been the killer in this with their naive and dispersed bargaining techniques that  allowed anyone to rollover them, which they did.

     Basically when you are dealing with corrupt Senators [and others] their ability to truly bargain is negated by their greed.

    Successful bargaining means that you have power, BUT you also know how to use it. And that you have the courage to fight for your ideas and ideals.

    When Obama himself proved to be a poor bargainer from the gate, everything else followed. He made secret backroom deals with BigPharma and insurance, and despite everything they got, Drug & Insurance are still running anti HC ads. BTW this was one of Obama's bargaining chips. That he would not be opposed by the drug and insurance monopolies bt any advertising.

    Like they can be trusted. The naivete, ham handed deceptive tactics, and rolling over have gotten the administration nowhere.

    As in Chess or Poker your opponents generally
    know when you can be bluffed. In politics we call it snookered.

    Obama has been a great disappointment in the handling of this and the lack of  transparency
    that  would have produced intelligent compromise is not called Stupak,Nelson, or Lieberman.

    Allowing Nelson to sabotage every State's Medicaid allotments for Nebraska's gain at taxpayer expense is absurd bargaining. And corrupt as hell.

     And no one can bargain well from fear.And the "we must put this through no mattter what" mindset smelling of political desperation was wafting through the House, and then the Senate.

     Would Nelson,Lieberman,Stupak,Snowe,Baucus have played their games  if the White House had sent
     clear messages and operated from STRENGTH?

    Sending Rham down from the WHouse to twist Reid's arm did not give anybody notions as coming from
    strength.

    Reconcilliation is a complex process which calls for parlimentary patience and skill. Above all it takes unity and strong leadership.

    So far the Senate butchering has been far worse than the House but they both have draconian and cynical anti abortion and anti free choice amendments that seriously limit women's constitutional rights and the right to equal protection.

    Reconcilliation could have helped if really effective bargaining positions were hammered out. Now Reconcilliation while next to impossible would not solve a thing with the garbage left in both Senate and House Healthcare bills.

    Parent

    I think reconciliation is likely our only hope (none / 0) (#17)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 05:21:39 PM EST
    On a different note, I must be seething right now because when I started reading your comment I read Reconciliation?  From a paramilitary point of view I would think this is out.

    Parent
    Also signs that Ben Nelson (none / 0) (#5)
    by andgarden on Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 03:16:06 PM EST
    is itching to back out. Which is. . .interesting.

    I wonder if he doesn't realize that the damage is done. He did a crappy job of protecting his own interests.

    Seems poor Ben Nelson made a bad political Choice (none / 0) (#7)
    by Ellie on Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 03:33:51 PM EST
    ... for himself (jumping to a Digby / D-day twofer) but let's hope that doesn't besmirch his ability and self-endowed right to choose for half the population.

    Parent
    Nelson Overstepped (none / 0) (#16)
    by norris morris on Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 05:19:17 PM EST
     and he became blind to the reality of what he crafted as a bargaining chip for his vote. He's an old whore who's embarrassed because even after trading away our rights for Nebraska's advantage and his political future, he probably now knows he has no future.

    BTW the constitutionality of this deal will be tested, no doubt. More fun for ole' Ben.

    Parent

    If this reform bill is bad for the health care (none / 0) (#8)
    by Buckeye on Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 03:39:08 PM EST
    insurance industry, why are their stocks doing so well?  Cigna as just one example is at a 52 week high and 7 analysts have a strong buy on the stock with no analyst recommending a moderate or strong sell.  Aetna is also trading at its 52 week high with 11 strong buys, 1 moderate buy, and only 3 sells.  Investment community thinks the insurance industry's future is looking okay.

    Because the day traders are (none / 0) (#18)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 05:23:19 PM EST
    convinced they will win big.

    Parent
    Simple Arithmetic (none / 0) (#20)
    by norris morris on Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 05:41:50 PM EST
    Because everyone knows that this HC bill will enrich private insurers and the drug monopolies will be delivered about 30 million unwilling mandated new insurees.

    I just got the AARP Bulletin which advises on its front page thar,"Drug Prices Up,Up.UP".

    This healthcare bill is bad for US and great for the insuraance and drug monopoly.

    Why wouldn't their stocks keep going up? Obama bargained away our ability to get a real break on drugs with his deal with BigPharma, and now the Insurers are following.

    The HC bill doesn't kick in until 2013 0r 2014, and by then the cost of drugs will go sky high and insurance is going through the roof.

    You call this a good thing? This is Wall Street all over again and American Idol has done this.

    We've been screwed. Corporate America and greed have won.  Unless of course a miracle happens.

    Either way- Insurance stocks will soar as will drug prices. Some HC reform, huh?

    Parent

    Hee hee hee (none / 0) (#15)
    by DancingOpossum on Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 05:19:15 PM EST
    You can look it up - it has a picture of a Donkey.

    This has to be the hardest I have laughed throughout any discussion of this debacle.

    Dems Do Not Know How To Bargain: Example XXX | 23 comments (23 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment